This ecclesiastical court judgments circulated in September 2024 include: Reordering, extensions and other building works; Exhumation; and Churchyards and burials. This month’s review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Removal and replacement of pews
Re Christ Church Gosport [2024] ECC Por 1 The Lead Administrator of Christ Church, Gosport, acting on behalf of the Priest in Charge and Churchwardens, sought permission for the removal of 7 pews and a monk’s/refectory table from Christ Church to the church of St John, Forton Road, in same parish [1]. Christ Church is in receipt of Strategic Development Funding from the Church Commissioners and two new worshipping communities have been planted at Christ Church to run alongside existing services [2].
However, pews had been moved and two had been destroyed to make bar furniture, both without faculty. There was one letter of objection from a parishioner. Summers Ch. directed that he would treat the present petition as if it included an application for a confirmatory faculty in respected of the destruction of the two pews [8]. He registered that he regretted how the proposal to remove the pews had been handled. It was acknowledged by the incumbent of the parish that the plan to take the pews to St John’s should have been discussed in advance with members of the congregation before it occurred without warning. Indeed, that removal was itself unlawful in the absence of a faculty:
“it is clear from the Statement of Need produced ahead of the major reordering works several years ago, and from the judgment of the then Chancellor, that some pews were to be retained and it should have been obvious that the 7 pews and the associated table were, as the retained items, subject to faculty jurisdiction [16].
Noting that ignorance of the law was no defence [19], the Chancellor granted a confirmatory faculty for the removal and repurposing of the 2 pews which he understood were now bar furniture at St John’s. In the circumstances, to reflect the unlawful destruction of the pews and the extra work that considering them and the relevant background to the case has occasioned in disposing of this petition, he made a provisional order under Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, r. 19.1(2) and (3) that the Petitioner shall pay half of the costs of the preparation of this judgment [21].
For the avoidance of doubt, as the Petitioner brought this matter before the court on behalf of the Priest in Charge and Churchwardens of Christ Church, the Chancellor expected the costs order to be met by the church and not the Petitioner personally [23]. [Re Christ Church Gosport [2024] ECC Por 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4 The Petitioners wished to move one of the floodlights installed with faculty permission in 2011 from the South East to the North West corner of the churchyard and to increase the floodlighting from 25 hours a year to approximately 150 hours a year. There were several written objections from parishioners, citing effects on wildlife, the Church of England’s net zero policy, potential for crime, light pollution and the fact that the lighting would not be visible to most people. The Chancellor considered that the petitioners had given no substantive reason for altering the terms of the original faculty and he therefore refused to grant a faculty. [Re All Saints Chelsworth [2024] ECC SEI 4] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Peter and St. Thomas Stambourne [2023] ECC Chd 4 The petition was sought by the mother of the deceased. Her son died in 2022 and was buried in the churchyard at Stambourne, where at the time of his death he was living with his partner and their three children [4]. The petitioner sought to have her son’s remains exhumed and reinterred in consecrated ground in Northwood Cemetery, Middlesex, near where she and other members of the family lived. The petition was supported by a number of other family members, including the deceased’s two older daughters [7]. However, Hopkins Ch. noted:
“[10]. It is also necessary to record that [the petitioner’s daughter], and other members of the family, make a number of serious personal accusations against [the petitioner’s partner] which it is not necessary to detail in this judgment”.
In this respect, a number of the assertions by the petitioner and her family in relation to the circumstances of the interment were prefaced “it is said” (in [8] and [9]). The petitioner’s daughter expressed strong objections to the petition following the Public Notice, but these were subsequently withdrawn. The Chancellor noted:
“[12]. However, it is pertinent to note that [the petitioner’s daughter] suggested that it had been [the wish of the deceased] to be buried in Stambourne. It is also right to record that she denied the personal allegations made against her in the materials submitted with the Petition, and cast some doubt on the conduct of the Petitioner and her family, again in respects which
it is not necessary to detail here”.
[13]. In the light of the communications which she had had with [the petitioner’s daughter], the Incumbent wrote to the Registry indicating that her support for the Petition was withdrawn: she said, “the PCC and myself would prefer that there NOT be an exhumation”.
In further communication with the father of the deceased, he indicated that he never agreed to the burial in Stambourne and was in agreement that his son should be buried in “our Hometown” [17]. In the light this communication, the Registry sought the further views of the Incumbent in April 2023, but unfortunately, there was no reply, and in June 2023 she retired from her post. A response was, however, received in July 2023, in which she expressed no further view of her own but indicated that the PCC were aware of the matter and, so she suggested, had passed a resolution in relation to the Petition.
Whilst the Chancellor was far from certain that the PCC would have been justified in so doing, she considered it appropriate to ascertain the position; the Registry therefore made inquiries of the PCC from which it transpired that there was no resolution and no minute; “and there matters rest” [18].
Applying the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery, the Chancellor determined that there were insufficient exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation and she therefore refused to grant a faculty. Referring to Re St. Barnabas Ranmore [2023] ECC Gui 6, she accepted that the petitioner’s request for exhumation arose from a genuine sense that the trauma suffered by her will be heightened by continuing difficulties in visiting her son’s grave [31]. [Re St. Peter & St. Thomas Stambourne [2023] ECC Chd 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary the Virgin Beech Hill [2024] ECC Oxf 6 The cremated remains of two parishioners had been interred in a double depth grave plot in the churchyard in February 2024 [2]. In July 2024, the cremated remains of another parishioner were interred. It was later discovered that the second interment was so close to the first that there was insufficient space between them to fit a standard-size ledger stone over the top of each buried casket [3]. This situation caused distress to both families.
