RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: teresaevans on Thursday 28 July 11 09:43 BST (UK)
-
Hi
I am conducting research into the history of a disused burial ground that is situated in Redcross Way, and bordered by Union Street, Borough, Southwark, London.
I would be interested to hear from anyone who has details about what buildings whether factories or warehouses once stood on this site in or around 1928/29. The burial ground is directly opposite to what used to be known as St. Saviour's school.
Many thanks in advance.
-
Hi
welcome to Rootschat..
Is this the old Cross Bones site?
Loads of info come on on the site when googled and most state that the locals opposed building of any kind on the site and that it was once home to a fairground for a while until local objection.
Earliest record is of John Stow 's 1598 survey of London and the last burial in 1853. It was sold as a building site in 1883 but proved an unpopular move with the locals and the following year the sale was withdrawn.
Tazzie
-
Hi Tazzie,
Thank you for the welcoming.
Yes it is indeed the Cross Bones site which you may be interested to know was sold again in 1892. It is my understanding that the District Railway Company bought it at an auction.
I am aware that there is much local opposition to developing this site, but my aim is to present an argument to the Secretary of State that it was unlawful to build in a disused burial ground in 1928 and that it would be unlawful now.
If you come across any information around 1928 I would be grateful if you could send this to me please.
Regards
Teresa
-
A very worthwhile thing that you are doing Teresa - good luck with it.
And welcome to Rootschat. :)
This burial ground has a bit of a cult following built up around it from what I understand. Won't sheer local pressure and objections prevent any building on the site?
Have you looked for maps of the area in 1928 to see if they show any buildings on the site?
-
Thank you.
I doubt it. It is far too large a project with a lot of money involved. If I really believed it would then I might likely drop what I am doing.
I have looked at maps made after 1928. The odd thing is that the maps I have looked at simply depict the burial ground and nothing else. I know that this is not the case. Strange. It is like a map made in 1702 by a guy of the name of Strype. He makes no record of any burial ground being there at all, so I am not confident that a map will give me the answers. I sense that I must establish what was actually built. I do not reside in London and appears that I may need to make a trip there to examine archives at the South London Press, unless of course some information comes from this direction.
Do you live local. I used to live in Redcross Way when I was a kid.
-
......my aim is to present an argument to the Secretary of State that it was unlawful to build in a disused burial ground in 1928 and that it would be unlawful now.
Not sure about this.
I know about 20 or so years ago they moved bodies from a crypt in a Church in Southwark so that it could be coverted into flats. If they could do that it seems reasonable that they could build on a disused burial ground if the bodies were removed first. Indeed I am sure this appeared in one of the Who Do You Think You Are, or similar programmes. I think in the programme they got assistance from the Metropolitan Archives.
Therefore I think it may be worth contacting the Metropolitan Archives to see what help they can give.
It may also be worth contacting Sands Films as they hold the Rotherhithe Picture Library that has lierally thousands of old photos that may have something in them of use.
http://www.sandsfilms.co.uk/
Another possibility is to contact the Ordnance Survey and ask them if they have, or know of, very large scale maps of the area for the period as these should show the outline of all buildings on the site. These are of a scale that show all individual buildings even individual terraced houses.
Hope that is of use
-
Thank you for this information davidft. I will certainly check out this site.
In response to your comments, the law in relation to moving bodies from a crypt is not the same as laws pertaining to disused burial grounds and open spaces Acts. It is much too complicated to go into here.
Thanks again.
-
There was an interesting History Cold Case featuring one of the skeletons from the graveyard - did you see the programme?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00slp71
I was also thinking about Ordnance Survey maps in the hope that they may show buildings and maybe even name them. Can you explain why you are searching for a map specifically for 1928/9? Do you believe that there were buildngs there at that time?
I did look online for a map of around 1928, but I couldn't find anything suitable. Southwark Libraries have some online maps, but no images appeared when I tried to access them. You may like to contact Southwark Libraries: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200161/local_history_library
These local libraries can be very helpful, especially if you tell them what you are doing. I'm sure they will be sympathetic - I can't imagine any individuals, especially locals, agreeing with the development of this site. So you're sure to have them on side. If they do have appropriate maps, they should be able to send you images electronically, and save you a trip to London.
Do you live local. I used to live in Redcross Way when I was a kid.
