The churchwardens and fabric officer sought a confirmatory faculty for works of refurbishment undertaken to the area set aside for cremated remains in the churchyard. The parish had received a number of complaints about the condition of the cremated remains area, which was untidy, overgrown and filled with a number of closely packed plaques of differing size. Several additional plaques had been laid over remains outside the border to the area. As a result of the complaints the Parochial Church Council resolved to extend and refurbish the area. Those works were undertaken without faculty permission. All interments were included within the new area, with a membrane under gravel laid over the area to prevent weeds. The whole area was bordered by a low brick wall to contain the gravel. Six months later, on the advice of the archdeacon, a confirmatory faculty was sought. The Diocesan Advisory Committee did not recommend the works to the chancellor, on the ground that the works did not fall within the churchyard regulations. No objections were received as a result of the public notices and four letters were received by the chancellor praising the ‘improvements’ made. The new incumbent had expressed reservations about the works, but for pastoral reasons felt that a confirmatory faculty should be granted.

The chancellor observed that there were three principal reasons for limitations being placed upon what may be introduced into a churchyard: theological, aesthetic and practical. Churchyards were consecrated burial grounds and the setting for churches themselves, and therefore any works done within them must not be inconsistent with Christian theology or Anglican doctrine. Aesthetic limitations were necessary because churchyards stand as places of Christian witness to the generations of saints who have been committed into God's hands in the hope of future resurrection. They provide a place of peaceful reflection for their community and a place of solace and comfort to those who are bereaved. Practical limitations were necessary in order to ensure ease of maintenance for this and future generations.

There were no theological objections to the works in this case. The chancellor acknowledged the subjectivity in aesthetic judgments and that many local people felt that the works were a significant aesthetic improvement, but she found that the new area did create an unnecessarily discordant or jarring note, although this would be muted somewhat with the passage of time as the stone weathered. The practical implications of the works were of most concern. As the membrane aged and failed, maintenance through weeding would become more onerous than the passing of a mower over plaques flush with turf. The gravel presented a risk of injury and damage as it inevitably migrated onto the areas which were mown. The increased maintenance burden as the structure deteriorated was speculative but real. Mindful of the pastoral implications of requiring a return to the earlier conditions, the chancellor granted a faculty for a period of ten years to allow a proper assessment of the longer-term aesthetic and practical implications of the works, at the end of which period the parish could apply for a long-term faculty or for an alternative arrangement for the cremated remains area. [RA]