Ecclesiastical court judgments – October

Posted on by

The  eight consistory court judgments circulated in October include:

This review also includes: CDM Decisions and Safeguarding; Reports from the Independent Reviewer; Privy Council Business; Other legal issues; CFCE Determinations; and Links to other posts relating to ecclesiastical law.

Procedural

Re Calderstones Cemetery [2025] ECC Bla 3 A private company sought a faculty to carry out works on consecrated land within the former Calderstones Cemetery, Whalley, ancillary to the construction of a crematorium, approved under existing planning permission, on adjoining, deconsecrated land. The proposed works included restoring two chapels and a lychgate, upgrading access roads, and providing car parking, landscaping, and utilities.

Objections were lodged by present and former parish residents and the Friends of Calderstones Cemetery, mainly on grounds of the land’s consecrated status, possible disturbance of human remains, and contravention of the Cremation Act 1902.

The Chancellor ruled that two former parish residents lacked sufficient standing to oppose the petition. He ordered a preliminary issue, on written representations, whether using consecrated land for purposes ancillary to the adjoining crematorium site was inconsistent with its sacred status; and whether, regardless of the presence of any remains, a faculty should be refused. Planning matters should not be re-visited; and statutory cremation consents were held to fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The petition was to proceed, subject to an agreed schedule of facts between the petitioner and the Friends. [Re Calderstones Cemetery [2025] ECC Bla 3] [Re Calderstones Cemetery [2025] ECC Bla 3]

Reordering, extensions and other building works

[top]

Reordering and alternative uses

Re St. Mary with St. Edward Leyton [2025] ECC Chd 3 The petitioners sought permission to reorder St Mary’s, a Grade II* listed church, by removing the nave pews and other Victorian furnishings and replacing them with chairs. Although the DAC supported the proposals, objections from the Victorian Society and a parishioner were considered by the Chancellor. The pews had been removed under an Archdeacon’s Licence for Temporary Minor Reordering to allow floor repairs, but were not reinstated after the licence expired. The Chancellor held that the pews should have been replaced and questioned whether their removal qualified as “temporary” or “minor.” She emphasized that Archdeacon’s Licences must be used with care and within prescribed time limits. Nevertheless, applying the Duffield test, she granted a Faculty for most of the proposed changes, including the permanent removal of the pews, subject to conditions. The Chancellor concluded that although some harm would be caused to the church’s historic character, this was justified by the benefits and the needs addressed by the reordering. [Re St. Mary with St. Edward Leyton [2025] ECC Chd 3] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Other building works, including re-roofing

Re St. Mary Gosforth [2025] ECC Car 6 The petition sought faculties for works at the Grade I listed church, including pew removal, creation of a dais, installation of a handrail and removable ramp, AV equipment, LED lighting, and a timer lock [1]. Fryer-Spedding Ch. explained:

“[2]. The purpose of this judgment is to explain why I have decided to allow this application, with one exception, and on the basis of some conditions. Even though the petition is now unopposed, a short judgment is appropriate in view of the Grade 1 listing of this Church and of the helpful and considered consultation responses received from The Victorian Society, HBAP, the CBC, SPAB and Historic England.

The proposed Works were reconsidered, and the Statement of Needs revised, in response to those responses. The upshot is that none of the National Amenity Societies maintain objections to the Works, although the Victorian Society asks that consideration be given to retention of the timber chancel rail.

[3]. The DAC voted by a majority (1 objection, 2 abstentions) to recommend the scheme, with proposals for conditions. The absence of unanimity in the DAC’s views is another reason for this short judgment. Its notification of advice, dated 28 March 2025, records its opinion that the Works will not be likely to affect the character of the Church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

The Chancellor considered the proposed removal/ relocation of certain pews, and the proposal to create a dais [8]. In his view, the removal of a limited number of pews, and the creation of a dais, carries a risk of low, if any, harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest [11]. In his judgment, the Petitioner demonstrated a clear and convincing case for the removal of the pews in question and the construction of a dais; these factors outweighs any harm resulting from the Works, [12].

