|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Case Reports
Re St Hildeburgh, Hoylake
(Chester Consistory Court: Turner Ch, June 2003)
Churchyard memorials
The incumbent and churchwardens applied for a faculty for the removal and disposal of additions and enhancements around memorial stones in an area designated for cremated remains in the closed churchyard of a now demolished former parish church. Such additions were in contravention of the Diocesan Churchyard Regulations. The PCC, the local authority (which is responsible for the maintenance of the churchyard) and some individuals had expressed concern that the additions hindered easy maintenance of the churchyard. The petitioners further claimed that the additions presented a tripping hazard. Several accretions were removed voluntarily at the request of the incumbent. There was considerable opposition, particularly from those who had introduced and continued to maintain the memorials.
In giving judgment the chancellor stated that any common law right of burial or interment of cremated remains does not carry with it a right to place a memorial in a churchyard, that permission must be given for each memorial, that graves are not private property, that the churchyard remains subject to the control of the consistory court and that anything placed in it without permission is technically a trespass and may be required to be removed. However, he found that there had been considerable laxity over a sustained period of time both in the enforcement of the regulations and in the general maintenance of the churchyard.
The chancellor was not convinced that the complete removal of all unlawful additions would improve the appearance of the area in question. Furthermore he accepted that lax discipline in the past had led the owners of memorials to believe that additions were allowed and that many were maintained to a high standard. In balancing these concerns with those of the petitioners and the community as a whole he ordered that certain specified additions which were not currently maintained be removed, that the petitioners may apply to the court by letter for permission to remove any unauthorised additions after the date of the order. No order was made in respect of those unauthorised additions that were well maintained. He encouraged the petitioners, parties opponent and the local authority to work together and come to an agreement as to the future upkeep of the churchyard. All parties were granted a general liberty to apply to the court for further directions.
[WA]
|
Search the Case Reports & Journals (issues 1 to 39) |
|
|
