Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during May 2025
The five consistory court judgments circulated in May 2025 included: Reordering, extensions and other building works; Exhumation and Churchyards and burials. 
This end-of-year review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; Visitations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
Re St. Mary and St. Michael Trumpington [2025] ECC Ely 1 The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering including inter alia: a new lavatory in the current vestry; a new vestry at the west end of the south aisle; the removal of the pews from the north and south aisles to allow for “better circulation” within the church; a new kitchenette and hospitality area in the north chapel; the main entrance to the church to be through the north porch as it once was, with work being carried out within the porch to allow for disabled access [3].
The estimated cost of the work is £1,250,000 of which the church has approximately £100,000 put aside. The petitioners asked for 10 years to complete the works, stating that they were confident of their ability to raise the money required to carry out the work over time [4].
The amenity societies consulted had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty. [Re St. Mary & St. Michael Trumpington [2025] ECC Ely 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re St. Bartholomew Kirkwhelpington [2025] ECC New 1 The petitioners sought to replace the sandstone paving of the chancel floor with York stone slabs; repair the organ; fit castors to the organ and relocate it to the front of the nave; remove two pews from the front of the nave; and lay up the Women’s Royal British Legion Flag [1]. Wood Ch. commented:
“[2]. … the issue in contention is a narrow but important one, namely the necessity of replacing the entire chancel floor, the issue of the material to be used having been resolved by the finding of a local quarry which can supply sandstone likely to be of the same or very similar chemical composition to that in situ. There is no dispute about the repairs to the organ, moving it or removing the pews to accommodate it. Likewise the laying up of the flag is uncontroversial”.
The replacement of the baptistry floor of St Aidan’s church Bamburgh was cited as additional support for the proposal [Re St. Aidan Bamburgh [2018] ECC New 2]. In its advice on 11 December, in recommending the works for approval, the DAC added the proviso:
“[8]. “To avoid wholesale replacement of stones in the Chancel floor if possible and to replace only what is necessary. To use ‘aesthetic common sense’ to make the Chancel look pleasing whilst achieving the required safe environment”.
Having considered the position of SPAB which “appeared to be echoed by the DAC in spirit if not to the lengths to which SPAB would advocate”, and considered six close-up photographs of obviously damaged stone supplied with the petition, Wood Ch. concluded that a site visit should be conducted [10]. This visit informed the Discussion, [12] to [18], which centred on the condition of the floor, on which the Chancellor noted [emphasis added]:
“[13]. …the floor is likely late C18th and no older. It is, in the main, very much a hotchpotch of stones. Whilst there are parts that are more regular, such as …the passage between the two parallel grills which form the first part of the walkway to the altar, and that in front of the altar (albeit that travels at 90 degrees to the former) there are other less regular areas…
[14]. … Whilst the stones in the initial photographs are plainly in a very poor state of repair and in need of attention or replacement, I was surprised to find that they were not in the court’s view representative of the floor as a whole. So, most strikingly, on initial approach, the passage between the parallel grills, whilst in need of securing and pointng/grouting, is level and in good order…
[15]. The floor looks in less than good condition in the area around, and I assume underneath, the south stall although the extent to which it presents a hazard is perhaps questionable.
[…]
[18]. Overall, I found the site visit particularly helpful. Having seen (the) close-up pictures of badly damaged stones, I was surprised to find those parts of the chancel floor that will be walked on by clergy and parishioners alike to be in surprisingly good condition and, in many cases where, for example, the grouting has failed and there is movement, no obvious reason why they could not be secured. The sandstone is warm in colour and much of it remains very attractive in marked contrast to the picture I found, for example, at Bamburgh.
The Chancellor concluded that the existing floor did not need complete replacement and directed that a faculty would be granted for the replacement of damaged slabs with local stone of a similar type to that existing. [Re St. Bartholomew Kirkwhelpington [2025] ECC New 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Mary Stoke by Nayland [2025] ECC SEI 3 The incumbent and churchwarden sought permission to carry out masonry repairs to the nave south clerestory [1]. The DAC Secretary noted:
“…What started out as localised repairs at high level in the chancel quickly expanded dramatically in scope when the condition of the fabric turned out to be far worse than had been anticipated. This led to the church being placed on Historic England’s Heritage at Risk Register the following year and it was awarded a fabric repair grant by that same organisation.
The first phase of works was completed in June 2024 and, we note, was highly commended last year for the National Churches Trust’s King of Prussia award for conservation and repair work. It was understood by the time the first phase was drawing to a close that a second phase would be necessary to tackle high-level fabric in the nave, and an application was commenced in December 2024.
[…]
The members of the architects’ committee had raised a number of questions, which were put to the scheme architect. He provided answers in writing that were then discussed at some length by the full committee and subsequently referred back to the architect members who conducted the original review. These have not settled all their concerns”.
He continued:
“We commend the PCC and its architect for their hard work and success to date in tackling a very difficult situation that has been imposed upon them. The DAC is keen for the repairs to be completed and is aware that the grant funding already secured is time-limited. But it also has a duty of care to the parish and its concerns over cost inflation have still not been settled. It is for this reason that a Notification of Advice has been issued on the basis of ‘no objection’ and this letter had been appended to explain the process and thinking that led the DAC to take this position”.
Gau Ch. stated that he would not normally have prepared a judgment but was driven to do so having read the correspondence between the inspecting architect, and members of the DAC including the Archdeacon of Sudbury:
“[3]. These are submissions made to a consistory court. The tone and language is not one I would expect from any petitioner or their witness, particularly a professional one to any court, and particularly to a Church Court. All of the queries could and should have been answered with professional courtesy. That they were not is deplorable.
