The petitioner sought a faculty to authorise the placing of both kerbstones and chippings on her father's grave with a view to scattering her mother's ashes on the chippings. A faculty was required as kerbstones fell outside the diocesan churchyard regulations and therefore outside the scope of the incumbent's delegated authority. The regulations require a good case to be shown before a faculty can be granted for memorials outside the scope of the churchyard regulations. Both the Parochial Church Council and the Diocesan Advisory Committee opposed the faculty sought because of the complications that kerbstones posed for churchyard maintenance. There were also seven letters of objection.

The chancellor held that the fact that the petitioner's requests were intended to carry out her deceased mother's wishes was not a sufficiently good reason to justify the granting of the faculty for either kerbstones with chippings or the scattering of ashes. Even if lower than average, the kerbstones would obstruct and complicate maintenance. Although there were existing memorials with kerbstones and chippings in the churchyard there were none in the relevant row and the chancellor was not prepared to permit another such grave to add to the numbers of graves making maintenance difficult. The chancellor observed that the scattering of ashes was prohibited under the churchyard regulations and that there was considerable force in the argument that it was in contravention of Canon B38(4)(a), requiring the reverent disposal of ashes. Permission for the kerbstones and chippings was refused. [Catherine Shelley]