Display:

Faculty granted for votive candle stand. Judgment contains a discussion as to the legality of the use of votive candles in church.

The proposed reordering works included removal of some pews; alterations to the low wall between nave and chancel; creation of storage units in the Berkeley Chapel; raised platform in front of the choir and new nave altar; display cabinets near font; servery; toilets; glazing of tower arch and a new screen wall in front of the tower. The main object was to provide a more welcoming and useful space, especially for large gatherings. There were several objectors to the proposals, but no parties opponent. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty for all the works.

The Archdeacon of Dorking applied for a restoration order in respect of a vault, covered by a marble slab, constructed in the churchyard by the previous incumbent as a place of interment for himself and his mother. The grounds for the application were that the place in question was subject to a closing order rendering future burials unlawful, that the construction of the vault was in contravention of the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and that the placing of the memorial was performed without the sanction of a faculty. The Archdeacon therefore sought an order for the removal of the vault. The respondent claimed that he had acquired rights of burial from the successors of the person to whom rights were originally granted by faculty in 1915, and that those rigths were unaffected by the closing order. The Chancellor determined that the respondent did not lawfully have the rights originally granted and that the marble slab shold be removed and the vault filled in with earth, rather than have the vault dismantled.

Faculty granted for the exhumation of cremated remains and their reinterment in a family grave in the nearby cemetery, even though the remains had not been interred in a casket, but poured into a hole in the ground.

In 2016 the Chancellor of the Diocese of Chester granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. An application was subsequently made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was later withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order.

In 2015 a petition was presented in the Diocese of Chester, seeking permission to construct a new church centre at Upton St. Mary at a cost of £1.6m. This would involve the demolition of an adjacent hall. There were objections. On 30 November 2015 the Chancellor gave an interim judgment dealing with the question of whether the adjacent building was within the curtilage of the church. The Chancellor concluded that it was, and so it was within his jurisdiction. For the chancellor's full judgment, see Re St. Mary Upton [2016] ECC Chr 3.

The Chancellor granted a faculty for the proposed new church centre. Following the judgment an application was made by the objectors to the Chancery Court of York for leave to appeal. By an Order dated 20 December 2016, the Auditor of the Chancery Court gave leave to appeal on only one of the grounds put forward by the objectors. The appeal to the Chancery Court of York was subsequently withdrawn as the result of a Consent Order. See Re St. Mary Upton (or Overchurch) (Order) [2016] ECCY 1.

Review of original judgment following objections of Parish Council (after the grant of a Faculty) to the removal of pews and replacement with chairs. Faculty confirmed.

The petition proposed a major reordering, including the removal of pews from the nave and their replacement with Howe 40/4 chairs; alteration of choir pews and other reordering of the chancel; installation of underfloor heating; extensive re-flooring; removal of walls at the west end of the church and installation of glass screens and doors. The Victorian Society was a party opponent. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty, concluding that this was an exceptional case where extensive reordering was necessary to meet the needs of the church and the local community.

Faculty granted by the Chancellor, authorising the removal of kerb stones from the churchyard, being satisfied that the proposal had been sufficiently publicised and no memorial owner had expressed objection to the works being carried out.