A PCC was entitled to adopt a policy of not supporting applications for the reservation of grave spaces, and of allocating the following 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 within the churchyard of St Peter’s, Hilton. They had been resident within the parish of Hilton for greater than 46 years,
The churchyard was built on sloping land, and the effect of that was that plots needed to be dug in sequence from the underside of the bank. There were only 26 available grave spaces within the churchyard, and it was estimated that, on the present rate of use, an additional 15 years’ value of grave space was available.
The Chancellor, the Worshipful Lyndsey de Mestre KC, said that, although she was not certain by the selections of other chancellors in other consistory courts in cases regarding 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, nevertheless, whereby it was open to the court to justify granting a school, notwithstanding the numerous weight to be given to the PCC’s position.
In the current case, the PCC’s rationale for its longstanding policy was that: a first-come-first-served basis operated whereby the following grave plot was allocated as someone died; the policy had long been accepted as fair and followed by the bulk without quibble; the PCC trusted local support to maintain the church operational; and, if reservations were to be allowed, then the very limited variety of remaining spaces would rapidly be used up by applicants for reservations, and the PCC felt that it will be unable to adjudicate fairly between recent applicants within the event of a surge of applications.
The Chancellor said that there was a mirrored image of the case law in that rationale, because it expressly recognised the importance of equality of treatment and of avoiding the unfairness that might arise for many 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, comprehensible, 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 choice 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 administer anything apart from 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 supply the court with any information to support their petition, particularly the explanations that they believed their case to be exceptional in order to justify departure from the PCC’s policy. They had not provided any response except the documents themselves, which revealed nothing apart from the overall desire of a pair who had lived locally for a very long time to be buried of their local churchyard.
That was “readily comprehensible”, the Chancellor said, but it surely “merely articulated what was a quite 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 point out that their case was “markedly out of the abnormal”. Mr and Mrs Gray had not pointed to aspects that marked their position as exceptional, the Chancellor said, and their petitions were refused.
