Review of the ecclesiastical court judgments during January 2026

Summaries to the 16 consistory court judgments reviewed during January are listed below, with links to the L&RUK review. These included [*]:

• Procedural
• Reordering, extensions and other building works
• Church Treasures/ Sale of Paintings/ Loans/ Memorials 
• Churchyards and burials

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

An index to these and earlier judgments in here.

Procedural

Re St Martin’s Church, Brampton [2025] ECC Car 11 The petitioners applied for permission to appeal against the Chancellor’s judgment of 12 October 2025 refusing a faculty for external access works at the church. Permission was sought under rule 23 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, requiring the proposed appeal to have a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason for it to be heard.

The petitioners argued that the alternative access proposal identified in the judgment would result in inequality of access, would itself cause serious harm to the building’s significance, and that the lack of equal access was rendering the church increasingly unfit for use.

The Chancellor refused permission to appeal. He held that the grounds advanced did not engage with the proper test. The petitioners had not identified any error of law, fact, or principle, nor any improper exercise of discretion. Instead, they relied on new evidence and a restatement of disagreement with the conclusions reached. The Chancellor explained that the judgment had expressly recognised the importance of equal access and had accepted the compelling need relied upon by the petitioners. The proposed grounds disclosed no realistic prospect of success and no other compelling reason to permit an appeal. Permission to appeal was therefore refused. [Re St Martin’s Church, Brampton [2025] ECC Car 11] [Post] [top]

[See also Re Mill Road Cemetery Cambridge, infra]

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]

Substantial reordering

Re Sherborne Abbey [2025] ECC Sal 2 A major re-ordering was proposed for Sherborne Abbey, a Grade I listed church, including: conversion of the existing north-east vestry into toilet facilities; creation of a new vestry beneath the organ loft in the north transept and Wykeham Chapel; relocation of the Horsey Monument to the north quire aisle; introduction of a discreet hospitality unit in the Lady Chapel; accessibility improvements; and confirmation of a Madonna statue in the Lady Chapel.

Extensive consultation had taken place over several years. While objections were raised—particularly regarding cost, alternative locations, and impact on the Victorian organ loft—amended proposals led to the withdrawal of objections from the Victorian Society.

Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor found that most elements caused no harm or only very slight harm. The new vestry would cause low to moderate harm, mainly through loss of a spiral staircase and partial enclosure of the transept, but this had been carefully mitigated by design revisions. The Chancellor held that the clear and convincing justification—improved facilities, accessibility, hospitality and operational effectiveness—produced substantial public benefit outweighing the harm. A faculty was granted, subject to conditions. [Re Sherborne Abbey [2025] ECC Sal 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re Holy Trinity Sunningdale [2026] ECC Oxf 1 This was an unopposed faculty petition for extensive internal reordering of the Grade II listed Victorian church, to create a flexible worship space and community hub. The proposals included removal of most nave pews, a new floor with underfloor heating, improved lighting and heating, relocation of the font, removal of later screens, and construction of a substantial west-end mezzanine accommodating a café, meeting rooms, office, toilets and storage, with glazed partitions separating social and worship spaces. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended approval. The Church Buildings Council and Historic England ultimately deferred to the DAC, although Historic England considered the proposals would cause a high level of harm to the interior. The Victorian Society objected in principle to the loss of pews, treatment of the floor and the design of the glazing, but did not become a party opponent. Applying the ‘Duffield’ framework, the Chancellor found that the proposals would cause harm to the significance of the church, but that the harm was outweighed by the substantial public and missional benefits, including improved worship, accessibility, community use and long-term sustainability. A faculty was granted, subject to conditions controlling materials, design details, retention of some pews, and protection of historic fabric. [ELA link to judgment – a very large file, 2MB] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Other building works, including re-roofing

Re St. Martin Brampton [2025] ECC Car 9 The petitioners sought permission for works to improve access at St Martin’s Church, Brampton, a Grade I listed church; the only church designed by Philip Webb, with stained glass by Burne-Jones and Morris [6]. The proposed works included internal alterations and major external access works involving a ramp and lift at the principal entrance. The Victorian Society, as party opponent, contested the petition in part, challenging the proposed external works altering access to the Church [2]. The Chancellor accepted that there was a compelling and well-evidenced need to improve access, noting that the steep steps excluded many worshippers, visitors, and community users, and undermined the Church’s mission.