The Team Vicar applied for a faculty for the exhumation of the second casket and for it to be reinterred in another place in the churchyard. This application has the support of the Team Rector and Incumbent of the Loddon Reach Benefice (in the Archdeaconry of Berkshire); the court also received written consents to the disinterment and reinterment of the late Mrs D’Arcy’s remains on behalf of the D’Arcy and the Lowthian families [7].
Referring to Re Blagdon Cemetery at paragraph 36 (iii), Hodge Ch. stated that would appear to have been a mistake as to the proximity of one of the graves to the adjoining grave containing the recently cremated remains and, consequently, of the practicality of installing two separate ledger stones to commemorate all three deceased in their two separate burial plots [8].
He noted the statement of Singleton Ch. in Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2024] ECC She 6, at paragraph 6 (albeit in the different context):
“Churchyards and the memorials installed in them should be a place where all those bereaved can come to visit and remember those whom they have lost at the place where their remains have been interred. They should also be an oasis of peace, suitable for time spent in quiet reflection and contemplation, for all visitors, whether bereaved or not.”
On the evidence, the proximity of these two separate burials is a source of distress to the recently bereaved relatives, Hodge Ch. was satisfied that pastoral considerations, identified by those responsible for the administration and care of a churchyard (as here), are capable of constituting special factors which may justify making an exception to the norm of permanence [9]. [Re St. Mary the Virgin Beech Hill [2024] ECC Oxf 6] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Margaret Ormesby [2024] ECC Nor 5 This is an anonymized judgment. In 2014, Baby A was buried in the grave of his paternal grandfather in the churchyard of St. Margaret Ormesby. His parents, his mother B and father C, had subsequently separated after a difficult relationship. Medical evidence was produced to explain that B, when visiting the grave, had been suffering psychological harm and distress including nightmares and flashbacks to extremely distressing incidents.
A further reason for the application, made jointly by B and C, was that C’s mother had recently died, and C and his brother wished to bury their mother’s remains in the grave containing the remains of their father and Baby A. B wished A’s remains to be cremated or alternatively reburied in the churchyard of St. Michael Ormesby.
Humphreys Ch. granted a faculty, subject to reburial in the churchyard of St. Michael Ormesby. [Re St. Margaret Ormesby [2024] ECC Nor 5] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Paul Fazeley [2024] ECC Lic 4 The petitioner applied for a faculty to reserve a grave in the churchyard but no longer lived there; the proposed reservation has the unanimous support of the PCC [1, 2]. As at the end of July 2024, there were approximately 100 grave spaces available for an average of 5.8 burials per year. On the face of it, therefore, full capacity would be reached in a little over 17 years [3]. Although the Court was provided with the “Peel Parishes Churchyard Policy”, this provided no assistance to Buckingham Dep. Ch..
Citing with approval “the erudite judgment of Chancellor Hodge QC (Re St. Mary Thame [2022] ECC Oxf 2), the Deputy Chancellor commented:
“[5]. Faculties for reservations in respect of persons who do not reside within the Parish are not granted readily, particularly where the churchyard in question is approaching full capacity. It seems to me that this is a borderline case, however, in the end, I am just persuaded (bearing in mind the reasons prayed in aid (above) and the support of the PCC) that it is appropriate to grant a faculty. However, I am not prepared to grant a faculty for a period greater than 15 years…I grant permission for the petitioner to apply, on paper, within 6 months before its expiry for an extension of that period; such application must be supported by evidence”. [Re St. Paul Fazeley [2024] ECC Lic 4] [Top of section] [Top of page].
Re St. Paul Fazeley [2024] ECC Lic 5 The petitioners, a couple aged 77 and 76 and resident in the parish, sought to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for 50 years [1]. As residents within the parish, their applications would automatically be supported under the parish policy, supra. In view of the contents of the letter from one of the petitioners, and the support of the PCC, the Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty [5], stating:
“[7]. In my judgment the facts of this case are such that it would be appropriate to grant a reservation for the period sought of 50 years…it does not seem to me right that I should in effect require the petitioners to apply for an extension (if one is needed) when they are well into their 90s (i.e. at the expiry of 17 years or so, had I granted a faculty so limited) with the concomitant uncertainty and distress that may cause”.
[Re St. Paul Fazeley [2024] ECC Lic 5] [Top of section] [Top of page].
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
CDM Decisions
- The Revd Geoffrey Baulcomb: Preliminary Rulings, (24 June 2024); Decision. (28 August 2024).
The dates of the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England may be found by scrolling down to the bottom of the page Cathedrals Fabric Commission. The last reported meeting was on Thursday 14 December 2023.
Subsequently there have been five meetings, as yet unreported, and the next meeting will be on Thursday 21 October 2024.
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Floodlit churches – a recent judgment, (6 September 2024)
General/Miscellaneous
- First “Minster” for Church in Wales, (21 September 2024).
[Top]
Updated:1 October 2024 at 07:10.
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.