The petitioner wished to have her late husband's cremated remains exhumed and reinterred in Scotland, on a property that the deceased had acquired in 1962. Four relatives and a friend of the deceased objected. They contended that the petitioner did not like them putting floral tributes and cards on the grave and had been observed removing flowers and cards, and that the petitioner's motive for moving the remains to Scotland was to put them where the objectors would find it difficult to put tributes on the deceased's grave. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for exhumation and reinterment and urged restraint on both sides, advising the objectors not to put cards on the grave and expressing the hope that the petitioner would not to remove flowers placed by the objectors.

The petitioner wished to reserve for himself and his wife a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of his mother, who had died a few months previously. There was room for only five years’ worth of new graves, at the current rate of one a year, though the Parochial Church Council (the PCC) had resolved to re-use burial plots that had not had any burials in them for at least 150 years, so as to create at least another 50 grave spaces. The petitioner lived in the village and had strong connections with the church, and the PCC strongly supported the petition. The Chancellor determined that, in view of the PCC’s plans to reuse part of the churchyard for burials to meet the future needs of the parish, it was appropriate for him to grant a faculty.

The four petitioners (one of whom wished to be cremated) petitioned to reserve exclusive rights of burial for 30 years in a triple-depth grave next to their parents' grave. The churchyard only had space for burials for 20 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited the reservation to 20 years.

The petitioners wished to reserve a double-depth grave in the churchyard. In 2016 the Parochial Church Council had decided on a policy of not supporting further reservations of grave spaces, owing to the relatively small number of available spaces left. Though granting a faculty on the particular facts of the present case, the Chancellor took the view that the period of a reservation should not  extend beyond the time when there would be about five years' worth of space left available. In the present case the Deputy Chancellor decided that the appropriate time limit to be placed on the reservation should be six years. The Deputy Chancellor commented that there had been a number of informal reservations allowed by a previous incumbent and that these informal reservations had no legal effect, so that the graves informally reserved were available for burials of anyone having a right of burial.

A faculty had been granted for some reordering work at the church. Subsequently, the team vicar had received a letter of objection within the period for objections, but it was not sent to the registry before the expiry of time for objections and issue of the faculty. To ensure justice to all concerned, the Chancellor therefore set aside his decision pending consideration of the objection. Having considered the letter of objection, the Chancellor determined that the likely harm to the church was minimal and that any such harm would be outweighed by the benefit to the community. He therefore directed the issue of a faculty.

Faculty granted for the construction of an extension to the north side of the church. This judgment follows on from the judgment in Re St. Mary Kenardington [2013] Morag Ellis Comm. Gen. (Canterbury).

The Faculty Petition sought authority to construct a toilet block in the churchyard and an extension to the north side of the church. When the Commissary General visited the site, building work had already begun without Faculty. Faculty granted for the construction of the toilet block. Work on the extension to be stopped until further order. An archaeological report to be filed.

The Chancellor considered three petitions relating to memorials. The first petition sought retrospective approval of a memorial (already erected) in the shape of an open book. The second petition, by the Archdeacon, sought the removal of the memorial. The third petition was for a further memorial in the shape of an open book. The Chancellor decided to authorise the first memorial and the erection of the second and to refuse the Archdeacon's petition.

The petition related to various items of reordering. The contentious item was the proposal to replace most of the pews of the Grade II* Victorian church with chairs, in order to provide more comfortable and more flexible seating for church and community use. Historic England objected to the removal of the pews. Although the Chancellor found that removal of the pews would cause ‘moderate’ harm to the building, he granted a faculty, being satisfied that a substantial benefit would be gained from having a flexible worship space and the opportunity for community use of the church.

Several items of repair and reordering were proposed. Letters were received from two people objecting to: replacement of the chancel pews with chairs; removal of two pews from each side of the west end of the church, in order to provide more circulation space; and the introduction of notice boards and leaflet stands at the west end of the church. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.