The petitioners sought a faculty to build a church centre, with a hall, meeting rooms and storage, on land, donated in 1965, around a Grade I listed church. A faculty was also needed to lease the centre to a management trust elected from the parochial church council (PCC) and parish council for ninety-nine years. It would be for community use but with reserved use for the church on Sundays and for PCC meetings. Planning permission was granted in 2007 and renewed in 2011. A faculty granted in 2010 was revoked when it transpired that the proposed land was consecrated and used for burials and the burial of ashes in the garden of remembrance.

The petitioners argued that the centre was needed for children's work, PCC meetings, refreshment facilities and community use. From 1989 burials had ceased on the land set aside for the centre and burials elsewhere in the plot were limited, largely to those who already had a family grave. Objections to the centre included the inconsistency of the centre with a churchyard and fear of running out of space for future burials. Concerns were also raised about detriment to the appearance of the church, increased traffic and diversion of community activity from other parts of the village. Some also argued that children's work and meetings could continue in the church tower. A local advisory poll had vetoed the granting of funds to the building.

In considering the facts, the local authority's grant of planning permission indicated that the impact on the church's appearance, on parking and on other community facilities were not so significant as to outweigh the centre's benefits. The parish council's contribution of funds to the project supported the view that the centre would benefit the community. English Heritage and the diocesan advisory committee approved the plans. It was clear that additional space was needed; removing meetings and refreshment facilities from the church tower would enhance the worship space. There were no modern burials on the land set aside and any ancient burials would be monitored by the Warwickshire Archaeological Society.

Restrictions on closed burial grounds under the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 did not apply as the churchyard remained open despite the 1989 resolution not to permit burials in the area designated for the centre. The land was therefore consecrated ground, with the land donated in 1965 specifically intended for burials, where burials had taken place and continued. The cases of Re St Martin Le Grand, York [1990] Fam 63 and Re St John, Chelsea [1962] 1 WLR 850 were considered by way of argument that there could be no rights over land if there was still an open graveyard. However, the stronger line of authority, including the actual decision in Re St John, Chelsea, Campbell v Paddington (Parishioners) (1852) 2 Robb Eccl 558 and Morley BC v St Mary the Virgin, Woodkirk [1969] 1 WLR 1867, provided examples of cases in which building on consecrated burial grounds has been permitted for ecclesiastical purposes, even with some secular use.

The chancellor granted the faculty for both the building of the centre and the lease to the management trust on the basis of the following analysis. The building and use of the centre for church purposes and mission in the community was consistent with consecrated land, even taking account of flexible and part-secular use. ‘Music and merriment’ were not necessarily inconsistent with a graveyard. The terms of the lease and management trust were sufficient safeguards against inappropriate use of the centre. The impact of the centre on the church and its special character as a listed building was ‘modest’ and did not outweigh the benefits of the centre for the church's mission (applying Re St Alkmund, Duffield [2013] 2 WLR 854). The impact on future burials was relevant but not determinative, as the benefits of current mission outweighed the impact and there was still land available. While some graves were close to the centre, they were not compromised by their proximity. [Catherine Shelley]