Churchyards

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.

The works proposed included improvements to the churchyard paths, including step-free access to the church, and in the course of such works the carrying out of archeological works with the objective of re-excavating a structure in the churchyard found by a nineteenth century incumbent but re-buried in 1929. This structure is believed to be the remains of a Saxon church. Letters of objection from two neighbours expressed concern about the impact of the works on the adjacent lane. The Chancellor was satisfied that the improvement of the paths would enhance the churchyard, and also examining, recording and securing for the future archaeological remains of national and possible international significance justified the granting of a faculty.

The vicar and churchwardens applied for a faculty to re-use the churchyard for burials. Though the churchyard was not closed by Order in Council, burials could now only take place in existing graves. There was one objector. A hearing was held, at which the Chancellor dismissed the objector's twelve grounds of objection as having no substance, in view of which, and also of the fact that the objector had refused to have the matter dealt with by written representations, the Chancellor directed that the objector should pay the costs of the half-day hearing.

As part of the Ashford Borough Council's Ashford Snowdogs art trail, there was a proposal to place in the churchyard a statute of a brightly painted dog. There was one objector, a parishioner whose house overlooked the churchyard, who objected to the installation on aesthetic grounds. As the proposal was that the dog would only be in the churchyard for 10 days, the Commissary General considered that, in view of the community  benefits of the project, the installation's presence would be so transitory as to make the diminution of the Church’s setting insignificant. She accordingly granted a faculty allowing the installation for 10 days.

The Parish Council, which was responsible for the maintenance of the closed churchyard at Chithurst, wished to fell an ash tree, which was suffering from ash die-back, on the grounds that the disease might cause the tree to become dangerous within the next few years and cause damage to the church or passers-by. The proposal was opposed by two neighbours. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the felling of the tree and granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to it s perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioners wished to fell a holly tree in the churchyard, because the roots were damaging a table-top tomb dated 1791. They also wished to fell a failing ash tree and to reduce the crowns of two further holly trees encroaching on graves. A report by experts said that either the tomb or the holly tree next to it should be removed. There were living descendants of those commemorated by the tomb who did not want the tomb disturbed. The Chancellor decided that the preservation of the tomb in situ was more important than the preservation of the holly tree. He also agreed to the removal of the ash tree. As regards the remaining two holly trees, the Chancellor required to petitioners to take expert advice about more modest proposals for pruning the two trees.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the re-use of an area of the churchyard in which there were no memorials and where it was believed that there had been no burials for at least 75 years.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to authorise the re-use of an area of the churchyard in which there were no memorials and where it was believed that there had been no burials for at least 150 years.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the sale to Westminster Council of an unconsecrated strip of land within the curtilage of the church. The judgment contains a discussion of the alternative ways of dealing with a conveyance of unconsecrated church curtilage.