Graves

The petitioners, who had lived in the parish since 1978, applied to reserve a double grave. At an unspecified date since 1978, the PCC had adopted a policy of not supporting future grave reservations. The Chancellor granted a faculty, as he was satisfied that the couple had been given the impression before the policy was adopted that they would be able to be buried in the churchyard: "It would be unreasonable, in my view in all the circumstances not to honour that indication."

The petitioners wished to reserve a single-width, double-depth grave space. They did not live in the parish, but attended the church occasionally and supported the church financially. Some parishioners objected to graves being reserved, saying that interments should be on a "first come, first served" basis. The Chancellor determined that it was appropriate to grant a faculty in this case: the petitioners had shown a sufficient connection with the church; at the time when the petition was lodged, the PCC had no formal policy about grave reservations; the PCC had supported the petition; and there was space in the churchyard for 20-30 years of burials.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of a grave space for 20 years, rather than for the customary 50 years. In view of the number of spaces available and the rate of interments, the graveyard could be full and closed before a longer reservation would need to be exercised. The Chancellor gave the petitioner leave to apply for an extension of the period of 20 years within six months of its expiry.

The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of a double depth grave space for the  period of 50 years usually allowed. He distinguished this case from Re St. Mark Ocker Hill Tipton [2022] ECC Lic 4, where he limited the reservation for 20 years, because the graveyard could be full and closed before a longer reservation would need to be exercised; in the present case, one of the joint petitioners was terminally ill, so that the double plot would be in use quite soon.

A priest, who (and whose family) had several connections with the church and village, wished to reserve a grave space. The Parochial Church Council ('PCC') objected on the basis that it had made a policy decision in 2012 (reaffirmed in 2020) of not approving any reservations of graves, but to have a 'first-come, first-served' policy, though the present incumbent and self-supporting minister of the parish supported the present application. The Chancellor stated that weight should always be given to such a PCC policy, but such a policy could not override the discretion of the Chancellor, should an exceptional case arise. The Chancellor decided that in this case the petitioner had shown such a degree of exceptionality as to justify the grant of a faculty.

The PCC had passed a resolution in 2009 that it would not support future applications for the reservation of graves, as it was estimated that the churchyard would be full within ten years. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the reservation of a grave for a parishioner and his wife, who wished to be buried in a grave next to the Pet‭itioner's mother: "I have

There was an application for a faculty to create a grave in the east end of the north aisle of the Grade I church for the reburial of the remains of Capt. Matthew Flinders, the  famous navigator and cartographer, and the installation of a new ledger stone above the grave. Capt. Flinders' coffin, bearing his name, had been discovered in 2019 during HS2 works to expand Euston Station, and the proposal was to return his remains to the town where he was born. The churchyard had been closed for burials from 1 August 1865, but an Order in Council in 2020 added an exception to the original Order in Council, to allow the interment of Capt. Flinders' remains in the north aisle of the church. The Chancellor determined that, notwithstanding the 2020 Order in Council, a faculty was still needed to authorise the interment in the church, and there needed to be exceptional circumstances to allow an interment inside the church. He decided that the circumstances were exceptional, and that allowing the burial in church would not set a precedent, as the Orders in Council prevented any further burials. He therefore granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard next to the grave of her father. Several of her relatives were buried in the churchyard. The petitioner did not live in the parish, but in another parish in the same benefice, and she was not on the church electoral roll. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) had had a policy for at least 15 years of not supporting applications for the reservation of graves, as a result of which several letters of objection from parishioners were received in response to this application. The Chancellor determined that the PCC's policy was not unreasonable, and he could find no sufficient grounds to go against the policy. He therefore refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve for himself and his wife a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of his mother, who had died a few months previously. There was room for only five years’ worth of new graves, at the current rate of one a year, though the Parochial Church Council (the PCC) had resolved to re-use burial plots that had not had any burials in them for at least 150 years, so as to create at least another 50 grave spaces. The petitioner lived in the village and had strong connections with the church, and the PCC strongly supported the petition. The Chancellor determined that, in view of the PCC’s plans to reuse part of the churchyard for burials to meet the future needs of the parish, it was appropriate for him to grant a faculty.

The four petitioners (one of whom wished to be cremated) petitioned to reserve exclusive rights of burial for 30 years in a triple-depth grave next to their parents' grave. The churchyard only had space for burials for 20 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited the reservation to 20 years.