Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during September
The eighteen consistory court judgments circulated in September included:
- Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Audio Visual Equipment
- Exhumation
- Churchyards and burials
- Bells
- Other
This round-up also includes links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.
Reordering, extensions and other building works
- Substantial reordering
- Reordering and alternative uses
- Other building works, including re-roofing
- Removal and replacement of pews
- Net zero issues
[top]
Re St. Michael Stanwix [2025] ECC Car 3 The petitioners sought a faculty for extensive reordering at the Grade II listed church, including removal of choir stalls and pews, glazing of the west doors, handrails, relocation of the sound desk, levelling of the chancel with ramped access, carpeting, and a movable pulpit. The DAC supported the scheme; the Victorian Society maintained objections.
Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor granted faculties for the glazed doors, handrails, sound desk, removal of the platform and communion rail, levelling of the chancel, and ramped access. He also permitted removal of five rear pews, subject to prior approval of replacement flooring. He refused faculties for removal of the choir stalls and relocation of the pulpit, finding inadequate evidence of their significance or justification for change. He held that removal of existing carpets would be unlikely to harm significance but found the petitioners had not given due regard to the CBC’s Historic Floors Guidance when proposing new and extended carpeting. He allowed resubmission of revised flooring proposals within six months, failing which that part of the petition would stand dismissed. [See ELA] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Anne Limehouse [2025] ECC Lon 3 Major re-ordering proposal; objection by parishioner; Grade 1 listed church of exceptional significance, by Hawksmoor; DAC neither opposed to nor recommending approval; enhanced Duffield principles engaged (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158); proposals included removal of Victorian box pews; works at gallery level; creation of new doorway and lift access to crypt and upper levels; new staircase, and numerous other detailed improvements. Assessment of potential harm to significance of building, consideration of options and proposed mitigations, and the statement of need and public benefit; Faculty granted subject to conditions; details to be submitted to and approved by DAC in consultation with Historic England. [Re St. Anne Limehouse [2025] ECC Lon 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Holy Trinity Hastings [2025] ECC Chichester 2 A faculty was sought for substantial works to a grade II* listed church, comprising repairs to external failing stonework and internal reordering following an earlier faculty in 2019. The proposals would remove the church from the heritage at risk register. There was no party opponent, but several statutory consultees voiced reservations and concerns, particularly in relation to choir pews in the chancel, which some considered should be retained. The chancellor visited the church for what was styled an informal hearing. Applying the Duffield framework, and the presumption against alterations to listed churches, the chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had demonstrated a justification which outweighed the likely harm. He granted a faculty subject to detailed approval of certain reserved matters. [Holy Trinity Hastings [2025] ECC Chichester 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Other building works, including re-roofing
Re All Saints Darlaston [2025] ECC Lic 1 Verduyn Ch. granted a confirmatory faculty for the use of CT1, a proprietary sealant used for roof joints; he departed from the advice of the DAC which did not recommend approval as the copper is subject to thermal movement, which would crack the sealant – “[i]t may be satisfactory for an emergency week or so, but cannot be relied upon after this” [2]. Had this been a prospective petition, rather than a confirmatory one, the DAC’s advice could have been followed and an alternative sealant approved, but as a confirmatory petition its refusal would create practical issues [4].
However, the Chancellor noted that under the Interim Faculty, the roofer had quoted for the works on the basis of a “15 year guarantee”, and “[i]n the event of any water ingress or leaks to the copper roof [the roofer] would come out to repair roof and any damage caused”[8]. He concluded:
“[9]. On balance…I do not consider I need resolve the dispute of the suitability of CT1. I will grant the confirmatory Faculty and require that the Petitioner ensures that the Parish retains a copy of the quotation with its guarantee, and other documents, and regular inspects for any sign that the sealant is failing. By these means the parish will be spared the expense of re-doing the works and the risk of CT1 failure will burden the roofer and not the church”.
