Display:

The contentious items of a major proposed reordering were: remodelling of the porch; replacement of the pews with upholstered chairs; a dais and ramp; relocation of the font; and removal of the stalls in the chancel. In fact some of the pews had been sold and removed before the petition came before the Chancellor, who directed that steps be taken to recover the pew benches until he had made a decision. However, having considered the evidence at a hearing, the Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for the changes, and he granted a faculty, provided that the type of replacement chair and the disposal of the chancel stalls should be reserved matters, not to be proceeded with in advance of further advice from the DAC and approval of the court.

The petition comprised two proposals for the Grade II Victorian church: firstly, "a relatively modest re-ordering of the north aisle and related works" and, secondly, the formation of a car park. There was one objector, who chose not to become a party opponent. Applying the approach of the Court of Arches in Re St Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor was satisfied that the works, if implemented, would not result in harm to the significance of the church as a building of special architectural or historic interest.

Proposals for reordering related principally to the south aisle of the church, which is wider than the nave. The church has a Grade I listing, and is described as "heavily pewed". The main proposal was to remove the pews from the south aisle and replace them with stackable, chrome-framed, upholstered chairs, in order to provide greater and more flexible use of the south aisle, the church not having a church hall. The Chancellor was satisfied that the benefits to the church of replacing the pews outweighed any harm caused by their, and therefore granted a faculty for the replacement of the pews. However, he did not grant permission for chrome-framed chairs, but approved stackable Howe 40/4 chairs in oak frames, which had been considered as an alternative, but were more expensive. Appended to the judgment are further directions regarding the approval of Theo oak stacking chairs made by Chorus.

The Court refused to grant leave to appeal in respect of the judgment of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Chester, dated 4 August 2015, when the Chancellor refused to grant a faculty giving the petitioner the right to have her ashes interred in the grave of her late partner, the wife and two daughters of the deceased partner having objected to the grant of a faculty.

The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty giving the petitioner the right to have her ashes interred in the grave of the late partner she had been living with for 2-3 years. The wife and two daughters of the deceased partner had objected.

The Deputy Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for a memorial which was outside the diocesan churchyards regulations in a number of aspects, including: the design in the shape of a double heart; the stone wider than the maximum permitted under the regulations; polished blue granite; a green and white floral motif.

The Petitioner sought a faculty to erect in Maughold churchyard, forthwith and before his death, a memorial in the shape of a Buddhist stupa. The memorial was to include the inscription: 'He wanted green dandelions', a statement described as a Buddhist 'koan', an illogical statement designed to aid meditation. The Vicar General refused to grant a faculty to permit the petitioner to place the stupa in the churchyard in advance of his death, and stated that the inscription would have to be considered when and if an application for a faculty was made after the Petitioner's death.

In the severe winter of 1980/81, the petitioner's father died. The churchyard being deep in snow, the parish priest recommended cremation followed by interment of the ashes in a sheltered spot by the church. The petitioner's mother died in June 2018, aged 102, and in accordance with her wishes her body had been buried in the churchyard. The petitioner now wished to have her father's ashes exhumed and interred in her mother's grave. The Chancellor decided that the circumstance in which the petitioner's father's remains had been interred, combined with her mother's expressed hope that her husband’s remains could in due course be moved so that she and he could be in the same plot, amounted to exceptional circumstances allowing him to grant a faculty for exhumation.

The faculty petition proposed the disposal of a wooden lectern. The petitioning churchwarden stated that the lectern was not being used, was unlikely to be used again, and was merely taking up space. The lectern bore an inscription to say that it had been given by a significant benefactor of the church in memory of her brother, who was a priest, but who had spent no part of his ministry in the parish. He had died in 1925. The Church Buildings Council recommended that, ‘as a good furnishing that has a long association with the church, this should be retained. The Council recognised it was redundant in terms of use but deemed it to be a high quality item and of interest as a memorial.’ The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty.

There were extensive proposals for restoration of and improvements to the Grade I listed church. There were five objectors, but none were parties opponent. The church contains a scheme of paintings on plaster panels, lining the nave and chancel walls, executed in 1941-42 by Duncan Grant and Quentin and Vanessa Bell. One of the concerns was as to the conservation of the paintings. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied however that adequate expert advice was being sought about the conservation work. Another item of contention was the retention of the front pipework of the old organ, which was being replaced by a digital organ. The petitioners argued that this would provide a sense of continuity with the previous organ arrangements. The Deputy Chancellor was satisfied with all the proposals and granted a faculty.