Display:

The petitioners wished to install two new gas-fired central heating boilers in the link structure between the church and the new vestry, to replace a single 17 year old gas-fired boiler installed in the same link structure and a 25 year old oil-fired boiler installed in a Victorian boiler-house 20 metres from the church. There was one written objection that the proposed installation would take up valuable storage space. The Deputy Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petitioner sought a confirmatory faculty to permit the retention of some kerbs and slate chippings which were introduced at the grave of his late father without the prior authority of a faculty. The petitioner later gave notice that he wished to withdraw his petition. In his judgment, the Chancellor granted leave to withdraw the petition and stated that, as a consequence, a retrospective faculty could not be granted; the kerbs and chippings should be removed to a secure place and, if the kerbs and chippings were not removed by the petitioner within 6 weeks, the churchwardens could remove them and dispose of them as they wished.

The Vicar and Churchwardens sought permission (1) to install four timber bollards along the boundary of a cobbled approach to the churchyard and (2) to install an iron gate and fence within the church boundary to prevent entry of livestock. The bollards would prevent parking on a cobbled area between the road and a cottage, through which passed a passage to the churchyard. The owner of the cottage objected. The Chancellor granted a faculty. As regards the bollards, the Chancellor gave the petitioners a period of 20 years in which to install the bollards, if parking on the cobbled access continued to be a problem.

The petitioner wished to place inside the church a memorial to his parents, Leslie Allison Godfree and Kathleen ("Kitty") Godfree. Kitty Godfree won the Wimbledon Ladies Championship in 1924 and 1926, and she and her husband were both doubles champions. Kitty's remains were buried in the churchyard. The Parochial Church Council objected. Since the end of the First World War no plaques have been installed in St . Mary's and the PCC did not see any reason to make an exception for the Godfrees, which might set a precedent for others to try to follow. The Chancellor determined that there was a sufficient degree of exceptionality to justify allowing the proposed memorial. Kitty Godfree's achievements were of general public interest. He granted a faculty, subject to the proposed instcription being shortened.

The Parochial Church Council proposed a reordering of the church interior, including: modifications to the west end of the church to provide improved access, WC facilities, baby changing, staircase to balcony, meeting room and kitchen; relocation and modification of the west end doors and Georgian balcony, screen and balustrade; provision of 70 chairs to be used on the reinforced balcony; the removal of all the nave pews and their replacement with 130 chairs. This judgment is limited to the replacement of the nave pews with chairs. The Church Buildings Council and English Heritage were parties opponent. The Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a good case for the replacement of the pews and granted a faculty, subject to a condition that the replacement of the pews was not to be carried out until the petitioners had obtained a faculty for the other  proposed items of reordering.

The parish priest sought a direction from the Chancellor as to whether it was permissible, within the diocesan churchyards regulations, to allow a memorial inscription which included Chinese characters. The Chancellor determined that, notwithstanding the recent decision in Re St. Giles Exhall [2020] ECC Cov 1, that the Irish expression, 'In ár gcroíthe go deo', could only appear on a headstone if it was accompanied by its English translation, ‘in our hearts forever’, it was appropriate to include a phrase in a foreign language, without a translation, provided that the phrase did not offend Christian doctrine or teaching. The Chancellor therefore made a declaration giving appropriate guidance to the clergy of the diocese as an addendum to the churchyards regulations.

The petitioner's father had been buried in the churchyard in 1982. In 1983, the petitioner's mother obtained a faculty reserving the grave next to her husband, as the stony nature of the ground had not permitted the digging of a double depth grave for the two of them. When the petitioner's mother died in 2015, it was found that another burial had encroached on the reserved grave, so that it was not possible for the petitioner's mother to be buried in the grave she had reserved. Her body was buried in a nearby grave. The petitioner, after some delay, applied for a faculty to authorise the exhumation of his father's body and for it to be reinterred in a grave next to that of the petitioner's mother. The Chancellor was satisfied that a mistake had been made and, notwithstanding the delay by the petitioner in presenting a petition, the Chancellor granted a faculty for the exhumation and reinterment

A substantial internal reordering was proposed for a Grade II* listed church, as well as extensive external works. There were objections from the Victorian Society and several individuals, none of whom sought to be parties opponent. The principal objection of all the objectors was to the removal of the pews (to be replaced with upholstered chairs). The pews were installed in 1952, to replace the former pews destroyed by bomb damage to the church during the Second World War. The Chancellor was "satisfied that the benefits that are potentially available significantly outweigh [the] detriment and that the interests of this church in terms of its remaining a living entity for generations to come requires change rather than no change." Faculty granted.

The incumbent applied for a Faculty to authorise him to enter into a deed of release of rights to light on two sides of a church, in order to allow a developer to carry out development on adjoining land, 'subject to "the Church" being paid £20,000'. The Chancellor decided that an Incumbent had no power to grant a legal easement, and therefore no power to enter into a deed of release of an easement. However, the Chancellor said that the matter could be dealt with by "the incumbent licensing the construction on land adjoining the church of a building which will obstruct the light to the church".

The proposed reordering included re-plastering and redecoration; reordering of the west end of the nave by the creation of an enclosed, separately heated, community area and associated kitchen facilities; re-location of the font; relocation of a memorial; removal of the rear row of nave pews; and the addition of glass doors at the main entrance of the Church. The most controversial element was the proposed new meeting room at the west end of the church. The Victorian Society maintained that it would not harmonise with the rest of the church building. However, the Deputy Chancellor determined that the petitioners had made a clear and convincing justification for the proposed works. He accordingly granted a faculty.