[Re All Saints Darlaston [2025] ECC Lic 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Memorial Plaque
Re St. John the Baptist Fifield [2025] ECC Oxf 7 The petitioner wished to install a plaque on the north wall of the nave of this Grade II* listed medieval village church commemorating the contribution to the church and parish of his late wife. Having considered the various factors to which the court should have regard when considering the issue of exceptionality, the Chancellor refused the faculty. Whilst recognising that the deceased’s contributions had been considerable, and significant, he found that they had not been sufficiently special, or outstanding, to go substantially above and beyond the faithful discipleship which the Church, aspires to, and hopes for, from all of its members. [Re St. John the Baptist Fifield [2025] ECC Oxf 7] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Kirkby Stephen Church [2025] ECC Car 2 Replacement of gas heating system with Hershel Halo Chandeliers, incorporating electric infra-red heating and up/down lighting; church, sometimes known as St Stephen’s, listed grade II*; significance of nave arch and 13th century nave arcade noted; existing gas heated warm air system now inefficient and unreliable; written objections considered including cost, concerns over effectiveness of proposed system; potential harm to structure of church; impact on health and visual impact; no objections from statutory consultees; comments from Church Buildings Council considered; cost a matter for the PCC, subject to observation that a faculty should not issue if the PCC has no reasonable prospect of raising the necessary costs; inability to run the proposed system at full output without improved mains supply noted; system designed to avoid ‘cold spots’ by overlapping heated areas; effect on structure of the church considered and addressed by a requirement to monitor impact over the next 5 years; no evidence adduced of harm to health; visual impact on appearance of nave considered in the light of the Duffield tests (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158); new heating system would not change the appearance of the nave so as to cause harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest; net zero goals considered and reflected in proposal; faculty granted subject to conditions. [Re Kirkby Stephen Church [2025] ECC Car 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1 The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty for the retention of two ‘pavers’ which he had caused to be placed, without permission, on the graves of two family members. The parish objected to their retention on the grounds, inter alia, that they were out of place with their surroundings. The petitioners claimed ‘grandfather rights’ on the basis that the pavers were placed on the grave some while ago. The chancellor considered the objections compelling and concluded that the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proof for the retention of the pavers. The petition was dismissed. [Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Michael and St. Mary Magdalene Easthampstead [2025] ECC Oxf 8 The Rector and churchwardens of this Grade II listed, New Town church (mostly rebuilt in 1866-7 by J. W. Hugall in the Early English style) applied for a faculty for the installation of wall-mounted television screens on either side of the chancel arch. The local planning authority, as statutory consultee, supported the proposal. The DAC did not recommend the proposal for approval by the court because (1) the proposals were felt to cause harm to the appearance of the listed church building, which was not outweighed by the purported benefits of the scheme; and (2) the applicants had not undertaken a professional options appraisal to properly investigate alternative options for audio-visual provision which might reduce the harm to the appearance of the building. Historic Buildings and Places (with the support of the Victorian Society) supported the DAC in pressing for a comprehensive exploration of all kinder options than the proposed solid television screens, and wished to press for retractable, rather than solid, screens. No-one elected to become a party opponent,1189 so the faculty application was formally unopposed. The Chancellor held that any harm to the significance of the church was outweighed by the benefits of TV screens, which were more suitable in the context of this particular church than a retractable projector screen. He granted a faculty for a trial period of five years in the first instance. [Re St. Michael and St. Mary Magdalene Easthampstead [2025] ECC Oxf 8] [Top]
Re St. Nicholas Ash [2025] ECC Can 1 A widow and her two daughters 
applied for permission to exhume the body of the widow’s late husband from the grave which had been reserved for him and his wife, and to reinter it in another grave in the same churchyard [1]. The petitioners explained that at about the same time as the burial of the widow’s husband, another person, referred to as “X”, had been buried in an immediately adjoining grave; it was alleged that this person had financially abused and exploited one of the daughters of the widow, which caused great distress to the family whenever they visited the grave of the widow’s husband [4].
The incumbent was not supportive of the petition and had not opted to become a party opponent; however, Hopkins Ch. stated that there was no need for her to do so, given the exceptionality threshold which he discussed in the judgment, infra. Also, the incumbent indicated that had the clergy known about the family’s feelings towards X at the time of the burial, this immediate adjacency would have been avoided. She also pointed out that only a small proportion of the churchyard was available for burials; the graves of the widow’s husband and X were in the last row of the remaining nine burial plots. Accordingly, even if exhumed and reinterred in this churchyard, he would still be buried near to (though not immediately alongside) X [6].