However, applying the Duffield framework, he found that the external access proposals would cause a high degree of harm to the Church’s exceptional significance, particularly its unaltered integrity as a unique work by Webb. Although the public benefit of equal access was substantial, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not yet fully explored a potentially less harmful alternative entrance beneath the Paradise Window, partly due to a misunderstanding of rights over the adjoining car park. As serious harm to a Grade I building should be permitted only exceptionally, the external proposals were refused. The internal works, car park resurfacing, and minor ancillary works were approved.[Re St. Martin Brampton [2025] ECC Car 9] [Top of section] [Top of post]. See also Re St Martin’s Church, Brampton re. refusal of appeal on judgment.

Re St. Bartholomew Colne (No. 2) [2025] ECC Bla 5 The Chancellor granted a faculty for the renovation and extension of a Grade II listed former grammar school building situated within the curtilage of the churchyard and now used as parish rooms, in order to create a “Centre of Hope” supporting community outreach. The proposals included demolition of a 1980s extension, construction of a new two-storey extension with improved accessibility, refurbishment of the interior, new kitchen and welfare facilities, replacement windows, and additional storage. Applying the ‘Duffield’ principles, the Chancellor determined that the works would cause no harm to the setting or significance of the adjacent Grade I listed church and only moderate, largely reversible harm to the Grade II parish rooms building itself. That harm was outweighed by clear and convincing public benefits, including enhanced facilities for a food bank and wider community support. Concerns raised informally by the Georgian Group regarding window replacement and internal storage were resolved or addressed by conditions. The faculty was granted subject to conditions, including approval of detailed designs for windows and storage, compliance with planning and archaeological conditions, confirmation of funding, and a three-year period for completion. [Re St. Bartholomew Colne (No. 2) [2025] ECC Bla 5] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Helen Etwall [2025] ECC Der 1 The Rector and Churchwardens petitioned for the introduction into the church of a memorial plaque in memory of a Flight Lieutenant in the Royal Air Force, who died in Iraq in 2003 and was buried at RAF Maham in Norfolk. The proposal was to place the memorial plaque next to an existing war memorial[1].

The deceased had no connection with the parish, but his parents lived in the parish and regularly attended the annual Remembrance Sunday service. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the work [4]. However, the Chancellor, whilst mindful of the pastoral motivation behind the petition, refused to grant a faculty, as the deceased had no link with the proposed memorial location and he was already commemorated at Burntwood, where he grew up, at RAF Marham, where he had been based, and at the National Memorial Arboretum. [Re St. Helen Etwall [2025] ECC Der 1] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Penwortham [2025] ECC Bla 4 The Chancellor granted a faculty for (i) the repair of a vandalised 1901 stained-glass window and (ii) the extension and adaptation of 1950s parish rooms attached to a Grade II* listed medieval church, in order to create accessible meeting room, classroom, kitchen and toilet facilities. While Historic England and the Church Buildings Council objected to the scale and visual impact of the proposed extension, neither became a party opponent. Applying the ‘Duffield’ principles, the Chancellor found that the window repair was wholly beneficial and uncontroversial. As to the extension, following a site visit, he concluded that it would cause no more than moderate harm to the significance, setting and appearance of the listed church and conservation area. That harm was outweighed by clear and convincing public benefits, including improved accessibility, accommodation for school visits, community use, safeguarding, and income generation essential to the church’s mission and sustainability. The court rejected the argument that the nave could suitably provide the same benefits without greater harm. Accordingly, the faculty was granted, subject to conditions. [Re St. Mary Penwortham [2025] ECC Bla 4] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Mary Magdalene Whitgift [2025] ECC She 7 The petitioners sought permission for the replacement of the slate covered nave roof with one of terne coated stainless-steel.  The excessively shallow pitch of the roof had led to severe water ingress and rotting timbers, a problem which was being exacerbated by decaying and vegetation covered flashings. The Chancellor considered the works were well planned and urgently needed and that they would preserve the building as a place of historical and architectural interest and as a focal hub for its congregation and community. She therefore directed that a faculty be issued. [Re St. Mary Magdalene Whitgift [2025] ECC She 7] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re All Saints Wrington [2026] ECC B&W 2 The wooden vestry floor at the base of the church tower had become infested with death watch beetle, necessitating repair. This would involve the replacement of the current floor with stone brought to the level of the paving in the nave, together with various consequential works. At the same time, the opportunity had arisen to insert in the vestry a lavatory cubicle with disabled access, taking advantage of an existing drainage connection. There were four parties opponent and a further 15 letters of objection from people who objected to the installation of a lavatory cubicle. However, the Chancellor concluded that “the weight of expert advice, and at least on balance the practical advantages associated with the petitioners’ preferred plans, justify the grant of a faculty for the interior lavatory cubicle”. [Re All Saints Wrington [2026] ECC B&W 2] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Church Treasures/Sale of Paintings/Loans/Memorials 

