Graves

The petitioner applied for a faculty giving her the right to be buried in the same grave as her former partner, with whom she had lived for 25 years until his death in 1986. The family of the deceased's first partner, who died in 1957, objected to the petitioner having the right to be buried in the same grave as their father, there having been a division between the two families. The Chancellor declined to grant a faculty: "In my judgment the dispute between the parties weighs in favour of non-intervention."

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."

Grant of a Faculty for the creation of a new, dedicated area for the burial of cremated remains (“ABCR”), but upon strict conditions.  The church is a Grade II listed building located in a conservation area. The management of the churchyard had proved problematic.  Whilst provision of an ABCR was uncontroversial, the current proposals were not recommended by DAC because of the proposed plot size being excessively large and the proposed use of headstone was inconsistent with the Churchyard Regulations.  The plot size was directed to be reduced and the only memorial at the point of interment permitted would be a plaque installed flush to the surface of the ground (notwithstanding retrospective permission for larger memorials having been retrospectively permitted previously).

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.

By mistake, the same burial plot had been reserved for two families. The reservations had been made 30 years apart. The burial of a member of the first family had been carried out in 1977 and it was the expectation of the deceased’s sister, who had a terminal health condition, that she would be buried with her brother in due time, in accordance with the reservation of the grave. The ashes of two members of the second family to reserve the plot had been interred in the plot in 2008 and 2009. After the mistake came to light, an application was made to exhume the ashes interred in 2008 and 2009, and to reinter them elsewhere in the churchyard. Two members of the second family objected, but the Chancellor considered that greater harm would be caused to the first family if the petition were refused. He therefore granted a faculty.

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.