Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T11:18:50.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re St George, Hanworth

London Consistory Court: Seed Ch, 2 February 2016 [2016] ECC Lon 1 Injunction – consecrated land

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 August 2016

Ruth Arlow
Ruth Arlow*
Affiliation:
Chancellor of the Dioceses of Norwich and Salisbury
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Case Notes
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 383
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2016 

Hounslow London Borough Council were the freehold owners of a parcel of land (‘the site’), first registered in 1933 and in the registered ownership of the Council and their statutory predecessor since 1946. The site was immediately to the north of a parcel of land vested in the London Diocesan Fund, on which was built a children's nursery, which itself was immediately to the north of and adjacent to the churchyard of St George's church. The site was developed for sheltered housing in the 1970s and the Council proposed to redevelop it to provide affordable housing and improved sheltered housing, for which they had planning permission. On 8 December 2014 the priest-in-charge, supported by one of the churchwardens, filed an application, claiming that the site was historically part of the churchyard of St George's church, and thus subject to the effects of consecration, and seeking an injunction to restrain the proposed demolition and redevelopment.

At a case management hearing on 5 May 2015, following an objection by the Council that the priest-in-charge was the subject of an order made in 1997 declaring him to be a vexatious litigant, the chancellor stayed the proceedings to enable the priest-in-charge to apply to the High Court for leave to bring the application. The High Court refused leave, stating that the priest-in-charge could give evidence as a witness. Subsequently, the chancellor allowed the application to proceed as an application by the Parochial Church Council (PCC). The evidence adduced by the Council, including Ordnance Survey plans from the nineteenth century, supported the Council's title as shown on the Land Registry plan. The chancellor rejected the PCC's claim, noting that no evidence had been produced as to consecration and that the human remains referred to in the PCC's submissions had been found on the London Diocesan Fund land, not the site. Accordingly, the chancellor dismissed the application, observing that it appeared to be an opportunistic and unjustified attempt to extract money from the Council. He adjourned the Council's application for costs (see below, p 397). [David Lamming]