I live in Australia Teresa. ;D
Are you aware of the recent battle to save the Cleveland Street workhouse? http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/dickens-workhouse-saved-from-demolition/story-e6frfku0-1226021453832 I know it's not the same (as I believe the building will still be developed in some way), but you may wish to contact the organizers of that to see if they can give you any tips about how they won the battle. In the end I think it was the (likely but still not 100% proved) association with Dickens that helped them. I don't know that you can get an angle like this to save the burial ground ...
Aimery de Malet Roquefort
on behalf of the Cleveland Street Workhouse Group
www.clevelandstreetworkhouse.org
There may be other more appropriate examples you can find and people who will be willing to help. This is a very recent one, and a rare victory, which is why it came to mind.
Do you have all the appropriate organisations such as English Heritage involved? [You also need the backing of a few high profile celebrities. And of course much kudos gained by getting the Royal newlyweds on board.]
I'm not sure how useful they are, but do you have an online petition? (I'll sign it ;))
Please keep in touch and let us know how you get on.
-
Hi
Not sure how you would put a legal case together based on the Acts in place at present for changing the use of burial grounds - it looks more an argument on the historical importance of the remaining unbuilt on part of the burial ground and the importance to the local community and like other similar burial grounds in London it should be kept as a green space.
That would seem to need the land to be redefined as it appears to have permission to be built on as indeed most of it already has been.
'my aim is to present an argument to the Secretary of State that it was unlawful to build in a disused burial ground in 1928 and that it would be unlawful now.'
Many parts of London are built on disused burial sites. It is not illegal to do so and was not in 1928/9 if the law was followed.
'Unless another statutory provision applies, the Burial Act 1857, section 25, regulates the exhumation of human remains interred in England and Wales. Section 25 provides that, if human remains are to be exhumed from consecrated ground, that is ground consecrated by the Church of England, and are to be reinterred in consecrated ground then a faculty, an ecclesiastical licence, must be obtained from the Chancellor of the Consistory Court, the ecclesiastical court of the diocese. If the remains are not in consecrated ground, or are not to be reinterred in consecrated ground, then a licence from the secretary of state of the relevant government department, formerly the Home Office presently the Ministry of Justice, must be obtained.'
The burial act came into being because churchyards in cities and industrial towns had been overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of burials occurring in them on a daily basis and had become a severe health risk. Many were subsequently cleared along with their crypts and have either become green garden areas or built upon for further urban development.
Reading accounts of the state of the burial ground in 1845 (complaint to the Board of Health by one of the schools) that was certainly the case for Crossbones.
Open Spaces Act 1906 (from the Diocese of Rochester)
'Section 11(3) permits the removal of tombstones and monuments in a disused burial ground only (i.e. one no longer used for interments whether or not the ground has been partially or wholly closed for burials under the provisions of a statute or an order in council). If the ground is consecrated, a licence or faculty must first be obtained from the Bishop (section 11(4). The local authority, at least three months before moving any tombstones or monuments, must prepare and deposit for public inspection a statement of the names and dates on the tombstones to be moved; give notice of the proposals at least three times in a local newspaper and to any person known or believed to be a near relative of a person commemorated on the tombstone; and place a notice of the proposals on the door of any church attached to the burial ground.'
http://www.rochester.anglican.org/pdf_files/dac/Maintenance%20%20Old%20burial%20grounds.pdf
Isabella Holmes (London Burial Grounds Notes on their history) describes 'Crossbones' in 1895
'This was made at least 250 years ago, "far from the parish church", for the interment of the low women who frequented the neighbourhood. It was subsequently used as the pauper ground and was crowded to excess. Nevertheless two schools were built in it. The remaining piece is about 1,000 square yards. It has frequently been offered for sale as a building site and has formed the subject for much litigation. It is made partial use of by being let for fairs, swings etc. It was sold as a building site in 1883, but not having been used by 1884, the sale was declared (under the Disused Burial Grounds Act) null and void.'
Many poor Irish were buried there.
Taken from Graveyard London Lost and Forgotten Burial Grounds
There has been periodic building work since in the 1920s (in 1928 40 skeltons were reinterred at Brookwood Cemetery) and the 1990s when the Jubilee Line was extended ('claimed' the Museum of London removed 148 skeltons). In 2002 Southwark Council refused planning permission for three office-blocks to be erected on the remaining unbuilt part of the burial ground. The decision was over turned on appeal which means in essence that Transport London who appear to be the present owners have permission to develop the site.
