The petitioners sought faculties for proposed memorials, both comprising headstone and kerbs in polished black granite. The headstone of one of them would bear an inscription and an engraved and painted scene of a fisherman against a sunset, and the area within the kerbs would be filled with blue chippings. The headstone of the other would bear a stained-glass window insert, an etched and coloured depiction of an angel, and an inscription. The applications were supported by the Parochial Church Council (PCC), but the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) recommended that both be refused. Noting that both applications fell outside the terms of the churchyard regulations, the chancellor referred to the differing approaches of Chancellors Eyre and Hill in Re St Peter, Church Lawford [2016] ECC Cov 3 and Re St John the Baptist, Adel [2016] ECC Lee 6.

The chancellor concluded that his starting point when considering an application for memorials excluded by the churchyard regulations because they were considered generally unsuitable for inclusion in churchyards of the diocese was therefore to refuse permission unless some good reason could be shown for a departure from the stance indicated by the regulations. Nevertheless each application for a memorial must be considered on its own merits, and by reference to the particular facts and circumstances that pertained to it. Certain issues would be common to many applications and would generally need to be considered by the court. These included matters of theology (memorials in a consecrated churchyard must not be contrary to, or indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter (as noted in St John the Baptist, Adel), although in a secular and multicultural age they were not required to be positively Christian in character (see Re Christ Church, Harwood [2002] 1 WLR 2055)), aesthetics (the proposed memorial should not have an appearance which was discordant or likely to detract from the atmosphere of the churchyard as a place of quiet prayer, reflection and commemoration), setting (whether the proposed memorial would add to or detract from the church's setting) and practicality (the impact of a proposed memorial on practical aspects of the life of the church such as churchyard maintenance and health and safety). It would be of great assistance if applicants and objectors, and also the DAC, could as a minimum address these four matters when providing evidence or submissions to the court.

In his consideration of both petitions, the chancellor noted that the proposed memorials’ divergence from the churchyard regulations was large, and extended to the proposed materials, general design and decoration, all of which the regulations indicated were generally inappropriate in churchyards within the diocese. Finding, therefore, a departure from the regulations, along with harm to the churchyard and the setting of this Grade I listed church in the New Forest, the chancellor determined that there was no good reason to grant the petitions despite that harm. Although there was some variety within the memorials currently present in the churchyard, a line must be drawn somewhere and the chancellor drew it by refusing both petitions. [Jonathan Storey]