A faculty was sought for the erection of a memorial consisting of an upright stone (which fell within the Churchyard Regulations) with additional kerb surrounds (which did not). The Diocesan Advisory Committee recommended the works. The Parochial Church Council (PCC) and another parishioner objected to the kerbstones on the basis that the churchyard already had a crowded appearance which would be made worse by additional kerbs and that they caused difficulty in the maintenance of the churchyard as a whole. The petitioner argued that she had made arrangements for maintenance of the grave with the stonemasons and that the significant number of existing memorials with kerbs in the vicinity of the grave meant that kerbs were appropriate in this case. The chancellor reviewed the principles he had applied in his decision of Re St James, Newchapel (Lichfield Consistory Court, April 2012, unreported). Justice and fairness to those who had erected memorials which conformed to the Churchyard Regulations meant that a powerful reason should be shown before a non-conforming memorial would be permitted. He found that the PCC's concern to avoid the appearance of crowding was legitimate, as was their desire to ensure simplicity of maintenance within the churchyard. The petitioner had not discharged the burden of showing a good reason why the Regulations should be departed from. The faculty was refused on the basis that the upright stone alone did not require a faculty. [RA]