The reinterment of skeltons at Brookwood Cemetery in 1928, if that did occur, would appear to show the law was being followed.
http://www.brookwoodcemetery.com/london-parishes.htm
London Burial Grounds website
'Building work in the 1920s led to the exhumation of many bones, as did building work on the new substation for the Jubilee Line extension in the 1990s. Detailed archaeological work from this time and a general history of the ground is described in The Cross Bones Burial Ground (Museum of London Archaeological Service 1999).'
The 1999 report should give some detail of the building work that went on in 1928 and the exhumations that occurred then and certainly must do so for the work in the 1990s when the Museum of London was involved.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Ruskie
I had heard about the cold case programme but never did manage to find it online so thank you for this info and the other information that you provide.
I am searching for information about building works conducted around 1928/29 as a book published reveals a letter of complaint from a guy known as Mr. Magenis. He made a complaint to the South London Press about buildings being erected in the burial ground now known as Cross Bones. He was obviously aware that the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 prevented building when he was a child. It remains the case now, despite an amendment to this Act being enforced in 1981. The two Acts are read as one Act. No exhumation licence can be issued under either of these Act’s. An exhumation licence can only be issued under one of the Burial Acts and in these circumstances only when works have been conducted before. I aim to prove that the works that were conducted in 1928/29 was unlawful, and that decisions made at this time to issue an exhumation licence was equally unlawful which has had an effect on decision making since.
I am aware that when the sub station was built in the burial ground to serve the Jubilee Line extension, archaeologists found foundations which were recent and believed they were once foundations for warehouses.
There is already a campaign running to save part of the burial ground and turn it into a garden/open space. This is led by a man known as John Constable. Without him I would never have known that a burial ground existed on the corner of the street that I lived in. You may care to sign the petition http://www.crossbones.org.uk/#/petition-contact/4530753744
I support the Cross Bone campaigners, but I am not convinced that relying solely on ethical and moral considerations is enough to secure a decision not to build on part of the burial ground. I also believe that all of the burial ground should be protected and an open space created, just as was done in many DBG’s back in the 19th Century.
Thank you for your words of encouragement.
-
Hi Valda,
In response to your posting I point you to my response to Ruskie. It is my understanding that anyone wishing to build in a disused burial ground would need to have obtained legislation that overrides these Act’s. To my knowledge no such legislation exists.
The schools that Isabella Homes refers to were built before the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 came into force. The St. Saviour’s Charity school for boys was built in 1791 and the National Free School for girls was built in 1819. I am not certain when both were demolished, but a school on the opposite side of the road also known as St. Saviour’s replaced these schools.
You appear to have some knowledge of the law in relation to burial. Should you feel inclined to do so I would be grateful if you would examine the Disused Burial Grounds Act’s which are read as one, and let me know if you arrive at the same opinions as me.
Kind regards
Teresa
-
Hi
English Heritage document taken from the appendices
e.g.
'The Church of England has powers similar to those in the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 to overcome the prohibition in the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 in relation to building in churchyards and in land belonging to a parish church or cathedral.'
and
'If any human remains are to be left in-situ on a site where development is to take place, care is needed in order that the procedure complies with relevant legislation. The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 stipulates that there should be prior removal of human remains before a building is erected on a disused burial ground. However, if the planned works will leave human remains undisturbed, then dispensation can be obtained from the Home Office authorising that the burials remain in situ'.
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/human-remains-excavated-from-christian-burial-grounds-in-england/16602humanremains1.pdf
An example of a notice to build under the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981
http://www.caerleon.net/history/records/castlest/burials/swa.html
'The Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 gives authority to other churches and religious bodies to utilise their disused burial grounds for the erection of buildings, provided that either no interments have ever taken place there or, if there have been burials within the previous 50 years, the descendants of the deceased persons do not object. As with s.11 of the OSA 1906 and the Planning Regulations 1950 (paragraphs 25 and 26 above), public notice by way of advertisement is required and disinterred remains must be decently reinterred.'
National Association of Local Councils 2007.
The excavations in the 1990s would have been following the legislation of the Disused Burial Ground (Amendment) Act 1981. The burial ground itself was shut in 1853 so the issue of interments over the last 50 years does not apply.
