The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the exhumation of the cremated remains of his father from the churchyard and reinterment in the cremated remains section of a nearby cemetery. The reason given was that the deceased's wife had died recently and she had wanted her cremated remains to be interred in the cemetery. The petitioner wished to unite the cremated remains of his father with the cremated remains of his mother in the same grave. In the light of the guidance in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299, the Deputy Chancellor determined that there were no exceptional reasons to justify the grant of a faculty for the exhumation of the deceased’s remains.

The petition sought permission for works to improve access at St Martin’s Church, Brampton, a Grade I listed church and the only church designed by Philip Webb, with stained glass by Burne-Jones and Morris. The proposed works included internal alterations and major external access works involving a ramp and lift at the principal entrance. The Victorian Society objected to the external proposals. The Chancellor accepted that there was a compelling and well-evidenced need to improve access, noting that the steep steps excluded many worshippers, visitors, and community users, and undermined the Church’s mission. However, applying the Duffield framework, he found that the external access proposals would cause a high degree of harm to the Church’s exceptional significance, particularly its unaltered integrity as a unique work by Webb. Although the public benefit of equal access was substantial, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not yet fully explored a potentially less harmful alternative entrance beneath the Paradise Window, partly due to a misunderstanding of rights over the adjoining car park. As serious harm to a Grade I building should be permitted only exceptionally, the external proposals were refused. The internal works, car park resurfacing, and minor ancillary works were approved.

There were proposals to reorder the vestry and serving area at the west end of the south aisle of the church (which works were approved by faculty in 2006), to include a lavatory. There was one objector. The Chancellor was satisfied that the petitioners had made a good case for the reordering, and that the proposals would not adversely harm the interior of the church. He accordingly granted a faculty. The Chancellor ordered the objector to pay the costs of the hearing.

There were two applications to reserve grave spaces in a churchyard where there was space for only two to three more years of interments. In the first case, a man aged 54, who did not live in the parish and was not on the electoral roll, wished to reserve a grave for himself and his son aged 21. The Chancellor refused to grant a faculty: “To grant a faculty for the time for which grave spaces will be available would be pointless; to grant one for longer would inevitably cause injustice to those with the right of interment in the churchyard who would consequently not be able to exercise that right.” In the second case, the petitioner, who was aged 85 and lived in the parish and attended the church, wished to reserve a double-depth grave for herself and her husband aged 88. After the petition was presented, the petitioner’s husband had died and was buried in the churchyard. However, the Chancellor stated that, had the petitioner’s husband not died, the Chancellor would have granted a faculty in view of the couple’s entitlement to burial in the churchyard and their advanced ages.

The petitioners applied for permission to appeal against the Chancellor’s judgment of 12 October 2025 refusing a faculty for external access works at the church. Permission was sought under rule 23 of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules, requiring the proposed appeal to have a real prospect of success or some other compelling reason for it to be heard. The petitioners argued that the alternative access proposal identified in the judgment would result in inequality of access, would itself cause serious harm to the building’s significance, and that the lack of equal access was rendering the church increasingly unfit for use. The Chancellor refused permission to appeal. He held that the grounds advanced did not engage with the proper test. The petitioners had not identified any error of law, fact, or principle, nor any improper exercise of discretion. Instead, they relied on new evidence and a restatement of disagreement with the conclusions reached. The Chancellor explained that the judgment had expressly recognised the importance of equal access and had accepted the compelling need relied upon by the petitioners. The proposed grounds disclosed no realistic prospect of success and no other compelling reason to permit an appeal. Permission to appeal was therefore refused.

The works proposed included improvements to the churchyard paths, including step-free access to the church, and in the course of such works the carrying out of archeological works with the objective of re-excavating a structure in the churchyard found by a nineteenth century incumbent but re-buried in 1929. This structure is believed to be the remains of a Saxon church. Letters of objection from two neighbours expressed concern about the impact of the works on the adjacent lane. The Chancellor was satisfied that the improvement of the paths would enhance the churchyard, and also examining, recording and securing for the future archaeological remains of national and possible international significance justified the granting of a faculty.

The vicar and churchwardens applied for a faculty to re-use the churchyard for burials. Though the churchyard was not closed by Order in Council, burials could now only take place in existing graves. There was one objector. A hearing was held, at which the Chancellor dismissed the objector's twelve grounds of objection as having no substance, in view of which, and also of the fact that the objector had refused to have the matter dealt with by written representations, the Chancellor directed that the objector should pay the costs of the half-day hearing.

The petitioners wished to replace the existing three gas heating boilers with three new gas boilers. Whilst the amended Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 provided that due regard must be paid to the Church of England’s net zero guidance, the petitioners had been unable to find an alternative system at reasonable cost, and the proposed new boilers would be more efficient than the old ones. The Diocesan Advisory Committee had accordingly recommended the proposed system. The Chancellor granted a faculty. Although some Chancellors have in similar cases imposed a condition relating to offsetting, in order to meet the challenge of meeting carbon neutrality, the Chancellor decided not to impose such a condition in this case.

The petitioners wished to carry out an extensive programme of reordering spread over ten years. The proposed works included (inter alia): a new lavatory in the current vestry; a new vestry at the west end of the south aisle; the removal of the pews from the north and south aisles to allow for better circulation; a new kitchenette and hospitality area in the north chapel; the main entrance to the church to be through the north porch as it once was, with work being carried out within the porch to allow for disabled access. The amenity societies consulted had reservations about a number of aspects of the works, but the Chancellor was satisfied that there was a clear and convincing justification for carrying out the proposals and he accordingly granted a faculty.

Confirmatory Faculty refused for the retention in a Grade I twelfth or thirteenth century church of a modern painting of the Baptism of Christ, which was hung next to the font and which had been commissioned by a previous rector.