[4]. I grant the petition as prayed without requiring a consistory court only because there is some urgency as this Church is ‘at risk’. Had it not been I would have caused a Court to hear this petition so that the [scheme architect] could explain why he thought his correspondence, copied to this court, was appropriate.”
[Re St. Mary Stoke by Nayland [2025] ECC SEI 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. John the Baptist Belleau [2025] ECC Lin 1 The petitioner’s son had died as a result of a house fire in 1992. Not wishing for cremation for her son at the time, the petitioner arranged for his body to be buried in the churchyard at St John the Baptist, Belleau [1]. The petitioner’s father had tended the grave until he was no longer able to do so, since when it had become difficult to visit, due to problems in the churchyard, including sunken graves, molehills and red ants [2].
The petitioner now wished to have her son’s body exhumed, cremated and the ashes reinterred after cremation in a family plot at Louth cemetery where her mother is buried, and where she hoped in due time to have her own ashes laid to rest. It was assumed by Bishop Ch. that the cemetery was maintained by a local authority and consent granted to the plot being opened to receive the cremated remains [1]. He noted that the Rural Dean supported the application for pastoral reasons, and the undertakers had confirmed that an exhumation was still technically attainable [4]. Bishop Ch. stated that in answer to the question whether close family members of the deceased had given their approval, the petitioner replied “N/A”; confirmation about the position is therefore required if this Faculty is to proceed [5].
Applying Re Blagdon Cemetery [6] to [9], the Chancellor stated that it was clear that the only basis for taking the exceptional step of exhumation of the Petitioner’s son would be “if to do so would promote a sense of family unity by interring his ashes in the family grave which currently contains the remains of the grandmother of the deceased [10]; the circumstances of his tragic death alone would not alone be enough to displace the presumption of permanence”; [h]owever, the desire for a family grave with all family members united in one place expresses family unity and can justify taking the exceptional course of permitting an exhumation [12]. The issue of a faculty was conditional on: the administrators of Louth cemetery confirmation that the ashes may be interred in the family grave; and confirmation that there are no other close relatives [15].
[Re St. John the Baptist Belleau [2025] ECC Lin 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Designation of closed churchyard
Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 2 The petitioners’ baby boy had died less than an hour after being born and his remains had been buried in the churchyard. The Petitioners wished to introduce a memorial of black granite (which complied with the diocesan churchyard rules) and kerbs, with a number of sentiments inscribed on the memorial. The Chancellor approved the words and she also approved the kerbs, as kerbs were quite prevalent in the churchyard. The Chancellor also permitted two etched images, one of a baby giraffe toy and the other of a knitted heart presented to the petitioners by the hospital. The petitioners wished the etchings and wording on the memorial to be coloured blue. Without wishing to set a precedent, the Chancellor decided, exceptionally, to allow the colour blue, given that in this case the memorial was for a baby boy. [Re St. Mary Catcliffe [2025] ECC She 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
- Burial Act 1853 (Notice): An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in:— Christ Church Cemetery, Kintbury, Berkshire; Kenwyn Parish Church Churchyard, Truro, Cornwall; St Mary’s Church Churchyard, Chigwell, Essex; St Mary’s Churchyard, Ditchingham, Norfolk; St Nicholas Churchyard, Frankton, Rugby, Warwickshire.
- Burial Act 1853 (Final) Order: An Order prohibiting further burials in:- St Margaret’s Church Old Churchyard, Fleggburgh, Norfolk; St Peters Churchyard, Clayworth, Retford, Nottinghamshire.
CDM Decisions and Safeguarding
Written determinations of disciplinary tribunals hearing complaints brought under the CDM, together with any decisions on penalty are published by the Church of England; included are judgments from the Arches Court of Canterbury and the Chancery Court of York where determinations have been appealed. The majority of complaints that are made under the CDM are resolved by the bishop, archbishop, or President of Tribunals, without having to convene a tribunal.
CDM Decisions
The Revd Jonathan Aldwinckle (April 2025): Decision.
Penalties by consent
Name: The Revd RICHARD CHRISTOPHER BENTLEY JONES
Diocese: Hereford
Date imposed: 15th May 2025
Relevant CDM section: 30(1)(a)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Prohibition for life
Safeguarding
Safeguarding Review – St Ebbe’s, Oxford, On 28 May 2025, the PCC of St Ebbe’s Church announced that it had commissioned Christian Safeguarding Services (CSS) to review past and present safeguarding culture and practice. The Review was initiated following the reported allegations of non-recent sexual abuse and coercive and controlling behaviour towards women and girls by David Fletcher
Bangor Cathedral Visitation, (3 May 2025)
- Supplementary statement on Bangor Cathedral
- Press Release
- Thirtyone:Eight Safeguarding Review, Summary Report
- Bangor Cathedral Visitation Report
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 programme for 2025 is here and the next meeting will be on [date]
Bangor Cathedral Visitation, (3 May 2025)
- Press Release
- Thirtyone:Eight Safeguarding Review, Summary Report
- Bangor Cathedral Visitation Report
Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts include:
Miscellaneous
- Safeguarding Review – St Ebbe’s, Oxford, (29 May 2025).
- Church of England response to Makin Review recommendations, (22 May 2025).
- Membership of Canterbury CNC announced, (13 May 2025).
- Vacancy in See Committee – Canterbury, (13 May 2025).
- Bangor Cathedral Visitation Report, (4 May 2025).
[Top]
Updated: 1 June 2025 at 09:35
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.