THE funeral directors who erected a memorial that did not comply with diocesan regulations, and the assistant curate who authorised its erection in the churchyard have been penalised by Chancellor Mark Hill in the Consistory Court of the diocese of Chichester. He refused an application for a retrospective faculty.

The case concerned the final resting place of Ernest Robert Berwick in the churchyard of All Saints and St Nicolas, Icklesham.

  Alan Newell sought the retrospective faculty on behalf of his mother-in-law, Joyce Berwick, for the retention of the memorial erected in October 2006 over the grave of Mr Berwick. The memorial did not comply with the Churchyard Regulations at Appendix D to the Chancellor’s General Directions Concerning Churches and Churchyards (2001) in several ways.

  It was fabricated of white marble, a material not permitted. It was highly polished, an appearance not permitted. It had black painted lettering, a feature not permitted. It had a colour ceramic photo plaque bearing a likeness of Mr Berwick, an addition not permitted. It had kerbstones, which are not permitted, and it had blue chippings within the kerbstones, which are not permitted.

  The diocesan advisory committee’s views were that “a stone of this particular type threatens to change the character of this quintessentially English churchyard”. It also felt that it was “visually noisy in character and could make it difficult for others with loved ones buried nearby to properly express their grief . . . and made it unfair on those families who had abided by the Chancellor’s General Directions”.

  The Revd Albert Cox, Assistant Curate in the benefice of Winchelsea and Icklesham, with pastoral care of Icklesham, purported to give his consent to the introduction of the memorial by signing the application form submitted to him by Mummery Funeral Directors of Bexhill-on-Sea. He had no authority to do so. His current curacy was Mr Cox’s first post within the Church of England, his previous ministry being in Africa, where the legalities were, he said, laxer.

  Mr Newell told the court that, after the funeral, he visited the offices of Mummery’s, and was given a brochure that he took away and showed Mrs Berwick. At that stage, the family did not know what they were looking for. A few weeks later, however, he went back to Mummery’s and pointed out the memorial that Mrs Berwick had selected from the brochure.

  The application form, which was directed to Mr Cox and signed by Mr Newell and Mrs Berwick, contained a declaration that they had “read the General Directions of the Chancellor of the Diocese concerning memorials in churchyards”. But, neither Mr Newell nor Mrs Berwick had seen the Directions, and did not even know that such a document existed.

  The Directions stated in bold type and enlarged fount that “[t]he incumbent has no authority to permit the erection of a memorial which does not comply with these regulations” and that any memorial which did not comply “may be removed by order of the consistory court”.

  Mr Newell said that if he had fully read the application form and asked what the Directions were, and then obtained a copy and read it, Mrs Berwick would have chosen a memorial that conformed with the Directions.

  Both the PCC and Mr Cox supported the application for the faculty, as did a considerable number of the general public. Mrs Berwick was “largely blameless in the flawed process” that resulted in the erection of the memorial, the Chancellor said, and the current proceedings were distressing and debilitating. A refusal of a faculty would be very difficult for the family to bear.

  But the Chancellor decided that the memorial was “singularly inappropriate for its setting within the churchyard of this historic parish church. . . [It was] aesthetically intrusive and dominates an otherwise tranquil sacred space on the border of this rural community.” It could be seen from some distance away and from the main entrance to the church. The marble was “garish” and the kerbstones and chippings struck “a distinctly discordant note”.

  While the Chancellor was sympathetic to the impact his decision would have on the family, and understood the pastoral considerations that motivated the PCC in its decision to support the retention of the memorial, the court was entitled to and should “take a more detached and longer-term perspective”.

If retained, the memorial would continue to dominate the churchyard for generations to come, long after the current membership of the PCC had been replaced. Regard also had to be had to the “history of our church buildings and their environs as well as to their future” and to the precedent that it would set, not merely within the parish but throughout the diocese and in the Church of England generally where similar Churchyard Directions existed.

  Although refusing the faculty, the Chancellor was prepared to authorise a faculty permitting the retention of the headstone, even though it did not comply with the Directions and had an inscription that might not otherwise be allowed. That would be on condition that the photo plaque, the kerbstones, and the blue chippings were removed, and the grave re-turfed to create a level surface with the rest of the churchyard.

  That work would be carried out by Mummery’s at their own expense, and Mummery’s would reimburse to Mrs Berwick the difference in cost between that for the erection of the single stone and that for the memorial that was in fact erected. In the case of disagreement as to the sum involved, the matter would be remitted to the Chancellor for determination.

  Mrs Berwick was given six weeks within which to consider the alternative proposed by the Chancellor. If after six weeks Mr Newell had not written to the registry confirming Mrs Berwick’s agreement to the changes proposed, the memorial would have to be removed in its entirety at the expense of Mummery’s, and the Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings would take all steps to procure its removal.

  The Consistory Court also had power to order Mummery’s to reimburse Mrs Berwick for the entire costs of the fabrication and erection of the memorial if its removal was ordered. The Chancellor said that in the circumstances it was a power which “ought to be exercised . . . having regard to the respective culpability of those concerned”.

He ordered that, if the sum of £2881.04 was not reimbursed within 21 days of the removal of the memorial, then Mummery’s would be debarred until further notice from carrying out work in consecrated burial grounds in the diocese of Chichester which were the subject of the faculty jurisdiction.

  Equally, the Chancellor said, Mr Cox had not “covered himself with glory”. His knowledge and application of the Directions fell well short of what was expected of the clergy of the Church of England. To mark the disapproval of the court, and to ensure best practice hereafter, the Chancellor revoked for a period of 12 months the delegated authority given to Mr Cox under Appendix D to the Chancellor’s General Directions Concerning Churches and Churchyards (Issue 2) dated Easter 2007.

  During that period, applications for introductions of memorials into the churchyard of this church must be determined by the incumbent of the benefice, Canon Howard Cocks, if he was willing and able to act, and otherwise by the rural dean.

  As to the costs of the petition, the Chancellor said that the proceedings had been “necessitated by the conduct of Mummery’s, compounded to some degree by a lack of care on the part of Mr Cox”. The court costs would be borne as to 75 per cent by the Co-operative Group (CWS) Ltd and as to 25 per cent by Mr Cox.