Judgment Search

Downloads

Click on one of the following to view and/or download the relevant document:

Alphabetical Index of all judgments on this web site as at 10 September 2024

Judgments indexed by Diocese:
2024 Judgments
2023 Judgments
2022 Judgments
2021 Judgments

The petitioner wished to reserve a grave space in the churchyard next to the grave of her father. Several of her relatives were buried in the churchyard. The petitioner did not live in the parish, but in another parish in the same benefice, and she was not on the church electoral roll. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) had had a policy for at least 15 years of not supporting applications for the reservation of graves, as a result of which several letters of objection from parishioners were received in response to this application. The Chancellor determined that the PCC's policy was not unreasonable, and he could find no sufficient grounds to go against the policy. He therefore refused to grant a faculty.

Failure to observe condition in a Faculty. Movement in southwest wall of church, ground investigation by two boreholes; injection of resin material to stabilise the ground and the wall proposed in 2020; Petition submitted in May 2022, granted subject to condition requiring archaeological watching brief (“Condition”); trench dug outside west wall, 350mm wide and 700mm deep; no archaeological watching brief commissioned; confusion as to process required for this, but accepted that Condition had not been satisfied; aggravating and mitigating features considered; Petitioners and Diocesan Board of Finance each ordered to pay 50% of costs of judgment.

The proposal was for an extension to the church. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Church Buildings Council had reservations about the use of space for the various facilities proposed for the extension. The Chancellor was satisfied that the proposed arrangement of the facilities in the extension offered an appropriate solution to meeting the needs of the parish.

The Grade I church stands close to the University of East Anglia. It has what the Chancellor described as a "depressing" interior and a "a tiny congregation that is unlikely to grow". The proposal was for a major reordering with a view to attracting usage of the church by University students. A large donation was available to meet the cost of the proposed works. Historic England had concerns about (inter alia) the proposals for the flooring and the pews. The Victorian Society objected, principally, to the levelling of the floors and the replacement of the pews with chairs. The Chancellor was satisfied that a good case had been made for the proposals and granted a faculty.

In 1980, the petitioner's late father's ashes were interred in a cemetery in Loughborough. In 1985, the ashes were exhumed and reinterred in the churchyard at East Leake. The petitioner now wished to have his father's ashes re-exhumed and reinterred in another part of the churchyard, with the ashes of the petitioner's mother, who had recently died. The Chancellor determined that there were exceptional factors to justify the grant of a faculty for exhumation. The canopy of a cypress tree had grown over the grave, leaving only one metre clearance above the grave; the area around the grave was overgrown; and the grave was likely to be affected by the tree's roots.

The petitioners wished to relocate 64 headstones from the centre of the churchyard to it s perimeter, in order to create “a safe and welcoming outdoor space for events, activities and quiet reflection”. The Chancellor granted a faculty.

The proposal was to create a prayer chapel in the north transept of the church by moving to the centre a stored medieval stone mensa resting on a stone base. The Chancellor granted a faculty, being satisfied that the works did not affect the church as a building of special historical or architectural significance. 

The Petitioner wished to install a memorial in the churchyard in memory of his late wife. The proposed memorial was a headstone and kerbs, the proposed stone being polished paradiso granite, described as “a swirling mixture of pink, grey, red and black colours in a strongly-defined tortoiseshell-type pattern.” The Parochial Church Council objected to the proposed type of memorial and the Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the grant of a faculty. The concerns were as to the colour, the polished finish and the inclusion of kerbstones. The petitioner produced a “petition” signed by several people purporting to support the application for a faculty. The Chancellor determined that such petition was inadmissible. The Chancellor granted a faculty to allow a headstone of paradiso granite, provided that the stone had a matt finish, but he refused to permit the installation of kerbs.

The petition sought faculties for works at the Grade I listed church, including pew removal, creation of a dais, installation of a handrail and removable ramp, AV equipment, LED lighting, and a timer lock. The DAC recommended the scheme (with some abstentions), and after consultation no National Amenity Society maintained objection, though the Victorian Society asked that the timber chancel rail be retained. Applying the Duffield questions, the Chancellor considered only the pew removal and dais. While the pews by Ferguson were of significance, the removal of a limited number to storage, combined with the benefit of providing a dais for school and community use, would cause only low, if any, harm. The justification was clear and convincing, and outweighed any harm. Conditions were imposed requiring secure long-term storage of removed pews, retention of the timber chancel rail, and agreed arrangements for storing and handling the removable ramp. The faculty was therefore granted subject to those conditions.

The Rector and Churchwardens sought a faculty for the sale of a fifteenth century religious painting portraying the betrayal of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. The painting was so valuable that the Parochial Church Council was unable to afford to insure the painting or provide an adequate security system. The Diocesan Advisory Committee and the Council for the Care of Churches objected to the disposal of the painting by sale. The Chancellor was satisfied that the valuable painting could not be kept safe in the small rural church and granted a faculty allowng the painting to be sold to an art gallery or museum.

×