In his decision in Re St. Nicholas Leicester [2023] ECC Lei 1, the Acting Chancellor concluded, as a preliminary issue, that three of the nine persons who submitted objections to the petition had a "sufficient interest". In this decision, the Acting Chancellor set aside his original order in so far as he now considered that one of those three objectors did not have a sufficient interest in the petition.

his judgment (which was preceded by three interim judgments with the neutral citations [2023] ECC Lei 1, [2023] ECC Lei 2 and [2023] ECC Lei 3, dealing with preliminary issues) relates to a petition for the introduction of a new altar frontal displaying the colours of the Progress Pride flag, the church having come to be regarded over time as a safe worshipping space for LGBTQIA+ people of faith. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: "The Progress Pride flag is not a Christian emblem ... it is a secular contemporary emblem used for many causes and contemporary discourse ... The focus, purpose and celebration of the Holy Communion is for all to come to Jesus and remember His sacrifice ... It is clear that there is not a unified belief that the proposed Altar frontal achieves this message of oneness in Christ".

The Parochial Church Council ("PCC") wished to carry out extensive repairs and reordering of the church, and the current petition dealt with the first phase. The only controversial items were the replacement of the Bosley pews with upholstered, metal-framed chairs and the laying of carpet in the church nave. The Chancellor was satisfied that a case had been made for the replacement of the pews with chairs - there was no church hall and the PCC wished to provide a more flexible space to meet the needs of a new community of 1200 houses to be built near the church. However, he had reservations about the proposed metal chairs and required the PCC to propose a type of wooden chair. The Chancellor approved the carpet on the basis that it would be a temporary measure until some more satisfactory hard flooring solution could be implemented, as part of the overall scheme.

The petition proposed a new, large moveable altar (to be placed at the junction of the chancel and the nave), an altar platform and new Communion rails, the removal of the mediaeval screen (to make way for the nave altar) and the removal of choir stalls and pews in the chancel, the moving of the pulpit and the removal of the lectern, and other items. Thirty-six parishioners objected to the removal of the mediaeval screen, which contained a complete set of paintings of the twelve Apostles. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty for the removal of the screen, but indicated that he would look favourably on a proposal to site the new altar in the nave, in front of the screen, albeit that might involve removing some pews. He granted a faculty for the other items.

A Faculty was refused for the reservation of a grave space, as there were few empty graves left in the churchyard.

The petitioners sought a faculty for the retention on a permanent basis of various works carried out under faculty, for a limited period, to reorder the church, including: reordering some pews at the west end; moving the organ;  a new heater; remodelling of the pulpit; altering the communion rail; removing the choir stalls; making the existing altar moveable; and reordering the vestry. The Chancellor determined that the works were necessary and appropriate and he granted a faculty.

The petitioner sought permission to exhume the cremated remains of each of her parents from the churchyard of St. Nicholas Radford (the church itself having been demolished), so that the remains could be taken to Oakley Wood Crematorium for interment or scattering next to a family memorial bench commemorating the petitioner’s husband. The cremated remains of the petitioner’s mother and father had been interred in 1991 and 2001 respectively. The petitioner stated that she found it too far to travel to the churchyard. The Crematorium advised that its grounds were unconsecrated; that only scattering was allowed; and that no permission could be given for relocation of the memorial stone. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty. Difficulty in travelling to a grave was not a sufficiently exceptional circumstance to justify an exception to the normal presumption of permanence of burial. Moreover, the petitioner’s father had clearly wished his cremated remains to be buried in the same grave as the remains of his wife, rather than be scattered.

The churchwardens petitioned for a faculty to authorise the removal of the existing cast iron radiators and pipework in the church, the introduction of six convector heaters, and the introduction of an insulated ceiling in the vestry. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the proposed insulated ceiling, stating that the vestry space was not a large one to heat; "the proposed ceiling would hide the timbers of the roof structure which, although not medieval, are substantial looking timbers with pegged joints"; and "the proposed ceiling may make the room feel 'claustrophobic' for those using it." The vestry was used by the parish priest as an office and the insulated ceiling had been proposed in order to prevent heat from the small heater being lost upwards to the high ceiling. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made out a case of need,  and that the work would not cause damage to the fabric and was reversible. He accordingly granted a faculty.

The Commonwealth War Graves Commission wished to erect a standard  Commission memorial in the churchyard, in memory of a serviceman murdered in Ireland in 1921. The serviceman's body was buried in the churchyard in 1921, but the precise location of the burial was not known. A faculty application was necessary, because the churchyards regulations only allowed a memorial to be placed where a body had been buried. The Rector and Parochial Church Council were concerned that the installation of a memorial to a soldier who died during the Anglo-Irish war in 1921 might give rise to social 'sensitivities'. The Chancellor decided that it was appropriate to allow a memorial to the deceased soldier, even though the exact location of his buried remains was not known. At the top of the memorial, the words “Buried elsewhere in this churchyard” would be inscribed. The Chancellor also considered that there would be no good reason, in terms of pastoral sensitivities, to disallow the memorial. The location of the soldier's death (Ireland) would not be mentioned on the memorial. Moreover, a memorial commemorates the individual, not the circumstances in which he died.

Re St. Nicholas Ulceby [2025] ECC Lin 2

The Rural Dean sought the Chancellor’s directions on how to proceed where Mr & Mrs I wished to get approval now for their proposed memorial stones to be placed over their graves (previously reserved by faculty) at the time of their deaths. The memorials had already been purchased and did not conform to the Churchyard Regulations. The Chancellor directed that such approval could only be sought by means of a faculty petition once one of the couple had died and the memorial was then ready to be erected. There must be a temporal link between the application for a Faculty – for the works to be permitted – and the moment when the works are to be brought into effect. The Chancellor indicated that he could not grant a Faculty for a memorial which may not be erected for many years, without knowing the circumstances in which that memorial will be set at the time it is required.