The petitioner wished to exhume the ashes of her late husband and reinter them in the grave of her parents within the same churchyard. As Chancellor found that the petitioner had been misinformed as to where her husband's ashes had to be buried -  in a newly created garden of remembrance. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow the ashes to be buried in the family grave.

There was an unopposed petition for re-ordering, including removing an existing extension on the north side of the church and constructing a spacious hallway, welcome area, toilets and store connected to the church through a new doorway into the narthex. Applying the criteria laid down in Re St. Alkmund Duffield [2013] Fam 158, the Chancellor determined that any harm to the Grade II listed building would be slight, and accordingly granted a Faculty.

This was an application for a confirmatory faculty in respect of a memorial, a vertical slab of black marble, with gilt lettering, mounted on a horizontal plinth, spanning two plots in an area for cremated remains, and the only vertical memorial in that area. The memorial also contained small engraved images of the two persons commemorated. The Chancellor refused to grant a confirmatory faculty for the upright memorial, but authorised its replacement within 12 months by a double-width horizontal memorial of similar design.

Several items of reordering were proposed. The Victorian Society objected to the removal of the front row of choir pews on each side of the chancel. The Ancient Monuments Society objected likewise and also to the moving of the chancel screen to the west end of the church. It also had reservations about the ramp leading up to the dais. The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners' justification for the proposals was persuasive and he granted a faculty, subject to a condition (inter alia) that the frontals of the choir stalls should be relocated after the front rows of stalls on either side had been removed.

Two related petitions sought the reservation of grave spaces in the churchyard of St. John’s, Cumwhinton. Mrs Patricia Briggs (aged 79) applied for a double-depth plot for herself and her husband, and her daughter, Joanne Briggs, sought a separate reservation. All petitioners owned or occupied property in the parish and both petitions were supported by the District Church Council. The difficulty was uncertainty about remaining burial capacity. One petition stated that the churchyard was likely to suffice for around ten years, while a later petition referred to “5+” years. The churchwarden explained that the churchyard plan was out of date, although some additional space had become available following the loss of a large tree and further options were being explored. The Chancellor applied the principles summarised in Re St Mary, Thame and the test of “exceptional circumstances” articulated in Re St Peter, Hilton. No circumstances “markedly out of the ordinary” had been identified, and the petitioners had not advanced any exceptional justification. Taking into account the petitioners’ local connections, the support of the DCC, and the possibility of increasing burial space, the Chancellor granted both petitions but limited each reservation to ten years.

An application for a memorial was refused by the priest-in-charge, as it was outside the churchyards regulations as regards the proposal to include a photograph of the deceased. The applicant was advised to apply for a faculty. The stonemasons subsequently installed the memorial, including a photographic plaque, without the authority of a faculty. An application was made for a confirmatory faculty. The Chancellor granted a faculty allowing the photograph to remain for a period of 18 years, the life expectancy of the applicant plus 3 years, after which the photograph must be removed. The Chancellor stated that the stonemasons were at fault in not being aware of the restrictions against photographs in the churchyards regulations and installing a memorial without lawful authority. She directed that a special citation be issued to join the stonemasons as a party with a view to issuing an order for the costs of the faculty application to be paid by them.

Eltham churchyard was closed by Order in Council. The cremated remains of the petitioner's father had been interred near the west end of the church in 1961 and the interment was marked by a memorial stone measuring 18 inches by 12 inches. In 1989, the incumbent agreed with the petitioner and her mother, that their ashes could in due time be interred next to the ashes of the petitioner's father, though there was only room for one more commemoration on the memorial. The petitioner's mother died in 2020 and her cremated remains were interred under her husband's memorial stone. The petitioner sought a faculty, (1) to secure the arrangement agreed with the incumbent in 1989, so that her own cremated remains could in due time be buried next to those of her parents, (2) to permit a further stone next to the memorial to her parents; and (3) to replace the existing stone, which had weathered badly. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The petition proposed the disposal of all the pews in the unlisted Church dedicated in 1911 and their replacement with two sets of upholstered chairs in two different colours, some orange and some blue. The chairs were being donated by a local Methodist church. The Victorian Society did not object to the removal of the pews, but objected to the proposed chairs, which "would cause undue harm to the building’s special interest, character and charm". Notwithstanding this view, the Chancellor decided to grant a faculty.

Re St. John Hoveton [2024] ECC Nor 2

The petitioners wished to replace all the oak pews, which were installed in 1890, with stackable, upholstered chairs and also replace the under pew heaters with an infrared system. All the statutory consultees criticised the proposals. The Chancellor decided that the petitioners had not made out a sufficiently strong case for the removal of all the pews from the Grade II* church and also that the proposed type of chair was unsuitable. He therefore refused to grant a faculty for those items. With regard to the proposed heaters, the Chancellor decided to adjourn the petition, in order to give the petitioners time to decide whether they wished to proceed with that part of their petition and, if so, to obtain an independent expert report as to whether the proposed heaters were likely to affect the fabric of the church.

There was an unopposed faculty petition for reordering works at St. John the Evangelist, Knotty Ash, a Grade II listed church. The proposals—supported by the DAC, PCC, and congregation—aimed to improve accessibility and inclusivity, particularly for children and neurodiverse individuals. Key changes included: creating a sensory space in an existing meeting room; relocating and expanding the children’s area into the north aisle by repositioning (not removing) pews; and installing movable TV screens with live-feed capability to improve visibility and sound access. These responded to identified barriers such as poor audio clarity, limited visibility, and lack of inclusive space. Applying the Duffield framework, the Deputy Chancellor found that the proposals would cause negligible harm to the church’s architectural or historic significance. The works were reversible, did not affect key historic features, and preserved the interior’s character. He concluded that the significant public benefits—enhanced accessibility, participation, and mission—clearly outweighed any minimal impact. As funding was secured and justification strong, the faculty was granted.