What was less clear is whether storage would take place within the Church itself or elsewhere. For that reason, and to ensure their continued preservation, he considered it appropriate to impose a condition governing the arrangements for storage. Conditions were imposed requiring secure long-term storage of removed pews, retention of the timber chancel rail, and agreed arrangements for storing and handling the removable ramp. The faculty was therefore granted subject to those conditions. [Re St. Mary Gosforth [2025] ECC Car 6] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Removal and replacement of pews

Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1 The proposal was to remove the pews in the chancel (including children’s pews) and nave, which were introduced in a 1902 re-ordering, and replace them with chairs, and to move eastward the historic pews (relegated in 1902 to the rear of the nave), in order to create spaces for flexible use in the chancel and at the west end of the nave. There were ten letters of objection. Also, Historic England, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings and the Victorian Society objected to the removal of the chancel pews and the Victorian Society recommended that samples of the 1902 pews should be retained. The Chancellor decided that the Petitioners had established a need for change, if the church was to fulfil its role as a centre for worship and mission and to be of service to the local community, and that the need outweighed the harm to the historical significance of the church. [Re St. Andrew Compton Dundon [2025] ECC B&W 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Net zero issues

Re Christ Church Chineham [2025] ECC Win 1 The Consistory Court of the Diocese of Winchester reviewed a retrospective application for a faculty to approve the installation of two gas boilers at Christ Church, Chineham. The church, a modern community hub, had experienced failure of its old boilers, leading the Petitioners to replace them without prior approval, believing the work was urgent. The court criticized their decision as a clear breach of faculty law, calling it “naïve.” A key issue was the Petitioners’ failure to consider the Church of England’s Net Zero Guidance. Despite an energy audit suggesting air source heat pumps (ASHPs) as a sustainable alternative, the Petitioners dismissed this advice without detailed analysis, opting for gas boilers driven by cost and convenience. They failed to obtain meaningful quotes for greener options until after the court’s intervention. Although the court noted inconsistent communication from the DAC, it held the Petitioners responsible for ensuring compliance. While the court ruled that a faculty would not have been granted if properly sought, it allowed the boilers to remain temporarily due to the practical difficulty of removing them before winter. A faculty was granted for three years, with the condition that the church offset carbon emissions and explore sustainable heating options. [Re Christ Church Chineham [2025] ECC Win 1] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post]

Church Treasures/Sale of Paintings/Loans/Memorials

Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7 Mr. Stephen Hinks petitioned on behalf of Mrs. Mary Maxwell-Irving, for permission to hang in the church a heraldic hatchment in memory of her late husband, Dr. Alistair M. T. Maxwell-Irving. The church, a Grade II* listed 12th-century building, already contained many memorials. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) unanimously supported the proposal, though the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC), by a majority, did not recommend approval, considering a hatchment anachronistic and questioning Dr Maxwell-Irving’s connection with the parish. The Chancellor reviewed the law on memorials, especially Re St. Margaret Eartham (1981), Re St. Mary Longstock (2006), Re St. Mary Magdalene Adlestrop (2017), and Re Holy Trinity Bledlow (2020), concluding that hatchments occupy a “hybrid” category akin to heraldic banners, so the test of exceptionality applies. He found the Maxwell-Irving family’s historic contributions to the church, together with Dr. Maxwell-Irving’s scholarly and public service record, satisfied that test. The hatchment would complement existing heraldic windows and cause no harm to the church’s significance. Rejecting arguments of anachronism, he held continuity with tradition a virtue and directed that the faculty be granted. [Re St. Michael Bowness-on-Solway [2025] ECC Car 7]

Churchyards and burials

Designation of closed churchyard

See Privy Council Business.

Trees

Re All Saints Emberton [2025] ECC  Oxf  9 The churchwardens of the Grade II* listed All Saints, Emberton, sought a faculty to fell a healthy, mature western red cedar overhanging a neighbouring property. The application was unopposed, supported by the Parochial Church Council (PCC), and recommended by the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC).

The local authority’s tree officer raised no objection, noting structural issues in the tree and its inappropriate proximity to a dwelling. The Chancellor issued a written judgment to demonstrate the careful scrutiny required when permitting the felling of a mature, healthy tree, mindful of the Fifth Mark of Mission—to safeguard the integrity of creation.