The Chancellor considered a number of recent decisions of the Consistory Courts and was persuaded – though by a slim margin – that the exceptionality threshold was met. “While [the distress caused to the family] may not amount to a serious psychiatric or psychological problem in the medical sense, [he] nonetheless gave weight to the impact of the status quo on the wellbeing of [the] family” [11].
Conditional on the granting of the faculty was before any steps were taken to implement the faculty, all of the “certain extraneous items – including certain plants and a wooden surround – [which] been placed on [the] grave, in breach of the applicable Churchyard Regulations” were to be removed, with the incumbent confirming that she is content that the applicable Churchyard Regulations were then being complied with [15]. Furthermore, the Court very firmly urged the family to ensure that, as and when the decease is reinterred in this churchyard, no extraneous items are placed on or near his grave, and that the Churchyard Regulations are complied with [16]. [Re St. Nicholas Ash [2025] ECC Can 1] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re Ewhurst Cemetery [2025] ECC Gui 2 The petitioner’s parents had always intended to be buried in the same grave. Her father had died and was buried in Ewhurst Cemetery in 1994. Her mother died in November 2024 and on the day of the funeral it was found that it was impossible for her father’s grave to be dug for the interment of her mother as the ground was waterlogged. It was therefore necessary for the petitioner’s mother to be buried in another grave in the cemetery. The petitioner later applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of her father’s remains and for reinterment in the grave of her mother. The Chancellor determined that there were sufficient unusual and exceptional circumstances to justify the exhumation and reinterment and she therefore granted a faculty. [Re Ewhurst Cemetery [2025] ECC Gui 2] ] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re Kirby Enid Butcher [2025] ECC Car 5 A petition was brought to permit the exhumation of the remains of baby Kirby Enid Butcher, stillborn in 2004 and buried in Ireleth Cemetery. During a later burial in the same grave in 2025 her remains were unintentionally disturbed and partly reinterred in manner distressing to her family. The Chancellor reaffirmed the presumption of permanence of Christian burial but held that these exceptional circumstances plainly justified a faculty. Exhumation would restore dignity by ensuring Kirby’s remains were respectfully reunited and laid properly to rest in the family grave. The Council, whose workers were responsible for disturbing Kirby’s remains, were directed to pay the costs of the petition and of the exhumation.” [Re Kirby Enid Butcher [2025] ECC Car 5] ] [Top of section] [Top of post].
Re St. Chad Bagnall [2025] ECC Lic 2 Creation of dedicated area for interment of cremated remains; Grade II listed church in conservation area; churchyard closed to new burials; Faculty granted subject to conditions: (i) memorial plaques only permitted (no standing headstones); (ii) maximum size of 450mm square; (iii) individual plots to be laid out in rows, each plot no more than 600mm square; (iv) interments to be directly into the ground, with perishable container able to be permitted by incumbent if pastoral circumstances justify this; and (v) no interments to be permitted outside the area authorised by this faculty, other than cremated remains authorised to be interred in existing graves of family members. Memorials not complying with conditions liable to be removed at the Order of the Court. [Re St. Chad Bagnall [2025] ECC Lic 2] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re Christ Church Lower Broadheath [2025] ECC Wor 3 Unauthorized replacement of tarmac path by brick paving, installation of two black powder-coated metal handrails to the chancel steps, and pollarding/felling of lime trees; Church listed Grade II, built 1903-4; applications for confirmatory faculties for works undertaken; works undertaken without a faculty having been granted are unlawful; no objections, but hearing in person ordered in view of unlawful nature of works; Duffield principles (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158) considered; confirmatory faculty granted for tree works, which had been necessary, though noting that List B approval could have been sought to these works prior to their being undertaken; need for improved path accepted, but pink brick paving with dark grey edging and yellow interstitial sand not in keeping with the natural stonework of the church; restoration order considered but would be disproportionate; faculty granted subject to condition requiring replacement of yellow sand by a darker sand to be approved by the DAC; chancel step handrails installed without faculty; DAC unhappy with the rails, which did not comply with Part K of Building Regulations; railings considered to be harmful to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest, and out of keeping with high quality ‘Arts & Crafts’ style woodwork nearby; restoration order made for removal of the handrails within two years, to allow time for design and approval of