The 1981 Amendment Act itself
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/18/contents
most important section would be
Exclusion of Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 in certain cases.
Basically the 1884 act is not applying to church ground where interments have never taken place or
'no personal representative or relative of any deceased person whose remains have been interred in such land during the period of fifty years immediately before the proposal to erect a building thereon has in accordance with subsection (2) of this section duly objected to the proposal or all such objections have been withdrawn.'
Regards
Valda
-
Thank you for answering my questions Teresa. Valda, you have provided some very interesting information - some of which I admit to not understanding fully ;) - but I am going to go over it again more carefully.
I would like to see as much of this burial ground that still remains preserved. Not for ethical or moral reasons, but as I see it, for historical reasons, and to preserve links to the past.
Valda you said that Southwark Council refused planning permission to build office blocks on the site in 2002, but the decison was overturned. Am I right in assuming that they are in favour of keeping this as an open space? Who is pushing for this development?
-
I've signed the online petition - I'm sure many more rootschatters would also sign if they knew about it.
Valda, is there any way you can ask if we can have a link to this petition via the "News:" at the top of the page under the rootschat header (beside Trystan's Christie appeal)? :-*
-
It is my understanding that planning permission was denied as the design (height of buildings) did not meet with the heritage sites which are closely situated. Transport for London made an appeal and won. It is Transport for London pushing for a new development as land is surplus to requirements.
I have complained to the planning authorities. It appears that when they are making decisions they make them only on planning legislation and not other legislation that may prevent building in a disused burial ground. The Planning Inspectorate when making a decision on the appeal took into consideration that the land had been built on before. But it does not mean that any building which took place in or around 1928 was done so lawfully.
I would implore anyone with knowledge of law related to burial and disused burial ground Act's to clarify if my understanding is correct and that new legislation would be required to overturn the DBGA’s for a private developer to go ahead.
-
Hi
Legally authorities cannot just take into consideration planning legislation when dealing with building on a burial ground. They have to take into consideration the 1857 Burial Act (for what needs to happen concerning the bodies - if any are moved that can only be done with a licence issue by the Secretary of State - there are some concerns now over archaelogists keeping some remains and reburials not taking place) and the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884, but more crucially the amendment to that Act in 1981 which basically 'pushed a cart and horses' through the 1884 Act.
Some of the 148 skeltons removed in the 1990s from 'Cross Bones' were exhibited at the London Museum's 1998 London Bodies exhibition.
The Planning inspectorate should take into consideration the type of development that could go ahead within the boundaries of the planning legislation (I don't think they are in a position to rule on specific legislation that governs burial grounds) as they would do for all planning development appeals.
The Planning Inspectorate
'In 99% of appeal cases the decision is taken by the Inspector; in others the Inspector will prepare a report and make a recommendation to the Secretary of State'
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/index.htm
1981 Disused Burial Grounds Amendment Act
'Exclusion of Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 in certain cases..
(1)Notwithstanding section 3 of the principal Act (which prohibits the erection of buildings on disused burial grounds except in certain cases) but subject to section 2 of this Act a building may be erected on a disused burial ground or part thereof which is or has been owned by or on behalf of a church or other religious body provided that either—.
(a)no interments have ever taken place in such land, or.
(b)no personal representative or relative of any deceased person whose remains have been interred in such land during the period of fifty years immediately before the proposal to erect a building thereon has in accordance with subsection (2) of this section duly objected to the proposal or all such objections have been withdrawn..
(2)Notice of any proposal to erect a building on land in which human remains are interred shall be given by or on behalf of the church or other religious body by whom or on whose behalf the land is held by—.
(a)advertisement in two successive weeks in one or more newspapers circulating in the area where such land is situated, and.
(b)notice displayed on or near such land.
specifying the time (not being less than six weeks from the date of the first publication of the newspaper advertisement) within which and the manner in which objections thereto can be made.
Nothing there about any previous buildings on the grounds and most burial grounds being built on today and since 1981 will not have had any previous buildings on them. Cross Bones remaining land has already had the London Underground electricity sub-station for the Jubilee Line Extension built on it in the 1990s. This appears to have been perfectly legal and the requirements of the burial acts were followed.
There are other burial grounds that are being lost across the country. They may not be so well known but their supporters and descendants would equally say they also deserve similar attention particularly where gravestones are being lost and destroyed.
Historically, certainly in urban areas the loss of burial grounds is not a new development.
