An extension to the church was being constructed. Of the graves that might be disturbed, only one was identified as being of people with living relatives; this petition was brought by the great-great-grandson of those buried there. He approved of the extension but was concerned that the graves would be left in an isolated island within the churchyard and vulnerable to becoming part of a shortcut. He accordingly sought a faculty for their exhumation and re-burial in the same churchyard. The incumbent supported the petition on the basis that exhumation and re-burial would improve access to the main door of the extended church.

In granting the faculty for exhumation the court considered the principles in Re Blagdon Cemetery [2002] Fam 299. The chancellor granted the faculty, holding that the following special circumstances constituted good and proper reason for making an exception to the norm of the permanence of Christian burial:

1. i. The location of the existing grave was no longer a suitable resting place for the petitioner's ancestors (although distinguishable by virtue of the point at which the burial location had become inappropriate, the decision in Re All Saints, West Bromwich [2019] ECC Lic 1, concerning the exhumation of remains buried close to a sewer, showed that burial in an inappropriate location can be considered exceptional circumstances to justify exhumation);

2. ii. The situation came about not through change of mind or infirmity, but because of the church's decision to build near the grave for the benefit of both the church and the wider village community;

3. iii. The petitioner's reasons and case were genuine, and the petition was lodged promptly following the grant of the faculty for the building works;

4. iv. The petition had the support of the incumbent and Parochial Church Council, and good pastoral and practical reasons, namely access to the door of the extension;

5. v. The re-interment would be within the same churchyard;

6. vi. The exhumation and re-interment should not have an unsettling effect on people living near the churchyard; and

7. vii. This was the only grave with living relatives to be affected by the building works, and so the granting of a faculty would not create a precedent.

[Catherine Shelley]