Re St. Peter Little Budworth [2025] ECC Chr 1 The Churchwardens wished to sell by auction a painting entitled ‘The Good Shepherd’ (c.1859) by William Dyce, a Scottish born painter associated with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. The painting was introduced into the church by faculty in 1924. Since about 1987, the painting has been subject to loan agreements with two galleries. A reproduction of the painting was hung in the church some time after removal of the original. The second loan agreement ended in 2024, when the painting was transferred to Bonhams auctioneers pending a decision as to its future.  The Diocesan Advisory Committee supported the petition, pointing out that the painting was not original to the church; a reproduction was on display; the original had been absent from the church for 50 years; the environment of the church was not suitable for the original painting; the parish could not afford restoration of the painting and had been unable to find another gallery to take the painting. The Chancellor considered the guidance in the Court of Arches decision in Re St. Lawrence Oakley with Wootton St. Lawrence (2015) and determined that in all the circumstances it was appropriate to grant a faculty for the sale of the painting. [Re St. Peter Little Budworth [2025] ECC Chr 1]  [Top].

Churchyards and burials

• Development of churchyard
• Designation of closed churchyard
• Churchyard Regulations
• Reservation of grave space

Development of churchyard

[Top of section] [Top of post]

Re Mill Road Cemetery Cambridge [2025] ECC Ely 2  Mill Road Cemetery in Cambridge, which was closed in two stages in 1904 and 1949, and has since been maintained by Cambridge City Council (“CCC”), is owned by the incumbents of several parishes in the City of Cambridge. CCC applied for a general faculty to carry out further maintenance of the cemetery. The Chancellor considered that there was merit in reducing the need for the Consistory Court to be involved in the faculty process whenever works were needed outside those normally permitted without faculty. He therefore granted a faculty. [Re Mill Road Cemetery Cambridge [2025] ECC Ely 2] [Post] [Back] [Top].

Designation of closed churchyard

See Privy Council Business.

[Back] [Top]

Churchyard Regulations

Re St. John the Evangelist Perlethorpe [2025] ECC S&N 4 The petitioners applied for permission to erect a memorial in the churchyard. Certain features of the design were outside what was authorised to be permitted by a parish priest under the churchyards regulations, namely, the memorial was larger that the maximum measurements allowed; there was an oversized plinth; kerbs were proposed; and it was proposed to have a design on the back of the memorial. The Chancellor approved the design, subject to conditions, including that there be no kerbs, and that there should be a smaller plinth. [Re St. John the Evangelist Perlethorpe [2025] ECC S&N 4] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Re St. Cuthbert Kentmere [2025] ECC Car 12 The petitioner sought a faculty to erect a headstone in the churchyard of St Cuthbert’s, Kentmere, to commemorate his late wife, Lucy Nelson, who was widely known as “Cinders”. An initial informal approach did not proceed, for various reasons. Following consultation, a petition was presented for a new design, using riven slate with V-cut lettering, and featuring a carved sunflower motif on its reverse.  It received unanimous PCC support and favourable advice from the DAC, which praised the quality of its design and confirmed that it would not set an unwelcome precedent. The DAC accepted the use of “Lucy” as an appropriate contraction of the deceased’s given name(?) and expressed concern only as to the practicalities of the placement of the name “Cinders” on the reverse of the stone. The Chancellor accepted the DAC’s advice but concluded that, in the particular circumstances, personal expression and the deceased’s own preferences justified allowing the name “Cinders” to appear on the reverse beneath the sunflower motif. A faculty was therefore granted. The petitioner was ordered to pay the costs of the petition. [Re St. Cuthbert Kentmere [2025] ECC Car 12] [Post] [Top of section] [Top of post].

