A faculty was sought on behalf of the parochial church council (PCC) for the introduction of a single memorial wall in the area set aside for cremated remains. It was intended that no individual memorials would be permitted in the area but that the names of those whose remains were interred would be carved on plaques on the collective memorial. The Diocesan Advisory Committee expressed concern about the use of granite for the memorial. The petitioners argued that the suggested alternative of sandstone was undesirable as it would weather more readily than granite. The chancellor noted that there were a number of differences between collective and individual memorials: collective memorials were often not placed near other memorials such that the risk of creating a jarring discrepancy was reduced; the risk of creating a sense of unfairness from permitting the use of materials which others had been refused was not a consideration in a case where the names of all interred in the area were to be recorded on the single memorial; and the design of the memorial was to be determined not by the preference of a single individual or family but rather by the judgment and assessment of the incumbent and PCC, which would necessarily hold weight as a view which was best placed to assess what was appropriate in the locality. Although the use of stone which weathers over time was acceptable in the case of individual memorials, in the case of a collective memorial, where up to 240 names would be recorded, it was desirable that a material which was more hard-wearing should be used. It was pastorally unhelpful for families who wished to add the names of their loved ones to the memorial in future years to have to add that name to an already weathered stone. The faculty was granted. [RA]