The threat of a light summer breeze brushes through the lush vegetation and gently sways through the enveloping trees protecting the stark grey stoned Victorian church.
Once upon a time, this Northumberland church setting with picturesque, antiquated gravestones would have been the dream resting location for any Christian after death. However, this once popular community church in Dalton is now the setting for an unfortunate land dispute.
An Upper Tribunal hearing at the Lands Chamber found that the 1837 Title of the Descendants of the Church’s original grantor and benefactor are proof enough that they own the private family vault which sits underneath a section of the Church building.
The original Title and conveyance from 1837 reserved the vault of the church to the grantor, Edward Collingwood. The conveyance further claims that the grantor would retain the paper title of the burial vault for exclusive access to his family and successors.
Nine days after the conveyance, the church was officially consecrated. Under Section 37 of the Church Building Act 1818, consecration includes rooms below the original church building. However, the conveyance asserts the Collingwood family’s rights to the vault despite church laws.
Mr Collingwood intended to utilise the vault space as a private burial vault for his family. Viewing the church as a consecrated and spiritually virtuous space, he sought the ownership hoping that it would be the perfect final resting place. Now, as the church teeters on the brink of destruction, it would seem that his final wishes for his family are in tatters.
Following the Church’s closure from regular public worship in 2004, the Diocesan Board of Finance have been looking at options to reuse and re-purpose the building as residential dwellings. As the vault’s opening is within the church’s premises, this may not be an option if the Second Tier Tribunal found in favour of Collingwood’s successors as they would be unable to disturb the vault.
The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) found that from 1940, the last family burial in the vault, the incumbent church authorities had been in physical control and possession of the burial vault. The FTT therefore concluded that Collingwood’s successors had lost their title rights because of the adverse possession.
The Upper Tribunal overruled the argument that the incumbent had solitary control of the burial vault since 1940. There was also a lack of evidence suggesting that any representative of the incumbent had ever entered the burial vault or restricted access to the Collingwood family.
The judgement also found that there was no evidence to suggest the incumbent was treating the vault as their own by possessing access to it.
The closure of the church and subsequent locking of the premises in 2004 was not considered official notice that the paper title owners would be restricted of their access. It was also argued that an ability to prevent access to the vault did not mean they had taken possession of the vault.
The tribunal concluded that they are not declaring the successors to be freehold owners of the burial vault and urged both parties to mediate their concerns in the hope that the Grade II listed building can still be reused in the future.
However, for the time being, the place Edward Collingwood intended to be the peaceful and safe final resting place for himself and descendants remains uncertain.
Have you found burial plots to become a lot more insecure as land is increasingly sold and community churches increasingly close?
