Graves

In 1953 a faculty had been granted to the petitioner's grandfather to permit the erection of a memorial and the creation of a vault reserving to the petitioner's grandfather and the members of his family the right of burial in the vault. The present petitioner's grandparents and other deceased members of the family had since been buried in the vault. There were six shelves in the vault, of which four had been used. The petitioner wished to reserve the remaining two shelves for the burial of himself and his fiancee. The petitioner's cousin objected to a faculty being granted on the grounds that the reservations would prevent any further members of the family (who might predecease the petitioner and his fiancee) from being placed in the vault, and because she felt that the terms of the orginal faculty limited the right of interment to direct descendants only. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty, but directed that (a) a person who married into the family would be eligible to be buried in the vault; (b) an interment should be treated as including the placing of cremated remains in the vault; and (c) if "space remains on any given shelf for the seemly custody of the cremated remains of more than one person then it is permissible for there to be such remains of more than one person on each shelf in the vault."

The Chancellor considered four applications for faculties to reserve graves in the churchyard. The Chancellor was concerned that there were very few grave spaces left unoccupied, and that the Parochial Church Council had already applied for closure of the churchyard in six months time, which he considered premature. After discussing the approach of other Chancellors to applications for the reservation of graves, the Chancellor decided to grant reservations in two of the present applications, where the applicants were in their 60s and 70s, they were longstanding residents, and they had strong connections with the church. But he refused the other two applications, where the applicants were in their 30s and 40s, did not live in the parish and had little connection with the church. The Chancellor did not consider that having a relative buried in the churchyard was of itself a sufficient reason to grant a faculty to reserve a grave.

The petitioner, aged 84, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. She did not live in the parish, but was baptised, confirmed and married at the church, and numbers of her relatives were buried in the churchyard, including her parents, grandparents and great grandparents. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty, because there was limited grave space left; the Parochial Church Council had a policy of not supporting reservations, and they were concerned about managing a diminishing resource. However, the Chancellor felt confident that the petitioner's strong connections with the church would be properly taken into account at the time of her death.

The petitioners, husband and wife, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. They did not live in the parish or regularly attend the church, and therefore did not have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The reason for their application was that a number of relatives were buried in the churchyard. There was a limited number of grave spaces left in the churchyard. The Chancellor determined that, with few grave spaces left, the rights of the parishioners would be prejudiced by the grant of a faculty, and he therefore declined to grant one.

The petitioners, husband and wife, wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard. They did not live in the parish or attend the church, and therefore did not have a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The reason for their application was that their son and daughter-in-law had reserved a grave next to the plot which the petitioners wished to reserve. There was a limited number of grave spaces left in the churchyard. Although the petitioners had some historic links with the parish, the Chancellor determined that, with few grave spaces left, the rights of the parishioners would be prejudiced by the grant of a faculty, and he therefore declined to grant one.

The petitioner wished to reserve a triple-depth grave for himself, his brother and his sister. The Parochial Church Council("the PCC") was opposed to the reservation of the grave, as it had maintained a policy of not supporting the reservation of gravespaces for at least forty years. The Chancellor found that there were exceptional reasons to allow the grant of a faculty: (1) the grave would be for three family members; (2) the graveyard already contained the graves of a number of members of the petitioner’s family; (3) there were concerns (undisclosed in the judgment) which were personal to the petitioner. The Chancellor also noted that, notwithstanding the policy of the PCC, members of the PCC were sympathetic to the petitioner's request.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave next to the grave of her late husband in the churchyard at Radley. She had originally approached the incumbent about reserving a space immediately after her husband had died, before the Parochial Church Council (PCC) subsequently decided that there should be a policy of no further reservations and she had understood that the reservation would not be a problem. The incumbent and PCC in fact supported the reservation. The Chancellor granted a faculty, even though it was estimated that there was only sufficient space in the churchyard for burials within the next three years. The petitioner had resided in the parish for over 50 years, and her family had strong connections with the church, and many members of the family were buried in the churchyard. Furthermore, the petitioner being part of the Romany Community, which believed in burial, cremation was not an option. Also, the PCC was actively looking at options for further burial space within the parish.

Eltham churchyard was closed by Order in Council. The cremated remains of the petitioner's father had been interred near the west end of the church in 1961 and the interment was marked by a memorial stone measuring 18 inches by 12 inches. In 1989, the incumbent agreed with the petitioner and her mother, that their ashes could in due time be interred next to the ashes of the petitioner's father, though there was only room for one more commemoration on the memorial. The petitioner's mother died in 2020 and her cremated remains were interred under her husband's memorial stone. The petitioner sought a faculty, (1) to secure the arrangement agreed with the incumbent in 1989, so that her own cremated remains could in due time be buried next to those of her parents, (2) to permit a further stone next to the memorial to her parents; and (3) to replace the existing stone, which had weathered badly. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space. It was estimated that there were enough grave spaces in the churchyard for a period of 11 years. The Chancellor had given a preliminary indication that he was prepared to grant a reservation for 11 years, but the petitioner had objected to such a short period. The normal period allowed in the Diocese of Oxford was 25 years. The Chancellor determined that a faculty should be granted to reserve a grave for 11 years, giving the petitioner leave to apply for an extension during the final year, when the Chancellor's successor could decide whether to allow an extension, depending on the circumstances at that time.

The petitioner, a non-parishioner, wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for herself and her partner, next to the plot in which her father was buried. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. There were only 50 available spaces, and burials averaged 7 a year. The petitioner, aged 31, was unlikely to die before the remaining spaces were required within about 7 years' time by those legally entitled to be buried in the churchyard, and so a reservation would prevent parishioners being buried in the remaining spaces.