Graves

Faculty refused for the reservation of a grave space for the petitioner's children, none of whom had a legal right to be buried in the churchyard. The PCC objected on the ground that the grave would be in the way of a proposed extension to the churchyard, and the Team Rector, for the same reason, would not give consent. The Chancellor stated that, where a person does not have a legal right of burial, the consent of the incumbent is required.

The Chancellor refused to grant faculties for the reservation of two separate grave spaces in the churchyard, notwithstanding that the applicants had connections with the church. The churchyard was likely to be full within 5 years. The Chancellor said that the remaining spaces must be filled by the burial of individuals with a right of burial or a strong connection with the church in the order in which they die, until such time as the churchyard becomes full.

The Petitioners sought to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their daughter. The priest in charge and churchwardens became parties opponent, objecting to the reservation on the grounds that the PCC had for many years had a policy of resisting the reservation of gravespaces and of operating a “first come first served” approach, which many parishioners had followed. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty on the basis that, where there was a long-standing PCC policy in place, he should not override that policy unless there was an exceptional reason for doing so. To grant a faculty in this case "would be to create the risk of real injustice to others who in circumstances of loss have themselves accepted the existing policy".

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.

There were two applications to reserve grave spaces in a churchyard where there was space for only two to three more years of interments. In the first case, a man aged 54, who did not live in the parish and was not on the electoral roll, wished to reserve a grave for himself and his son aged 21. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: “To grant a faculty for the time for which grave spaces will be available would be pointless; to grant one for longer would inevitably cause injustice to those with the right of interment in the churchyard who would consequently not be able to exercise that right.” In the second case, the petitioner, who was aged 85 and lived in the parish and attended the church, wished to reserve a double-depth grave for herself and her husband aged 88. After the petition was presented, the petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the churchyard. However, the Chancellor stated that, had the petitioner’s husband not died, the Chancellor would have granted a faculty in view of the couple’s entitlement to burial in the churchyard and their advanced ages.

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