Graves

The petitioners wished to reserve a double-depth grave in the churchyard. In 2016 the Parochial Church Council had decided on a policy of not supporting further reservations of grave spaces, owing to the relatively small number of available spaces left. Though granting a faculty on the particular facts of the present case, the Chancellor took the view that the period of a reservation should not  extend beyond the time when there would be about five years' worth of space left available. In the present case the Deputy Chancellor decided that the appropriate time limit to be placed on the reservation should be six years. The Deputy Chancellor commented that there had been a number of informal reservations allowed by a previous incumbent and that these informal reservations had no legal effect, so that the graves informally reserved were available for burials of anyone having a right of burial.

The petitioner, who did not live in the parish and therefore had no legal right to be buried in it, wished to reserve a double depth grave in the churchyard for himself and his wife, next to the grave of their son, who had died in a tragic accident at the age of 24. The associate priest objected (without becoming a party opponent) on the grounds that spaces for burial were limited and since 2021 the parish had had a policy of not approving further grave reservations, as the churchyard was likely to be full within about six years. In the circumstances, the Chancellor felt it would be unfair to override the parish policy and refused to grant a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a cremation plot next to the plot where the ashes of her son, who had died in a tragic accident, were interred in 2019. The Chancellor granted a faculty. However, the Chancellor took into account that there were only nine plots left for the burial of ashes; the annual rate of ashes interments was one per year; and the petitioner was only 46 years of age. He therefore limited the grant to a period of 10 years, with leave for the petitioner to apply for an extension within the last of the ten years, when the Chancellor's successor could decide whether to allow an extension, depending on the circumstances at that time.

The petitioner wished to reserve a singe depth grave space in the churchyard. She was a resident of the parish and on the church electoral roll, and she attended church occasionally. There were an estimated 248 graves available. However, the Parochial Church Council had passed a resolution in 2021 to adopt a policy of not supporting any further grave reservations, except in exceptional circumstances. The Chancellor considered that the reasons given for the policy were reasonable and there were no sufficiently exceptional circumstances to justify the grant of a faculty

The petitioner wished to reserve a double grave for herself and her partner. The petitioner had been resident in the parish until 2013, the remains of her father and stillborn child were buried in the churchyard, and all her immediate family still lived in the area. The normal period allowed for reservation of a grave in the diocese was 25 years. Evidence suggested that there was room for further burials only for a further 7 to 10 years. The Chancellor granted a faculty, but limited it to 10 years, giving permission to the petitioner to apply for an extension within 6 months of the expiry of the 10 years. The judgment contains a review of decisions relating to grave reservations by other Chancellors, including cases where Parochial Church Councils had adopted policies of not supporting grave reservations.

The Parochial Church Council petitioned for permission to remove all toys, ornaments and other memorabilia and edgings from 67 graves within the churchyard, many of which items had been in the churchyard for a considerable time. The Chancellor considered all written objections, including a claim that to remove such items would be in breach of the law relating to human rights, but decided that the PCC was entirely within its rights in wishing to enforce the Churchyard Regulations, and accordingly a faculty was granted.

The Court refused to grant leave to appeal in respect of the judgment of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Chester, dated 4 August 2015, when the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty giving the petitioner the right to have her ashes interred in the grave of her late partner, the wife and two daughters of the deceased partner having objected to the grant of a faculty.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty giving the petitioner the right to have her ashes interred in the grave of the late partner she had been living with for 2-3 years. The wife and two daughters of the deceased partner had objected.

The petitioner, a parishioner, whose parents and grandparents were buried in the churchyard, wished to reserve a grave space for herself and her partner. The Parochial Church Council, a few days before the date of the petition, had, without giving notice to parishioners, decided to adopt a policy of no grave reservations, even though there was said to be enough room in the churchyard for burials for the next 50 years. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioner had made a good case for the reservation of a grave and granted a faculty.

The petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the old part of the churchyard in 2020. In 2021, the petitioner applied for a faculty to reserve the adjoining grave space for her two sons, intending that the two graves would form a double family grave. She subsequently withdrew the petition. However, she arranged, without seeking permission, for kerbs to be set around her husband’s grave and the adjoining one, and for stones, pebbles and a planter to be laid within the kerbs, in anticipation of applying in due course for the reservation of the grave adjoining that of her husband’s. In 2022, the Parochial Church Council (PCC) passed a resolution not to support any more grave reservations. The Petitioner later applied for two faculties: (1) to retrospectively authorise the kerbs and stones; and (2) to reserve the grave adjoining her husband’s grave for herself. Notwithstanding the PCC resolution, and for the reasons stated in the judgment, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the reservation of the grave exclusively for the petitioner, conditional upon the petitioner first removing the kerbs and stones and re-grassing the area at her own expense.