Display:

The Chancellor refused to permit on a headstone a design of two intersecting triangles and a '12 spoked Dharmachakra', an Indian religious symbol, as he could not see in the design anything consistent with the three general principles of honouring the dead, comforting the living, and informing posterity, nor was there anything in the design to indicate the Christian hope of resurrection. 

The petitioner's father's body had been buried in a triple depth grave in 1976. In 1999 the cremated remains of the petitioner's grandfather had been buried in the same grave at a depth of two feet. The petitioner's mother died and before her death she had expressed a wish for a coffin burial in the same grave as her husband, but this could not be achieved without disturbing the cremated remains in the grave. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the cremated remains to be exhumed and reinterred at the head of the grave, in order to allow the burial of the petitioner's mother's body with that of her husband.

The cemetery has two lodges. One has been used for many years as a private residence, and the other as Council offices. The land on which the lodges were built is not consecrated, but the immediately adjacent land used as garden is consecrated. The local Council wished to sell both lodges for use as private residences with gardens. The Chancellor determined that the consecrated pieces of land to be used as gardens (which contained a number of recorded burials, but none within the last 100 years) could not lawfully be sold by the Council, but the Chancellor was willing to grant a faculty to authorise the granting of licences by the Council for the two pieces of land to be used as gardens.

The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the exhumation of the body of the petitioner's father, who died in 1992, in order that the body might be cremated and the ashes taken to Italy to be interred with the cremated remains of the petitioner's mother, who died in 2015, in a family grave in the village where the petitioners' parents had been brought up and were married.

A husband and wife sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of the wife's father ("the deceased"), who died in 1982, from the consecrated part of Gravesend Cemetery with a view to the remains being scattered in the Thames View Crematorium along with the cremated remains of the deceased's late wife, who had recently died. The Chancellor could find no special circumstance which would justify him in granting a faculty.

It was proposed to replace the existing chairs in the nave of the Priory with 280 wooden chairs, with upholstered seats and backs, and also install 40 additional Howe stacking chairs to match ones already in the north choir aisle. The Diocesan Advisory, English Heritage and the Chancellor had reservations about the proposed colour of the upholstery, a strong brick red. Subject to agreement by the Parochial Church Council, the Chancellor granted a faculty, subject to the colour of the upholstery being of a more subdued colour.

When his mother's body was interred in the cemetery in 1989, the petitioner obtained rights of burial for himself and his wife in the adjoining plot. In 2018, the burial authority dug a grave in the plot reserved by the petitioner. The burial authority's mistake was only discovered on the morning of the intended burial. Rather than insist that the burial authority stopped the funeral, the petitioner, out of compassion for the family concerned, allowed the burial to take place in the plot he had reserved. The petitioner then applied for a faculty to have his mother's body exhumed with a view to reinterment in a burial chamber on the petitioner's farm land, the chamber being a secure structure, and capable of accommodating the bodies of the petitioner and his wife after their deaths. It would then be completely sealed by the family. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional circumstances to justify him granting a faculty as requested.

The petitioners applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of their father's ashes and reinterment in the plot containing the ashes of their mother. The father had died in 2006. His ashes had been buried in the cemetery and a memorial placed over the plot. Space was left for the name of the mother on the memorial. When the mother died in 2017, it was discovered that the father's ashes had been buried only two feet deep, so it was not possible to inter a further casket of ashes in the same plot. The petitioners therefore had their mother's ashes buried at double depth in a nearby plot and applied for a faculty to move their father's ashes to the same plot. The Chancellor decided that this was a case where he could exercise his discretion in allowing exhumation and reinterment, on the basis that the burial authority had made a mistake by failing to make it clear that a further burial in the first plot would not be possible.

The proposals included a small extension to the church to accommodate toilets and a plant room. The DAC opposed the proposals, stating that “the elevations of the proposed extension are not in proportion to the mass and scale of the church.” However, Historic England were pleased that the petitioners had followed their recommendation to reduce the size of the proposed extension, which meant that it would be more easily assimilated by the church building as a whole. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The peitioner wished to have the body of her husband exhumed from the cemetery and reinterred in a Roman Catholic cemetery (both were Roman Catholics). She claimed that there had been a mistake in the burial, as the plot was unsuitable, being close to the edge of a five foot drop and it would not support a memorial. The Chancellor stated that this was not a case of 'mistake', so as to justify the grant of a faculty, but he nevertheless granted a faculty for exhumation on the basis of the petitioner not having been made aware of the significance of consecration in accordance with the rites of the Church of England.