Short video on London's Lost Burial Grounds
http://www.youtube.com/user/crossboneskatie
Image of present day Cross bones
http://spitalfieldslife.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/img_8065.jpg
No matter what it looks like today and like other London burial grounds it could be returned to a 'green area', the real issue that threatens the burial ground is that it is potentially a very expensive piece of real estate.
Many urban churchyards were at least in part saved and have become important green areas for London in particular. At the time of their closure in the early 1850s most central London churchyards were awful places which is why there was a popular movement to clear them.
'It appears almost impossible to dig a grave in this ground without coming into contact with some recent interment, and the grave digger's pick is often forced through the lid of a coffin when least expected, from which so dreadful an effluvium is emitted, as to occasion immediate annoyance; most of the graves are very shallow, - some entire coffins, indeed, are to be found within a foot and a half of the surface.'
By 1895 Isabella Holmes for the London County Council had found the location of nearly 500 burial grounds, churchyards and civic cemeteries in the city and suburbs of London, of which 364 still existed at least in part, 90 of which were public gardens. In 1895 only 41, largely civic cemeteries were still in use. The county of London in 1895 was around 119 square miles in size and Isabella didn’t count in her list any just beyond its boundaries. Greater London formed in 1965 is just over 300 square miles in size.
Financial Times article on Cross bones which indicates Southwark Council's position in 2008.
http://crossofstgeorge.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22883
The Cross Bones website
http://www.crossbones.org.uk/
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
I appreciate that we may each interpret Act’s of Parliament in different ways. I don’t agree that the 1981 Amendment Act pushed a cart through the 1884 Act.
Yes you are correct that in general circumstances exhumations can only take place with an exhumation licence issued by the Ministry of Justice. It would be issued under Section 25 of The Burial Act 1857.
If my understanding of the law is correct a private owner of a disused burial ground can only extend or build a place of worship etc. (1884 Act) and to exhume bodies
would have to apply for “directions of the Secretary of State” (Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981, schedule Section 2 paragraph 7). Obviously no place of worship has been extended and ‘directions’ have not been sought. Exhumation licences have been issued instead on several occasions.
It is likely possible that the sub station built in the 1990’s was built under different legislation which allows ‘statutory undertakers’ to build in a disused burial ground. An exhumation licence was issued under the 1857 Act. This is quite a separate issue to what legislation if any, was relied on to conduct building in or around 1928, and what could be relied on now. I am not aware whether an exhumation licence was issued in 1928 or if ‘direction’s were sought from the secretary of State. This I need to determine. I am aware that the land owner in 1898 sought ‘directions’ and was refused.
Historically, certainly in urban areas the loss of burial grounds is not a new development.
No it is not unusual. There is some case details available which indicates that not all loss of burial grounds was done lawfully, and has been legally challenged in some instances.
I think one of the biggest problems in respect of the Cross Bones burial ground is that many people simply believe what they are told and accept that what building has been done in the past or intended for the future must be lawful. Just as people accept that Cross Bones is one in the same burial ground that John Stow wrote about in his Survey of London. There is no real evidence to support this. I am not alone with this thought. Gillian Tindall author of ‘The House by the Thames and The People Who Lived There’ expresses the same view.
Thank you for the links that you have provided.
-
When decisons are to be made involving development worth millions of pounds, I don't necessarily trust those decision makers. :-\
The thing about that valuable piece of land, is that it has sat there empty for years, and now that there is some interest shown in it's preservation after the remains were found, then it seems that suddenly it is going to be 'developed'.
Just an outsiders impression ....
[Valda, as an aside, a few years ago I read a fascinating and easy to read book about burials/graveyards in London, but I can't for the life of me remember what it's called. I'm sure it was a fairly recent publication and a good introduction to the subject, and I think a must-read for anyone with London ancestors. Can you please suggest a couple of possible titles as I'm sure I'll recognise it when I hear it. Thanks. :)]
-
Hi Ruskie
The London Burials website has a useful booklist
http://www.burial.magic-nation.co.uk/bgbooks.htm
and is in itself a must read/refer to website.
The indication is that for theis burial ground subsequent attempts at redevelopment have been made since the 1920s but have come to nothing so far and that resistance to development of the site dates back certainly to Lord Brabazon's letter to The Times in 1883 after the land was sold as a building site
'with a view to save the ground from such desecration and retain it as an open space for the use and enjoyment of the people'
(source Graveyard London Lost and forgotten burial grounds).