Reservation of grave space

Re St. John Cumwhinton [2025] ECC Car 8 Two related petitions sought the reservation of grave spaces in the churchyard of St. John’s, Cumwhinton. Mrs Patricia Briggs (aged 79) applied for a double-depth plot for herself and her husband, and her daughter, Joanne Briggs, sought a separate reservation. All petitioners owned or occupied property in the parish and both petitions were supported by the District Church Council. The difficulty was uncertainty about remaining burial capacity. One petition stated that the churchyard was likely to suffice for around ten years, while a later petition referred to “5+” years. The churchwarden explained that the churchyard plan was out of date, although some additional space had become available following the loss of a large tree and further options were being explored. The Chancellor applied the principles summarised in Re St Mary, Thame and the test of “exceptional circumstances” articulated in Re St Peter, Hilton. No circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” had been identified, and the petitioners had not advanced any exceptional justification. Taking into account the petitioners’ local connections, the support of the DCC, and the possibility of increasing burial space, the Chancellor granted both petitions but limited each reservation to ten years. [Re St. John Cumwhinton [2025] ECC Car 8] [Top of section] [Top of page].

 Re St John the Baptist Ulpha [2025] ECC Car 10 The petitioner sought a faculty to reserve a single-depth grave space in the churchyard. She lived in the parish, was an active member of the local community, had supported the church financially and practically, and wished in due course to be buried in the same churchyard as her late partner, whose funeral had taken place there. The petition was supported by the PCC. The difficulty was the acute shortage of burial space. The petition acknowledged that the churchyard was likely to serve parishioners for only about three further years. In those circumstances, the law governing grave reservations where space is scarce applied, as summarised in Re St Mary, Thame, and the petitioner was required to demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”, meaning that her case was “markedly out of the ordinary”. The Chancellor accepted the sincerity and depth of the petitioner’s attachment to the church and community and fully understood her wish for reassurance as to her future burial. However, such attachments were not uncommon among parishioners and could not, of themselves, justify prejudicing the burial rights of others. The petition did not meet the required test and was therefore refused. [Re St John the Baptist Ulpha [2025] ECC Car 10] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Re St. Peter Ellastone [2025] ECC Lic 5 The petitioner wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard for himself and his wife. The application was opposed by a majority vote of the Parochial Church Council (“PCC”). The PCC had a policy against grave reservations. The churchyard had about 35 spaces remaining and on average about three were used for burials each year. In view of the PCC’s policy and the limited space left in the churchyard, the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. [Re St. Peter Ellastone [2025] ECC Lic 5] [Top of section] [Top of page].

Privy Council Business

An archive of the Lists of Business from Privy Council meetings can also be found here. The latest meeting was on 10 December 2025.

CDM Decisions and Safeguarding

Penalties by consent

Name: The Revd SION AWEN MIHANGEL HUGHES CAREW
Diocese: Lincoln
Date imposed: 25th January 2026
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: Rebuke and injunction

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 2026 is here and the next meeting will be on Thursday 5 February. Decisions taken on Thursday 11 December 2025 are yet to be reported.

Links to other posts

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

Procedure

• Appeal against judgment on works for external access, (8 January 2026).

Churchyards

• Responsibilities after closure of churchyard, (27 January 2026).
• Resolution of inscription on headstone, (23 January 2026).
• Curbs on kerbs, (14 January 2026).

General/Miscellaneous

• Church proposes significant increase in fees for burial, (26 January 2026).
• Parochial Fees 2027 to 2031, (24 January 2026).

[Top]

Updated: 2 February 2026 at 09:01.  

[*] This is an approximate classification based upon the  main issues considered by the court. Determinations relating to reordering and building works will often address other aspects of the Petition.

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