Display:

The petitioner wished to remove her father's cremated remains from Wymering's separate churchyard extension to a family plot in Waterlooville Cemetery, where the petitioners' mother wished to have her remains interred in due course. Other reasons given for the proposal were that the family had expected the ashes to be buried in the area set aside for cremated remains in the churchyard, but at the funeral they did not feel able to object to the grave having been dug in the extension. Also, the grave was in a position under what was now a large overgrowing tree. Whilst the location and condition of the plot would not in themselves be grounds to justify exhumation, the Chancellor did not think it would be a satisfactory solution to suggest that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried with her husband's ashes in the existing plot, or that the petitioner's mother's ashes should be buried separate from her husband's, in view of the distress which that would cause to the family. He therefore granted a faculty for the exhumation and reinterment as requested.

The petitioners wished to reserve a grave in the churchyard next to the grave of their son. Two parishioners objected: one, on the grounds that the churchyards regulations did not allow a grave reservation; and the other, on the grounds that the reservation would create a gap in a row of graves. The Chancellor granted a faculty. The first objector had misunderstood the purpose of the churchyard regulations, which did not prohibit a grave reservation, and, as regards the second objection, there would be only a modest effect on the appearance of the churchyard. The petitioners (who were in their 60s) were parishioners and entitled to be buried in the churchyard; there was sufficient room for burials for approximately thirty years; and there was a good reason for the petitioners wishing to be buried next to their son.

The petitioner, a churchwarden, sought a confirmatory faculty for  the installation on the church tower of radio internet repeater equipment to provide internet access within the Church without the need for the installation of a telephone line. A neighbour had initially been concerned about the impact of the equipment on the health of himself and his family and he also raised concerns about safe access for maintenance of the equipment.  However, the Chancellor was satisfied that the neighbour's concerns had been largely assuaged and that the impact of the installed equipment upon the historical significance of the listed Church building would be negligible. He therefore granted a confirmatory faculty.

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard for himself and his wife. They lived in the parish and had relatives buried in the churchyard, including their daughter, who had died in a road traffic accident at the age of 26. The Parochial Church Council did not support the application, as it had exercised a policy for some time of not supporting grave reservations. It was estimated that the churchyard would be full in 18 years' time. The Chancellor decided that there were exceptional circumstances justifying the grant of a faculty.

The petitioners sought a confirmatory faculty for works carried out some years before, including two areas of temporary reordering at the east end of the nave and the east end of the south aisle, the introduction of a grand piano, the removal of pews at the west end of the north aisle to allow for the introduction of a timber carving of the nativity by Graham Clarke and the making permanent of an audio visual installation. The Commissary General granted a faculty, subject to a condition, inter alia, that the petitioners should discuss with the Diocesan Advisory Committee ways of mitigating the visually intrusive reflective aspect of the audio-visual screens.

Staff of the Leeds City Council instructed its workmen to erect a fence along the perimeter of the closed churchyard (for which the Council was responsible), to prevent a recurrence of recent anti-social behaviour, involving youths standing on the churchyard wall and throwing stones at traffic. The Council did so without first seeking a faculty or planning consent from its own planning department, even though a meeting had been arranged for interested parties to discuss the best fencing solution. The Chancellor took "a dim view of the petitioner’s conduct in this matter, notwithstanding that it may have originally been animated by an understandable sense of civic responsibility ... the execution of that good intention was characterised by ineptitude, discourtesy and illegality". However, notwithstanding the failings of the Council, the Chancellor decided that a Confirmatory Faculty should be granted.

The petitioners sought a faculty for an extensive re-ordering and refurbishment of the Grade II church. There were seventy objectors, of whom three became parties opponent. The Chancellor approved the proposals relating to reordering of the West Gallery; demolition of the redundant boiler house and building of an extension to provide a meeting room, kitchen and toilet facilities; reordering of the Chancel; glazing to the South Door; and refurbishment of the pulpit, but felt that the petitioners had not made out a sufficient case to justify the remaining items, including reordering of the pews; relocation and reordering of the font; removal of the pulpit; and removal of the organ.

The 2010 Faculty for reordering was amended to allow for certain consequential works, which included approval for the remodelling of the pulpit steps.

The Petitioner sought permission to move the font to a position in an area immediately to the west side of the main entrance to the church in the north wall and to remove three pews and install a redundant choir stall frontal in order to create a Baptistery area around the repositioned font. (This was a different proposal to the one contained in the 2010 petition for reordering.) The Chancellor decided to grant a faculty, as the proposal would fit in with and complement the changes for which permission had already been given.

In 2011 the petitioners applied for approval (which was granted) for the remodelling of the pulpit steps, having been refused in 2010 a faculty for the removal of the pulpit. They now applied for permission to permanently remove the pulpit from the church. The pulpit had in fact already been removed from the church in 2012 without authority. Reminding the petitioners of the rule of law, and that the removal of the pulpit was unlawful, the Chancellor determined that the arguments for removing the pulpit had not changed since 2010, when he refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the pulpit, and accordingly he now refused again to grant a faculty for its removal.