Following concerns being raised with the diocesan bishop about several graves in two separate churchyards within a single united benefice, the archdeacon noted several breaches of the diocesan churchyard regulations. When informed, the chancellor indicated that, unless a petition for a confirmatory faculty were lodged, the archdeacon should apply for a restoration order. The incumbent and churchwardens duly sought a confirmatory faculty in respect of several grave markers and other items which had been introduced without lawful authority, in that either they did not come within the delegated authority contained in the regulations then current which the incumbent had purported to exercise, or they had appeared at the grave without any permission at all.

The chancellor noted in his judgment that the present proceedings had been necessitated by culpable neglect on the part of the incumbent, who in recent years seemed to have fallen short of his responsibilities by failing properly to exercise the authority delegated to him under the regulations. Considering the faculties sought, the chancellor noted the consistory court's jurisdiction to make a restoration order solely in respect of unlawful acts perpetrated in the six years immediately prior to an application being made under section 70(5) of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018, but indicated his view that this limitation had no meaningful operation to plants, trees and shrubs. In relation to one of the churchyards, he therefore granted faculties requiring the removal within six weeks of various unauthorised box hedges, as well as fences, edgings, chippings and mementoes. In relation to the other, the chancellor granted a faculty requiring the removal of chippings from two graves. The faculty also required the removal of raised granite kerbs unlawfully erected around another grave, but allowed those responsible for it, who were not party to the present proceedings, three months within which to petition for a retrospective faculty in respect of the raised kerbs. Since the court was not in a position to compel the removal of two memorials dating from more than six years prior, the proper course was for them to remain. The chancellor did not, however, grant a confirmatory faculty for their retention and indicated that they would remain unauthorised so that it was clearly understood that their presence set no precedent.

The costs of the petition, to include a correspondence fee for the registrar, were to be borne by the petitioners. Noting that ordinarily all petitioners are jointly and severally liable for such costs, which are paid from the funds of the Parochial Church Council (PCC), the chancellor allowed the PCC a period of 21 days to make representations that some or all of the costs should be paid personally by the incumbent. [Jonathan Storey]