Lord Brabazon (of Meath)'s interest was probably in the fact that substantial numbers of poor Irish were buried at the burial ground.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Teresaevans
I do think the 1981 amendments to the 1884 Act are key to whether building (since 1981) can take place or not, but you really do need to seek qualified legal opinion on this.
Section 3 to the amendment act (Rights, powers and duties of subsequent owners) covers private ownership as well as church ownership and gives private ownership the same rights under the amendment act, section1 already quoted (Exclusion of Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 in certain cases) which allows development and therefore amends/changes the law of 1884 - whether the land has been built on previously or not doesn't seem to come into it.
Section 3
'Where a church or other religious body disposes of an interest in a disused burial ground, then the owner for the time being of that interest shall have the same rights and powers and be subject to the same obligations, restrictions, duties and liabilities conferred or imposed by this Act on that church or other religious body, as if that interest had not been so disposed of.'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/18/section/3
Section 2 paragraph 7 of the Amendment Act concerns the Disposal of human remains under the 1857 Burial Act. That would only need to apply if building works went ahead and disturbed human remains (as it appears to have done in 1928 and certainly did in the1990s when the Amendment Act was in place).
'The provisions of section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 (prohibition of removal of human remains without the licence of the Secretary of State except in certain cases) shall not apply to a removal carried out in accordance with the provisions of the said Schedule.'
Section 2 in full (paragraphs 1-7) - Disposal of human remains
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/18/section/2
I have far less understanding of planning acts but the argument about whether building legally took place on the site in 1928 would surely be important for planning applications for the site since if building has legally taken place (other than concreting it over for a car park which is allowed) then the site has the status of brownfill and can be more easily redeveloped under planning law an argument that has been made on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate (information from your posts) and it appears has been accepted (from your information)?
I don't doubt that Transport for London have employed some very highly trained legal staff who know their way around these Acts of Parliament both Planning and Burial Acts since building development and burial grounds, usually more ancient, regularly come into the equation in developments in central London.
I understand statutory undertakers certainly have more rights under planning law (nothing to do with undertakers as in funeral directors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_Undertakers
and it would seem building rights may have been extended by the planning act - Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 in regard to disused burial grounds (part 3 and schedule 4 parts 1-4)?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/17/contents
Part 3 Powers in relation to burial grounds and consecrated land etc.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/17/schedule/3/part/3
The source for exhumations of 40 skeletons taking place in 1928 and being reburied at Brookwood Cemetery is the Museum of London publication their source apparently a newspaper article (my source Graveyard London Lost and Forgotten Burial Grounds). Brookwood Cemetery would be able to confirm whether that happened. The skeletons were disturbed during building works - legally or otherwise (the building works) though such exhumations could only have occurred with the necessary permissions needed under the 1857 Burial Act. That building work was stopped and in the following year the sale was declared void under the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 (quoted from same source as given above not actual primary source material) which would be the only legislation then applying in 1929. However in 2011 there is much more recent legislation to take into account, both the amendment to the burial act and it would seem more recent planning legislation as well (and including the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 - though Crossbones was the additional burial ground to St Saviours so this legislation which impacts on private cemeteries should not apply).
The adjacent London borough of Lambeth seem to have a churchyard and cemeteries action plan. At the end of the plan is a list where further advice on churchyards and cemeteries, their protection and conservation, can be found. Thes links might prove helpful.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/0eg6/
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
Thank you for writing as such length.
I must make clear that my intention to approach the Secretary of State to not issue ‘directions’ or exhumation licences in the future is not to begin a ‘legal’ argument, but present an informal appeal based on what is lawful, and not simply rely on what is ethical or morally right.
Some of the understandings that I have reached thus far is based on some communication I have made with the Ministry of Justice. Example: Valda states that “whether the land has been built on previously or not doesn't seem to come into it.” I have been given to understand by the MoJ that it actually does. This is the reason that I need to determine what took place in terms of building in the burial ground in 1928/29 as it would appear that any decisions made now relies on what took place at this time.
Valda you appear to be reading the Disused Burial Grounds Act 1884 and the Amendment to this Act in 1981 as two separate Act’s. They must be read as one Act.
