Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - teresaevans

Pages: [1] 2
1
FH Documents and Artefacts / Re: Right of Burial
« on: Thursday 04 August 11 14:54 BST (UK)  »
Hi Dave

I believe that you misinterpret what is stated in the FAQ in the link that you provide. What is stated is that the local authority does issue times granted in graves for up to 100 years, but this does not mean that this is in actual fact the time that the authority grants. If you want to be certain I would give them a call to find out. Your district could be one of the lucky ones that has not changed its practice.

I campaign for the rights of newly bereaved people to be made obvious to them in the immediate hours and days following a death. It is my experience that many burial authorities do not look to educate people about changes occurring across the country about times granted in graves. I recently flagged this up in a newspaper published locally. Instead the authority relies on people establishing this for themselves in the immediate hours following a death, and likely leaving many people quite shocked to learn that the time is no longer for ever and far removed from 100 years. 

Claims for reducing times granted in graves or reusing them is because of the shortage of grave space. I wonder how many people might choose cremation over burial if they were to determine that they were making decisions on traditional practice or assumption that they or their relatives will remain undisturbed forever. Given statistics indicate that 70% of funerals are now cremations, I wonder if there is an agenda and authorities claim that grave space is in short supply just to reduce times granted so that they can generate more income in a shorter period of time!

Best wishes

Teresa

2
FH Documents and Artefacts / Re: Right of Burial
« on: Thursday 04 August 11 09:28 BST (UK)  »
Hi Dave

You mention that it appears to be currently the case that in Ceredigion that rights last 100 years. I am not aware of any local authority in England that grants the max that the law allows for. It is usually 99 years and many in England have moved to only granting in some instances 30 years...even on triple depth graves.

My father had been granted 99 years for the double depth grave that he bought when my mother passed away. My father was later buried in the same grave and the rights passed to me. I later lost my son and I bought the exclusive rights for a single depth grave. I took it for granted that the rights was the same and never read the document when it arrived. I only learnt last year that 30 years had been granted. I never imagined that I would need to address in my own lifetime renewing the grant on my son's grave.  I think that this is appalling which made me begin examining what other local authorities grant under the law.

I learnt that remaining space in consecrated graves are being reused in the City of London cemetery and being resold as Heritage graves. The City of London has applied for a faculty to move to the lift and deepen method. For any readers that do not know what this practice is, it is where the body is removed, the grave dug deeper and the body replaced...freeing up space to sell more graves. I am not aware that this method has been adopted yet, but it will for certain and one can be sure that when it does happen that this practice will be adopted by local authorities across England and Wales.

In respect of of your understanding of extending burial rights for a longer period if there is proof of relationship, this is not my understanding. I do not believe that relationship has anything to do with rights granted, but you would need to read the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order yourself or maybe another member of the forum will provide the answer. If this fails to be the case I would have a chat with an officer at your local authority.

teresaevans

3
FH Documents and Artefacts / Re: Right of Burial
« on: Wednesday 03 August 11 11:38 BST (UK)  »
It is my understanding that up until the Local Authorities Cemeteries Order 1977 came into force which grants burial for up to 100 years, that grants issued before this time were perpetual rights...meaning forever.

Hope this helps

teresaevans

4
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Monday 01 August 11 11:45 BST (UK)  »
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

5
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Saturday 30 July 11 18:55 BST (UK)  »
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

6
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Saturday 30 July 11 13:55 BST (UK)  »
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.



7
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Friday 29 July 11 17:20 BST (UK)  »
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.


 

8
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Friday 29 July 11 13:42 BST (UK)  »
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.



9
The Common Room / Re: Red Cross Way Southwark London
« on: Friday 29 July 11 09:55 BST (UK)  »
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

Pages: [1] 2