more fitting rails. Recommendations made to improve parish and faculty administration; costs of hearing to be borne by the PCC. [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re All Saints Rangemore [2025] ECC Lic 3 Memorial in form not within Lichfield Diocesan Churchyard Regulations; Deceased was David Myers, one of the ‘Hairy Bikers’; memorial comprising wider than usual headstone and full kerb, including raised grave cover or ledger, in mid-grey and lavender blue polished granite; alternative local Hollington and other sandstones considered, though Hollington not currently quarried; significant variety of stone types already in use in memorials in the churchyard noted; faculty granted subject to condition that the granite be not polished; raised platform approved as consistent with other memorials in the churchyard; proposals to be viewed holistically, noting that approval of individual features in isolation might not be forthcoming elsewhere. [Re All Saints Rangemore [2025] ECC Lic 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Giles Graffham [2025] ECC Chichester 3 The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for a circular tablet which they had placed on their parents’ grave. The stonemason who fabricated the tablet was unaware it was for use in a consecrated churchyard and was not involved in its introduction. He nonetheless offered to carry out alterations, at no cost to the petitioners, to ameliorate some of its more objectionable features. With some reservations on both sides, the petitioners and priest-in-charge indicated they would consent to the compromise proposed. The chancellor with some reluctance granted a confirmatory faculty on condition the amelioration took place. He noted the petitioners’ offer to make a donation to charity equal to the cost of the stonemason’s labour and emphasised that this was an exceptional case which did not set any form of precedent. [Re St. Giles Graffham [2025] ECC Chichester 3] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1 The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty for the retention of two ‘pavers’ which he had caused to be placed, without permission, on the graves of two family members. The parish objected to their retention on the grounds, inter alia, that they were out of place with their surroundings. The petitioners claimed ‘grandfather rights’ on the basis that the pavers were placed on the grave some while ago. The chancellor considered the objections compelling and concluded that the petitioner had not discharged his burden of proof for the retention of the pavers. The petition was dismissed. [Re East Chiltington [2025] ECC Chichester 1][Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Evangelist Houghton [2025] ECC Car 4 The petitioners sought faculties to reserve grave spaces in the churchyard, where it was estimated that only four years’ burial capacity remained. All petitions had PCC support; one was objected to by another petitioner, though in respectful terms. The Chancellor reviewed the principles in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2 and related authorities, which establish that where space is limited, faculties will not normally be granted unless exceptional circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” are shown. The burden lay on each petitioner. Mr. Bainbridge, on the electoral roll and with strong family connections, relied on his lifelong association with the church and community service. Mr. McAllen, a former vicar, pointed to over a decade’s ministry and continued worship. Mr. Wolstencroft, a parishioner of 65 years and long-serving lay leader, emphasised his extensive service. The Chancellor recognised all three as having longstanding and valuable ties with the church but concluded that none demonstrated circumstances sufficiently exceptional to justify grave reservations where capacity was so restricted. With regret, all three petitions were refused. No criticism of character or parish connection was intended. [Re St. John the Evangelist Houghton [2025] ECC Car 4] [ [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3 Removal of plinth beneath font, and repositioning of font to one side at west end of church; church dating from 1913, by John Oldrid Scott; not listed; original font and plinth repositioned in 1962 to current location centrally at west end of nave; relocation would enable use of the west end of the nave for more flexible community uses; plinth said to present trip hazard; health and safety issues considered; Duffield principles considered (Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] Fam 158); written objections considered; limited harm occasioned by relocation of font considered to be outweighed by benefits of the proposal; faculty granted. [Re St. John the Evangelist Hurst Green [2025] ECC Swk 3 (2)] [Top of section] [Top of post]
Re St. Mary Magdalene Richmond [2025] ECC Swk 4 Church Bells; proposal to remodel three existing bells and introduce five new bells. Faculty granted subject to condition that a record, including a sound recording, be made of the existing bells before work commences. [Re St. Mary Magdalene Richmond [2025] ECC Swk 4] [Post]
Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.