Rochester Consistory Court: Goodman Ch, December 2001
The petitioners approached the rector about reserving a space in the churchyard at Farningham in January 1999, wishing to be buried next to the parents of one of the petitioners. There was, thereafter, 'appalling delay' as the PCC decided whether to support any more petitions as the graveyard had become something of a wilderness with no proper plan. Eventually the PCC declined to support the application. The argument that further reservations would prejudice the rights of parishioners who may wish to be buried in the 20-30 spaces left was rejected. Following the lodging of the petition no opposition was expressed and indeed no information at all was received from the then incumbent. The chancellor decided to view the site. There were vacant plots to the east and west of the petitioner's father's grave. The chancellor considered R v West Pennard Churchyard [1991] 4 All ER 124, [1992] 1 WLR 124, Bath and Wells Cons Ct, and The Churchyards Handbook (4th edn, pl9). It was now generally accepted that re-use of graves is to be encouraged where the previous burial took place at least 75 years ago and where no relatives of the deceased were likely to be caused distress by e.g. the removal of a headstone. The matter was resolved by way of an agreement signed by the petitioners, churchwardens and the secretary of the PCC with the concurrence of the rural dean (there being no incumbent or priest-in-charge). The petitioners will be buried in a double-depth grave space when the time comes possibly in an area where there have been previous burials. In the event of the gravedigger having difficulties going down to a double depth a double width grave space would be reserved. The faculty was granted reserving the plot for 20 years with liberty to the petitioners to apply for an extension. The petitioners were to pay faculty fees and £150 to the PCC for churchyard maintenance on a double grave space.
(2002) 6 Ecc LJ 415
