In an earlier post summarizing legal position on the reservation of burial plots in churchyards (2016), we noted that petitions in almost-full churchyards were becoming more common as throughout England and Wales as there had been little progress in the availability of new space. Although we have reviewed fifty-four judgments on such “reservation cases” between 2016 and present, until now there has been no general analysis of the judicial considerations involved.

This present post reviews a recent case – Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1 – in which Samuel Ch. observed:

“[7] Applications for grave space reservation are often made without difficulty. However, difficulty may arise where the churchyard has only a limited number of grave spaces remaining. In such cases, the relevant law was summarised by Chancellor Hodge KC in Re St. Mary Haversham [2025] ECC Oxf 2. That decision sets out the principles to be applied where, as in this case, there is a petition to reserve grave space, but only limited space remaining within the churchyard for future burials”[1].

In Re St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon [2026] ECC Cov 1, the Chancellor refused Mrs Denise Blundell’s application to reserve a grave space for herself and her husband in the churchyard of St Botolph. Mrs Blundell’s mother and sister are buried there, and she argued that being buried near her sister was of profound emotional importance. The aspect of reservation not covered elsewhere is the certification of the estimate underpinning the remaining time for burials. The Chancellor stated [emphasis added]:

[2]. The petition identifies the present rate of burials as seven a year, and that only 25 grave spaces presently remain available. The population of Newbold-on- Avon itself is said to be 1,500 but when combined with the other area covered by the Benefice, that figure becomes 6,000. I must decide whether to grant the application despite the space available in the Churchyard likely to be used up in less than four years.

5. (i) [The Incumbent] did sign the petition on 9th September 2025 in the section where the consent […] must be given. Below that signature the Incumbent and both Churchwardens signed the declaration: “We the undersigned, being the Incumbent and Churchwardens of the Parish of Newbold-on-Avon in the Diocese of Coventry DO HEREBY CERTIFY that in our opinion, having regard to the average yearly number of burials in the churchyard of St Botolph, Newbold-on-Avon, aforesaid, the granting of a Faculty to the aforementioned Petitioner(s) will not be detrimental to the rights of the Parishioners”

(ii) Given the contents of paragraph 2 of this judgment, that declaration should never have been signed. It is abundantly clear that to grant this Faculty to a non-parishioner, and someone not on the electoral roll nor with any specific connection with the worshipping community, would be detrimental to the rights of Parishioners, as set out in the following description of the law that applies to reservation of grave spaces.

(iii) All Incumbents and Churchwardens should take care to read the declaration, and to understand the law pertaining to the situation, before signing a document for submission to the Court. What should happen in such circumstances as apply here is the incumbent and Churchwardens decline to make the formal declaration, but then put in writing any reason why they would, nonetheless, support the particular petition. Acting pragmatically, I shall regard the signed declaration in this case as being an indication that the Incumbent and Churchwardens support the petition.

Applying established ecclesiastical case law, the Chancellor held that where burial space is limited, grave reservations should only be granted in exceptional circumstances because they may prejudice the rights of parishioners who have a legal entitlement to burial. The petitioner bore the burden of proving such exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor found that the emotional bond and mutual promises between Mrs Blundell and her sister, while sincere and wedeeply felt, were not “markedly out of the ordinary” and did not justify reserving a space. The petition was therefore dismissed.

[1] The St. Mary, Haversham judgment concerned a churchyard where it was estimated that the remaining space would only be sufficient for the parish’s needs for another 5 years, so longer than in the current case. Referring back (at [8] in St. Botolph Newbold-on-Avon) to his own decision in Re St. Mary Thame [2022] ECC Oxf 2 [also at (2023) 25 Ecc LJ 114] Chancellor Hodge, KC, identified the following, non-exhaustive propositions:

“(1) The reservation of a grave space is entirely within the discretion of the consistory court, to be exercised having regard to the particular circumstances of the case.

(2) The court will be more inclined to grant a faculty to a petitioner with the right to be buried in the churchyard than to one without such an entitlement. Those who have such a right are the persons living within the parish, and those on the electoral roll of the parish church.

(3) The court may nevertheless grant a faculty to a petitioner with no right to be buried in the churchyard where they can demonstrate a personal, or a substantial family, connection to the church and/or its churchyard, or some other good and sufficient reason to be buried there.

(4) Where there is sufficient space within the churchyard, and the incumbent minister gives [his/her] consent, the court may well grant a faculty to such a petitioner, unless the Parochial Church Council have a policy of opposing the reservation of grave spaces.

(5) Such a policy cannot be conclusive, and it cannot remove the court’s overarching discretion; but where the PCC have adopted a policy that is considered, reasonable and fair, the court will only be justified in departing from that policy in exceptional circumstances; and anyone seeking to reserve a grave space in the face of such a policy will need to show that their case is markedly out of the ordinary.

(6) Where, however, the remaining space within the churchyard is limited, then a faculty will not normally be granted, and the petitioner will have to demonstrate sufficient justification for the court to take the exceptional course of allowing a reservation in such circumstances, because of the risk that such a reservation will prejudice the rights of those parishioners or worshippers who would otherwise be entitled to be buried in the churchyard.

(7) Even where such a justification is demonstrated, it will not usually be right to extend the duration of the faculty beyond the period for which the churchyard is likely to have space for burials, unless there are exceptional circumstances (including evidence of a particularly strong connection to the church and/or the churchyard) in favour of doing so.

(8) Should a faculty for a grave space reservation be granted for a limited duration, it remains open to the petitioner to apply for an extension of the period of its validity. Whether or not any extension is to be granted will depend upon the prevailing circumstances, including: (1) the petitioner’s personal circumstances; (2) whether arrangements have been made to provide additional space for burials, whether by the acquisition of further land, or the re-use of parts of the churchyard, or otherwise; (3) the views of the incumbent minister; and (4) any current policy of the PCC towards the reservation of grave spaces.”