Display:

Petition for the removal of box pews, installation of new flooring and under-floor heating, WCs, a kitchen, and removal of the font. The whole project was dependent on the removal of the box pews. Faculty granted.

The incumbent refused to approve the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad" in the inscription for a  memorial, the reason given being that the parochial church councils of the benefice had agreed, in a written policy, that (inter alia) only the words "Father" and "Grandfather" should be used on memorials. The Chancellor could find no real justification for this policy and granted a faculty to authorise the use of the words "Dad" and "Grandad", which she did not find objectionable. (Although not a reason for the decision, it is noted in the judgment that 15 inscriptions on memorials in the churchyard used the words “Dad” or “Grandad” and there were 12 examples which showed use of female equivalents, such as “Mum” or “Nan”.)

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.

A faculty was granted to permit the replacement of stolen lead roofing with a non-metal roofing material known as Ubiflex. The faculty was limited to a period of five years.

The petitioners wished to place in the churchyard a bench made of steel with slats made from recycled plastic. The Diocesan Advisory Committee ('DAC') did not recommend the proposal. They considered the design not suitable for a historic village churchyard, but more appropriate for a school or city centre, and that a timber bench would be more appropriate. The Chancellor granted a faculty. He did not think it appropriate or necessary to overrule the choice of the Parochial Church Council ('PCC') on grounds of aesthetics. However, he imposed a condition that the PCC should reconsider the design and materials of the bench. If they decided on an alternative, then the alternative would be allowed, subject to prior approval by the DAC. Otherwise, the design accompanying the petition was approved.

The petition proposed a churchyard memorial in the form of a wheeled cross on an open plinth and solid base. Whilst the design was outside the churchyards regulations, the Chancellor determined that the design was both both attractive and appropriate for a churchyard setting, and he accordingly granted a faculty.

The petitioners (the Rector, a Churchwarden and the PCC Secretary) sought a faculty to authorise the removal of three pews from the east end of the nave, two on the south side and one on the north side, in order to provide space for those with wheelchairs, for instrumentalists and singers, for a projector and screen on the south side. and to give more space for those attending wedding couples. The Chancellor determined that the modest harm to the character of the church would be outweighed by the clear and significant public benefit flowing from the proposal.

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.

This was an appeal from a decision of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Peterborough, who had refused to grant a faculty for the sale of certain items of church silver. The reason for the proposed sale of the "redundant" silver had been to start a fund to meet the cost of building an extension to the church. The Court of Arches dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Chancellor in his judgment: the application to sell the silver was premature; there was no immediate financial crisis; planning permission had not yet been obtained (in fact planning permission had been refused two years earlier and no appeal had been made against the decision); there had not yet been any appeal for funds, and so one could not argue that the proceeds of a sale of the silver were vital to the completion of the project.

The Incumbent and Churchwardens sought permission to sell a Georgian silver flagon and matching alms dish dated 1774, a silver chalice and paten dated 1570 and the surviving part of an illuminated medieval missal. The Council for the Care of Churches suggested that the missal should be deposited in the County Records Office. This was agreed, and a faculty was granted in respect of that item. The silver had not been used for over 20 years and the proposed sale was with a view to starting a fund to cover the cost of an extension to the church, the cost of which would be in th region of £300,000. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the sale. Church silver should only be sold as a last resort. The application to sell the silver was premature. There was no immediate financial crisis. Planning permission had not yet been obtained. In fact planning permission had been refused two years earlier and no appeal had been made against the decision. There had not yet been any appeal for funds, and so one could not argue that the proceeds of a sale of the silver were vital to the completion of the project.