A WEDGE-SHAPED plinth installed without permission in a Cheshire churchyard have to be removed since it didn’t meet churchyard regulations, and would set a “troubling” precedent if it remained, the Diocesan Chancellor has ruled.
The Consistory Court of the diocese of Chester refused to grant permission to retain in place the wedge-shaped plinth, which had been installed within the churchyard of St Lawrence’s, Stoak, on the grave of Jayne Louise McAlister, who died on 15 January 2015. The petitioners searching for permission were Jean Andre (Andy) McAlister, Shirley McAlister, and Peter McAlister, who’re the parents and brother, respectively, of the deceased.
The plinth had been installed on a concrete base immediately in front of the memorial to the deceased by her father, Andy McAlister. No stonemason had been involved. The plinth was of black shiny material broadly matching the color of the memorial itself. Mr McAlister envisaged that, in the end, his ashes and his wife’s body can be buried in the identical grave, at which era an appropriate inscription could possibly be added to the plinth.
The incumbent, the churchyard co-ordinator, and the PCC objected to the retention of the plinth. It was argued that, were the plinth permitted to stay, a precedent for further applications can be set. The objectors acknowledged that there have been some headstones and extra stones that had “slipped through the web during the last years”, but said that the parish was “attempting to get on top of such matters”.
Mr McAlister, they wrote, “gave the impression to be under the impression that he could add stones and other accoutrements to his daughter’s grave without permission, which in turn had led [another named individual] to think he could do the identical”.
The principal objections were that the installation of the plinth was not “in step with current Churchyard Regulations”, and that the parish was “currently attempting to bring the churchyard back into line with these Regulations”.
The Chancellor, His Honour David Turner KC, said that correspondence disclosed a misunderstanding on Mr McAlister’s part that he had “purchased” the grave. This was “never the case in a consecrated churchyard”, the Chancellor said.
While the memorial installed belonged to its owner or “heirs at law”, the plot or ground in query didn’t. Express permission was all the time required for any addition, resembling kerbs, chippings, flower receptacles, or an extra plinth to be placed on the plot. The land remained a part of the churchyard.
The diocesan Churchyard Regulations were approved by chancellors in each diocese, and existed principally to enable clergy and the general public to know what, generally, could be permitted and not using a faculty or special permission.
The Regulations existed, the Chancellor said, “to create clarity and consistency as to what could also be appropriate to a churchyard setting, fairness as between families wishing to have family members buried, and practicality for volunteers and others charged with tending and maintaining churchyards as worthy and peaceful places of rest”.
There was little doubt, he said, that this particular plinth, although well intended, fell foul of the regulations on this diocese. It was “an unauthorised addition” that plainly prolonged the “footprint” of the memorial, which had otherwise been accepted and approved.
Chancellors had, in recent times, taken differing views on granting permission outside of the regulations. Some had required “exceptional circumstances” to be demonstrated by petitioners.
The Chancellor said that his task was to “strike a balance between the petitioners’ request . . . and the position of the parish clergy and PCC whose policy [was], commendably, to attempt to secure compliance with Churchyard Regulations”.
In favour of the petitioners was the undeniable fact that the plinth was already in place, it was not unsightly or dramatic in impact, and the churchyard maintenance implications were fairly limited.
Against this was the parochial opposition, the priority a few potentially troubling precedent, some maintenance inconvenience, and the commendable desire of the PCC and ministry staff to implement the Regulations as they stood.
In this case, the Chancellor said, what the petitioners were anxious to attain was really “grave reservation”. That was not an unworthy goal, but to hunt to attain it by the present means was “not appropriate”.
This could be realised “by other means which needn’t require departure from regulation”, the Chancellor said. The grave gave the impression to be sufficiently capacious to attain what the family desired, and the prevailing memorial was sufficient to accommodate further names and dates.
The petitioners had, subsequently, did not discharge the burden upon them of showing that the plinth should remain, and Mr McAlister had a transparent responsibility to remove, or arrange for the removal of, the unauthorised plinth and its concrete base.