It appears to me that the only real changes made in the 1981 Act is to afford undertakings under statutory powers, and not private ones.
I am not convinced that it has ever been legally determined that concreting over a disused burial ground is in fact legal. Do you have case law relating to this?
In respects of TFL’s legal team knowing their way around these Act’s, to my knowledge there is no way around, other than a private developer to obtain new legislation to override the DBGA’s.
Just thought that I would drop in that undertakers as in funeral arranging matters have ‘no’ statutory powers at all.
I am a little confused by your comments in the large paragraph before your last. You jump from 1928 to 1884 when a sale of the land was made null and void, though you mention 40 skeletons being removed in 1928. Does your source of information provide an exhumation licence number please?
I am aware that there is more recent legislation to take into account, but this applies only to statutory undertakings, not commercial undertakings even if a Private Act was sought.
Thanks for sharing Valda…good to discuss.
-
Hi Ruskie
The London Burials website has a useful booklist
http://www.burial.magic-nation.co.uk/bgbooks.htm
and is in itself a must read/refer to website.
Thanks Valda - I did stumble across this site just prior to posting. The book I am trying to remember does not appear here, but I will have a closer look in case I missed something.
[Added later: I just found it. "Necropolis: London and it's Dead" by Catharine Arnold - a good easy to read introduction to the subject]
-
Hi
I was trying to indicate in my post that the term 'statutory undertakers' (really for others reading the topic) that this had nothing to do with funeral directors) - the link given clarified who and what it actually concerned.
I am reading the amendments to the burial act of 1884 as the changes that have taken place to the actual act itself. I am aware an amendment act like a codecil to a will cannot be read just by itself. Where in the 1884 act does it specify about the distinction between burial land that has been built on or not, or is the Ministry of Justice refering to planning acts where this would be important as in the brownfill land site distinction where this would be very relevant?
I only understand the term statutory powers as evidenced by a statute or law passed by parliament or a legal precedent set by a court of law. I don't think I really understand what you mean by the term 'private powers' in this context?
It appears to me that the only real changes made in the 1981 Act is to afford undertakings under statutory powers, and not private ones.
Car park - concreting over of burial grounds e.g. an example from Ecclesiatical Law Society case reports
http://www.ecclawsoc.org.uk/1992-case-reports/539-re-st-nicholas-hereford.html
I did state I was using a secondary source who appeared to have read the London Museum document (which in itself is a secondary source). I stated from this source (named previously) the land was sold as building land in 1883. The sale (as building land?) was declared null and void in 1929 (or a sale of the land post 1883 source doesn't specify) under the 1884 Disused Burial Act. Since I don't have access to the London Museum document I did state I was merely quoting from a secondary source which of course is a limitation which is why I stated it as secondary sources are always intrepretations and not necessarily proven as accurate.
I don't think the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 is just about statutory undertakings it seems much wider than that?
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
I too was making the distinction about undertakers and funeral arrangements as I already have a campaign up and running to make obvious the rights of newly bereaved people. It was not a swipe at you…promise!
Where in the 1884 act does it specify about the distinction between burial land that has been built on or not
I have the same understanding as you DO. The Moj has not been specific in what it says about “The provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 comes into play when an extant former burial ground is to be built on. If the site has been put to other use, then section 25 of the 1857 Act would apply”
In the letter that I am preparing I will question the MoJ about these details, but my argument does not rely on it.
In relation to private powers I maybe did not explain myself well. What I meant was that even if a private owner of a disused burial ground sought a private Act this would not override public legislation.
Re concrete and the case you point me to http://www.ecclawsoc.org.uk/1992-case-reports/539-re-st-nicholas-hereford.html there is no mention of concrete in this case. A flagged path is concrete slabs that can be lifted easily, opposed to needing heavy machinery to dig up a whole area that has been concreted. I struggle to imagine that a faculty would have been granted if the area was wanted for a car boot etc. it related to worship. If you manage to locate another case that does discuss concreting I would be interested to learn about this please.
The land was sold in 1883 and later made null and void in the courts in 1886 Re. St. Saviour’s Rectory Trustees & Oyler (1886)
The Trustees had sold the land for the purpose of a builder’s yard then the DBG Act 1884 came into force. The prospective buyer did not now want the land. The Trustees lost the case and was forced to pay costs.
The land was sold again by auction and the District Railway Company purchased it in 1892.
