A PCC was entitled to adopt a policy of not supporting applications for the reservation of grave spaces, and of allocating the next available grave plot when someone died, the Consistory Court of the diocese of York has ruled.
The petitioners, David and Maureen Gray, aged 80 and 81 years respectively, each applied for the reservation of a grave space in the churchyard of St Peter’s, Hilton. They had been resident in the parish of Hilton for more than 46 years,
The churchyard was built on sloping land, and the effect of that was that plots had to be dug in sequence from the bottom of the bank. There were only 26 available grave spaces in the churchyard, and it was estimated that, on the current rate of use, a further 15 years’ worth of grave space was available.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful Lyndsey de Mestre KC, said that, although she was not bound by the decisions of other chancellors in other consistory courts in cases relating to the reservation of grave spaces, a clearly expressed thread running through those cases was that the Consistory Court would generally support a policy of non-reservation of grave spaces unless that policy revealed bad faith, or was unreasonable. There was an exceptionality threshold, however, whereby it was open to the court to justify granting a faculty, notwithstanding the significant weight to be given to the PCC’s position.
In the present case, the PCC’s rationale for its longstanding policy was that: a first-come-first-served basis operated whereby the next grave plot was allocated as someone died; the policy had long been accepted as fair and followed by the majority without quibble; the PCC depended on local support to keep the church operational; and, if reservations were to be allowed, then the very limited number of remaining spaces would rapidly be used up by applicants for reservations, and the PCC felt that it would be unable to adjudicate fairly between new applicants in the event of a surge of applications.
The Chancellor said that there was a reflection of the case law in that rationale, since it expressly recognised the importance of equality of treatment and of avoiding the unfairness that would arise for those who had accepted and followed the policy if others sought and were granted permission on a non-exceptional basis.
Exceptional cases were still possible, but they needed to be justified by exceptional reasons.
Having considered the PCC’s reasons for introducing the policy, the Chancellor concluded that they were satisfactorily articulated, understandable, and objectively reasonable. The evidence of the PCC’s application of its policy since its introduction indicated that it was being applied consistently, the Chancellor said, and the decision to introduce the policy was justified, having been motivated by the limited space and the peculiarities of the sloping site, which made it particularly difficult to manage anything other than burials in consecutive spaces. The policy was based on reasonable considerations of fairness to the community, and there was nothing to suggest bias, bad faith, or unfairness.
Mr and Mrs Gray had been invited to provide the court with any information to support their petition, in particular the reasons that they believed their case to be exceptional so as to justify departure from the PCC’s policy. They had not provided any response except the documents themselves, which revealed nothing other than the general desire of a couple who had lived locally for a long time to be buried in their local churchyard.
That was “readily understandable”, the Chancellor said, but it “merely articulated what was a very common wish”, and there was “absolutely nothing exceptional in it”. Mr and Mrs Gray had also been informed of the policy of not permitting grave-space reservations, and had petitioned in full knowledge of that.
Demonstrating exceptional circumstances required a petitioner to show that their case was “markedly out of the ordinary”. Mr and Mrs Gray had not pointed to factors that marked their position as exceptional, the Chancellor said, and their petitions were refused.