In a petition for a faculty for a 30-year grave-space reservation, the chancellor had granted a faculty for a 15-year reservation, reflecting the fact that only 15 years’ worth of space remained in the churchyard. The petitioner was given permission to make written representations about why the reservation should be for a longer period; after a time extension, she made such representations. The petitioner lived outside the parish but many of her family members were buried in the churchyard and the plot she sought to reserve was alongside the remains of her mother. The petitioner argued that she had been given to understand by a local funeral director that a reservation would be for the life of the petitioner. She believed that she had ‘purchased’ her faculty. She also questioned whether those moving into the newly built homes in the parish had the family connections to the village that she had, and suggested that such new arrivals should not be given preference for burial over herself.

In refusing the extension of the reservation, the chancellor found that no exceptional circumstances existed which justified an interference with the long-established right of parishioners to be buried in the churchyard. The residential status of those who were newly arrived in the parish meant that the law granted them preference for burial over the petitioner in that they had a subsisting right to burial. The chancellor emphasised that it was clear on the face of the petition form, as well as in the various guidance documents available, that the reservation applied for was not for the life of the petitioner but was for 30 years. Furthermore, the payment of the petition fee did not amount to the purchasing of a reservation but, as was once again clear from the guidance provided, was a court fee for an application upon which a decision would need to be made. The chancellor expressed concern that the petitioner's inevitable disappointment was caused in part by several misapprehensions about the principles applicable to grave-space reservation. The chancellor set those principles out in her judgment and directed that the judgment be sent to the relevant funeral director and all incumbents in the diocese in the hope that future disappointments could be avoided. She also encouraged the parish to plan for future burials either through the acquisition of additional grave space or at least through the adoption of a Parochial Church Council policy on reservations, given the limited space available. [RA]