I am given to understand by a reliable source that Section 7 (Saving for Town and Country Planning) of the DBGAA 1981 only applies to land that has been acquired by a compulsory purchase order. My understanding of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 allows for land that is compulsory acquired or by agreement. I am not certain what the term ‘agreement’ would mean in this context.
Thank you again for sharing. Your input is valued. If you can manage to find any information relating to 1928/29 I would be very grateful if you could post.
Kind regards
Teresa
-
Hi
'Open space is defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as land laid out as a public garden, or used for the purposes of public recreation, or land which is a disused burial ground.'
As my knowledge of planning law is limited I don't know how much further planning laws have eroded the 1990 Act.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/contents
My understanding of the importance in planning law would be whether the land has ever legally been built on in which case it is brownfield land and therefore available for reuse and can be developed.
“The provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981 comes into play when an extant former burial ground is to be built on. If the site has been put to other use, then section 25 of the 1857 Act would apply”
As I said the Amendment Act 1981 severely limits the 1884 Disused Burial Act. The MOJ refers to 1981 not the 1884 Act. Since private owners under the Amendment Act have the same rights as church authorities they don't need to seek private Acts of Parliament. The Amendment Act is sufficient.
Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 is only about what needs to happen if bodies have to be removed because of development.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/20-21/81/section/25
Building under the Disused Burial Act 1884 is interpreted as 'any temporary or movable building'. Concreting or paving over the surface isn't a building, it isn't erected 'it shall not be lawful to erect any buildings upon any disused burial ground.'
The Financial Times article 2008 already linked to in a previous post.
'After years of rejecting planning applications, including one for three office blocks, Southwark Council planners have accepted TfL’s most recent scheme, for a temporary car park for use during the upgrade of the Thameslink rail line. However, it comes with a proviso: “The proposed use of the site as a temporary car park will be north of this area [Cross Bones] and will not interfere with the gates or the shrine.” '
The photograph (link previously given) shows the area is concreted.
http://spitalfieldslife.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/img_8065.jpg
There is nothing in the 1884 Act about burial grounds which had already been developed as many had by 1884. It was just about preventing building development on those that still existed either in part or completely. That would cover the period 1884 until the Amendment Act in 1981 which allows for development on disused burial grounds - this covers burial grounds which have had no previous development on them.
I tend to think the argument is, if the land has never legally been built on then it is an 'open space' and not brownfield land. This coupled with the fact this open space land is also a disused burial ground of historic importance and you can prove over a considerable time developing it has been contested, along with the present public campaign that has been mounted since at least the 1990s (which is a very powerful campaign) then it is always worth trying, though as I said I don't know enough about planning law to know whether there is a legal argument here - you have to seek legal opinion. However and I think this is where we disagree, I don't think the Disused Burial Act 1884 coupled with the Amendment Act 1981 which weakened the original Act considerably is an argument which will now get much legal mileage.
The MOJ should be 'swayed' by two things - legal argument (legal advice essential) and public opinion. The present campaign may already have sought legal advice which might be why they continue to mount a public campaign, but have not chosen, not just because of the reasons of cost, to mount a legal challenge?
Regards
Valda
-
Hi
I think we have to agree to disagree on certain points of law and definition of Open Spaces.
I do not observe any ‘saving’ for private land owners in the 1981 DBG Amendment Act.
I too have limited knowledge about planning legislation. I sense that what is important is to determine by what ‘authority’ the land owner built on the burial ground in 1928/29. I say this because it appears from my research and enquiries which I have made that decisions made by planning authorities since the appeal decision in 2003 have been made on what was erected in 1928/29 (presumably warehouses) coupled with the fact that the electricity sub-station was built on the land in the 1990’s. It is likely that legislation giving power to statutory undertakers was relied on to build the sub-station, (yet to be confirmed by TFL) which is quite different matter.
It seems to me that Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 was intended to ensure that exhumations can take place within active burial grounds, e.g. moving bodies from one grave to another or one burial ground to another. I cannot find any evidence to prove that Section 25 was intended to be relied on without appropriate legislation to allow the wholesale destruction of burial grounds or parts of burial grounds.
What we do agree on is that the Cross Bones campaigners are doing a marvellous job thus far in protecting the burial ground. As for their request to Mayor Boris Johnson gifting the land…I struggle to imagine that this will come to fruition.
Best wishes
teresaevans