8th March 2005, 04:19 PM
The Disused Burial Ground Act 1884 requires that no building work may take place on a disused burial ground, except for the purpose of enlarging a Church. Of course the 1981 Amended Act does effectively allow development if inhumations have not taken place for 50 years although any objections from relatives of the deceased will preclude any development.
This does not apply to consecrated ground. Pastoral Measure 1983 can be applied in this case which essentially makes provision for the maintenance of a burial ground. The legal implications of consecration can be removed at the Churches discretion, although the land cannot be de-consecrated. Therefore the Church has two options to either apply to deconsecrate the Churchyard or find a piece of land for development within the Churchyard which has not been used for burials for 50 years, often tricky, as 50 years ago this problem was not thought of. No, in my experience the Church of England will go for option A. attach it to the Church.
It seems to me that this document is full of theological justifications for getting round the difficulty. When I started digging I am sure we were told that if you came across someone?s legs sticking out of the baulk you don?t just take them away. Now apparently we can. I do read this in light of Faith in the Future but I also read this in light of Nicholas Browns (a Roll A Parliamentary Agent and Solicitor) article Grave Considerations-The Development of Disused Cemeteries and Burial Grounds ? Tax Journal January 2003. This is an article which advocates selling of large cemetaries for development. He says ? Despite the complexities it is possible to remove the restrictions imposed and allow for the sale and development of areas where burial no longer occurs with the lure of significant financial incentives? It may well be just me but perhaps there are two ways to read this guidance.But that (and a fundamentally tenuous grip on the law )is why I am an archaeologist and not a Lawyer and will be till the day I am (temporarily) buried.
This does not apply to consecrated ground. Pastoral Measure 1983 can be applied in this case which essentially makes provision for the maintenance of a burial ground. The legal implications of consecration can be removed at the Churches discretion, although the land cannot be de-consecrated. Therefore the Church has two options to either apply to deconsecrate the Churchyard or find a piece of land for development within the Churchyard which has not been used for burials for 50 years, often tricky, as 50 years ago this problem was not thought of. No, in my experience the Church of England will go for option A. attach it to the Church.
It seems to me that this document is full of theological justifications for getting round the difficulty. When I started digging I am sure we were told that if you came across someone?s legs sticking out of the baulk you don?t just take them away. Now apparently we can. I do read this in light of Faith in the Future but I also read this in light of Nicholas Browns (a Roll A Parliamentary Agent and Solicitor) article Grave Considerations-The Development of Disused Cemeteries and Burial Grounds ? Tax Journal January 2003. This is an article which advocates selling of large cemetaries for development. He says ? Despite the complexities it is possible to remove the restrictions imposed and allow for the sale and development of areas where burial no longer occurs with the lure of significant financial incentives? It may well be just me but perhaps there are two ways to read this guidance.But that (and a fundamentally tenuous grip on the law )is why I am an archaeologist and not a Lawyer and will be till the day I am (temporarily) buried.