Acknowledging the PCC’s strong ecological commitment, he accepted their argument that removal was necessary to address the overshadowing and safety concerns of neighbouring residents. Relying on Re St Nicholas, Kingsey [2023] ECC Oxf 5, the Chancellor concluded that felling would cause no harm to the church’s significance and that the PCC had shown sufficient justification. He emphasised deference to the PCC’s wish to be good neighbours and to the advice of professional and statutory bodies. A faculty was granted subject to conditions, including the planting and nurturing of at least one replacement conifer within the next growing season. [Re All Saints Emberton [2025] ECC Oxf 9] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Environmental Permit

The PCC of the Ecclesiastical Parish of St Winifred’s: environmental permit application advertisement, TQ13 9UJ: Application No EPR/RB3544KS/A001 for Trench Arch Drainage System. National grid reference discharge point: SX 74927 81289; Receiving environment: discharge to Trench Arch Drainage System; Effluent type: Trench Arch effluent; Volume: 0.173 cubic metres per day.

Fonts

Re St. Mary Ellesmere [2025] ECC Lic 4 There was a petition to decommission a Giles Gilbert Scott font located in a semi-enclosed baptistery and to introduce a portable font (regularising the long-standing position of using a portable font). The petition was supported by the DAC. The Deputy Chancellor held that there were numerous factors which supported granting a faculty in respect of a replacement portable font but declined formally to decommission the Scott font.” [Re St. Mary Ellesmere [2025] ECC Lic 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Privy Council Business

15 October 2025

BURIALS Burial Act 1853 (Notice) An Order giving notice of the discontinuance of burials in: St Michael’s Church Churchyard, Fobbing, Stanford-le-Hope, Essex; St Mary de Wyche Church Churchyard, Wychbold, Droitwich, Worcestershire; St Mary’s Churchyard, Church Street, Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire; St John the Baptist Churchyard, Hammerwich, Burntwood, Staffordshire.

Burial Act 1853 (Final) An Order prohibiting further burials in: Church of St Mary Old Churchyard, Tunstead, Norfolk; St Mary the Virgin Churchyard, Gosport, Hampshire; St Andrew’s Churchyard, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire.

Burial Act 1855 (Variation) Order varying an Order dated 8th February 2018 prohibiting further burials in the Churchyard of St Luke’s Church, Tiptree, Colchester, Essex.

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

Penalties by consent

The page on the CofE website Penalties by Consent records the penalties that have been imposed by a bishop or archbishop with the consent of the respondent under section 16 of the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and penalties that have been imposed under section 30 or 31.

Name: The Revd ALAN DAVID HOUGH DAWSON
Diocese: Chester
Date imposed: 24th October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Prohibition from ministry for 3 years (with effect from 6th November 2025)

Name: The Revd TIMOTHY LIAM BELL
Diocese: Chichester
Date imposed: 13th October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d) = Conduct unbecoming & inappropriate to the office & work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Removal from office & Limited Prohibition for 7 years (with effect from 13 October 2025)

Name: The Revd ROBERT PRICE WELDON
Diocese: Canterbury
Date imposed: 4 October 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders
Penalty: Limited prohibition for 5 years (with effect from 15th October 2025)

Name: The Revd NICHOLAS JOHN CLARKE
Diocese: Bath and Wells
Date imposed: 19th September 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: s.8(1)(d): Conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Prohibition for life (with effect from 2 October 2025)

Name: The Revd ANDREW PROCTER
Diocese: Rochester
Date imposed: 26th September 2025
Relevant CDM section: 16(1)
Statutory Ground of Misconduct: 8(1)(d)  – conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders.
Penalty: Injunction effective (with effect from 1st October 2025)

Safeguarding

Forfeiture of honours

Mike Pilavachi was added to the current List of individuals whose honour has been revoked by the Sovereign, (August 2025). Pilavachi was awarded an MBE in the New Years Honours List of 2020 for services to young people. He joins Paula Vennels whose CBE (2019) was revoked in February 2024.

A broader consideration of The removal of titles and honours is in the House of Commons Research Briefing of 20 October, which is particularly pertinent to more recent events, albeit outwith the ambit of Law and Religion UK.

Reports from the Independent Reviewer

Individual Reports from the Independent Reviewer are to be found at House of Bishops’ Declaration on the Ministry of Bishops and Priests (Independent Reviewer), scroll down.

CFCE Determinations

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 22 October 2025. Reports of recent meetings are:

Links to other posts

Recent summaries of specific issues that have been considered in the consistory courts:

Extensions and other building works

General/Miscellaneous

[Top]

Updated: 31 October 2025 at 15:37.

Notes on the conventions used for the navigation between cases reviewed in this post are summarized here.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *