o/t - pushing down gravestones

[desprateseagull]

inspired by previous post, did anyone see the stories in papersm and news recently, about the disturbing trend of town councils pusjing over gravestones, which in their opinion, were unstable, and could cause serious injury...

if they had the workers there, why didnt they fix them
there and then, rather than force the cost of prehaps
needless repairs, on to upset relatives?

i cant believe ALL stones can suddenly become unsafe,
and why werent the families given advance warning
of this, so they could inspect them independantly?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Those of us who live in Lewes District have the benefit of a council who may not want a football stadium, but really care about gravestones. They even have a special committee to look after them.

Interim Report of the Safety Testing of Memorials in Cemeteries and Closed Churchyards Sub-Committee

Members:
Councillor E N Collict (Chairman)
Councillor R T Crocker
Councillor E W Lee
Councillor K Moorhouse
Councillor J C Peterson

1 Introduction

1.1 National concern about safety in cemeteries has grown in recent years following a number of accidents, some fatal and involving children. Consequently, the Health and Safety Executive strongly advised that monuments and memorials in cemeteries and closed churchyards should be regularly tested for safety and stability. Safety issues were also highlighted in a report from a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the future management of cemeteries.

1.2 The Council is responsible for managing the cemeteries at Lewes and Seaford and the Closed Churchyards at All Saints, Lewes, Denton Burial Ground, Newhaven, St John's Sub Castro Churchyard, Lewes, St Leonard's, Newhaven, St Leonard's, Seaford, St Michael's, Lewes, St Michael's, Newhaven and St Peter's, Blatchington.

1.3 At its meeting on 23 May 2001, the Interim Cabinet approved a Code of Practice for the Inspection of Headstones and Memorials at Lewes Cemetery, Seaford Cemetery and Closed Churchyards and a programme of testing for headstones and memorials.

1.4 However, following the commencement of the programme on 21 January 2002, during which numerous memorials failed to meet the stringent safety standards and had to be laid down, there had been a significant amount of public disquiet relating to the way in which the testing programme had been implemented.

1.5 A public meeting was held at the Chyngton Methodist Church Hall in Seaford on 23 February 2002 at which the Council had been unanimously requested to consider making financial payments to individual memorial owners to recompense them for the cost of restoring memorials which had been laid down.

1.6 A discussion had also taken place at the Council meeting on 27 February 2002 during which a number of issues relating to the testing programme had been discussed.

1.7 The Council decided to establish a Sub-Committee to consider matters relating to the safety testing of memorials in cemeteries and closed churchyards.

2 Background

(a) Developing the policy

2.1 In January 2001, a guide to the Management of Safety in Burial Grounds was launched at a seminar organised by the Association of Burial Authorities with the purpose of identifying best practice in safety management with particular emphasis upon memorial safety.

2.2 The Contracts Officer (Parks) and the Parks Technical Assistant both attended the seminar.

2.3 The Association of Burial Authorities was recognised as a leading authority in the field of cemetery management and the guidance was compiled with assistance from the Health and Safety Executive and the Confederation of Burial Authorities.

2.4 Following consideration of the guidance issued by the Association of Burial Authorities, the Contracts Officer (Parks) raised the importance of the issues brought up at the seminar and contained in the published guidance.

2.5 The Association of Burial Authorities' seminar and guidance highlighted that very few Councils had safety policies in place, as cemeteries had not been subject to the same considerations as other publicly accessible facilities. A memorial in a cemetery was not subject to planning regulation or building control in the way that a memorial would be if it were to be erected anywhere other than a cemetery.

2.6 The Council had an asset management plan that sought to identify all of the Council's assets and to put in place a strategy to ensure they were regularly reviewed and the resources necessary to maintain them were properly identified.

2.7 Given those considerations, the Contracts Officer (Parks) was concerned that there was an identified need for a safety inspection programme for the Council's cemeteries and closed churchyards.

2.8 A safety testing policy based upon the guidance of the Association of Burial Authorities was then drawn up. It was intended that the Contracts Officer (Parks) and the Parks Technical Assistant, with assistance from the Parks Superintendent, would undertake the test programme between them.

2.9 A report was prepared for Interim Cabinet in May 2001. The Director of Finance and Community Services supported the need for the testing to be undertaken but was concerned that the test programme would put additional pressure on staff, who already had extremely high workloads.

2.10 The Interim Cabinet considered the Report and agreed the resources to allow the initial work to be undertaken by contractors. A tender specification was prepared and the works put out to tender in accordance with the Council's Standing Orders.

(b) Implementing the Policy

2.11 Three contractors were asked to quote for the work, all having a long and established working relationship with the Council.

2.12 R W Green Limited were appointed to undertake the work based upon the most competitive quotation and their ability to carry out the inspections. R W Green's core business was Arboricultural work. This required that they had a high degree of technical competence in the safe handling of heavy and often unstable trees. The team of staff appointed to undertake the work was chosen because of their expertise. The lead team member was a qualified instructor in the lifting and lowering of equipment regulations. Another team member was a former cemetery employee of the Council who had experience in all aspects of cemetery maintenance.

2.13 The Contracts Officer (Parks) purchased a topple tester to undertake the safety test programme. Both he and the Parks Technical Assistant received training on the use of the topple tester from the manufacturer and in turn they trained the team of staff employed by R W Green. This "cascade" approach to training was considered to be appropriate by the manufacturer.

2.14 The inspection team also received instruction in line with the approved safety policy and was fully compliant with the need to undertake the work in a sensitive and respectful manner.

2.15 A3 sized notices were placed at the entrance to Seaford Cemetery and at other strategic locations within the cemetery three weeks in advance of the commencement of the test programme.

2.16 The inspection programme commenced on 21 January 2002 at Seaford Cemetery.

2.17 The Contracts Officer (Parks) and the Parks Technical Assistant each undertook a number of random visits and on each occasion the Contractor was noted to be undertaking the work in full compliance with the agreed policy.

2.18 The testing programme was suspended pending consideration of the review by this Sub-Committee because of public concern at the number of memorials that were being laid down.

2.19 The complex nature of burial records that dated back in many cases to the mid 19th century and the inadequacy of the Council's records as to the current address of every living owner or next of kin (particularly where they had moved or not advised the Council) meant that it proved extremely difficult for the Council to trace the owners of most of the memorials which had been laid down as a result of the test. Only 93 owners had so far been contacted out of 460 memorials affected in the Seaford and Lewes cemeteries.

3 The Safety Test

3.1 Each memorial was visually inspected to see if it was leaning or if there were any cracks or broken parts.

3.2 Hand pressure in one direction was applied to ensure that the memorial would not fall immediately. If it would not, the calibrated test instrument (topple tester) was then used to apply a pressure of 50 kilogrammes at the apex of the memorial or one metre from the ground whichever was the less.

3.3 At the time the Council took the decision to undertake the testing there was no generally accepted memorial trade standard considered appropriate for the styles, ages and size of monuments in the United Kingdom. However, the Association of Burial Authorities and Zurich Municipal had considered it to be reasonable that, in the absence of any British Standard, a test force of 50kg should be appropriate for setting the standard for the erection of new memorials in the United Kingdom.

3.4 Considerable debate had subsequently taken place within the industry as to the appropriate amount of force to be applied to the test. Professor Knapton, Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, had subsequently recommended a force of 35kg as the non-destructive test load to be applied to a memorial designed to withstand a horizontal force of 70kg applied horizontally at the top of the memorial plate. That recommendation had been adopted by the Memorial Advisory Bureau and the National Association of Memorial Masons in January 2002 but was understood to still be subject to consultation.

3.5 Some of the older types of traditional memorials were leaning but passed the test because they generally had one third of their length solidly set in the ground. Some modern memorials did not pass the test either because the fixings between the stones failed or there was insufficient anchorage into the ground. It was understood that approximately 50% of the memorials laid down had failed without the need to use the topple tester.

3.6 Any memorials that did not pass the test were laid down onto the grave plot, with the inscription facing upwards and supported on round wooden battens. A notice explaining why that action had been taken was then placed by the memorial. The condition of each memorial and when it would be re-inspected was recorded at the time of the memorial.

3.7 Efforts were then made to trace the owner of each such memorial to explain why the action had been taken.

4 Remit of the Sub-Committee

4.1 The remit of the Sub-Committee was agreed by Cabinet on 6 March 2002 as follows

(i) To review the Council's policies and procedures relating to the management of cemeteries and closed churchyards, particularly the placing, maintenance and testing of memorials.

(ii) To consider all of the issues arising from the programme of testing of memorials carried out by the Council.

(iii) To meet with affected local people and consider any views they wish to put forward and requests for information.

(iv) To consider the advice of the Health and Safety Executive and other relevant national bodies on issues relating to the safety and testing of memorials.

(v) To consider the policies and procedures adopted by other councils including those that have carried out testing progammes.

(vi) To report to Cabinet on 17 April 2002 with proposals for the future management of cemeteries and closed churchyards including a code of practice for consultation with affected local people and memorial masons.

5 Fact Finding

5.1 As part of its fact finding, the Sub-Committee undertook:

(a) site visits to cemeteries and closed churchyards of some councils who had already undertaken safety testing of memorials (Keynsham Town Council, Bristol on 19 March 2002 and Portsmouth City Council and Windlesham Parish Council in Surrey on 8 April 2002) (notes of the visits are available separately).

(b) site visits to Seaford Cemetery and St Johns Sub Castro Closed Churchyard in Lewes on 26 March 2002.

(c) discussions with officers responsible for the various aspects of cemeteries administration/management within the Council, the contractor and his operatives who undertook the memorial testing, Mr D Francis of the National Association of Memorial Masons and Mr T Bedford, a Consultant Structural Engineer on 26 March 2002 (notes of the meeting are available separately).

(d) seminar held on 11 April 2002 at which the following experts gave presentations and answered questions raised by the Sub-Committee and members of the public:
Mr T Bedford - Structural Engineer
Mr D Francis - National Association of Memorial Masons
Mr T Morris - Institute of Burial and Cremation Administration
Mr S Panke - Pearson Panke, manufacturers of the "topple tester".
Mr S Wellar - Association of Burial Authorities

5.2 In addition, the Sub-Committee had formal meetings on 14 March 2002, 2 April 2002 and 11 April 2002 (following the Seminar) (Minutes of the meetings are available separately).

5.3 The Sub-Committee was keen to receive the views of people affected by the Council's actions in this matter and to consider any views and requests for information which they wished to put forward. The meetings of the Sub-Committee were open to the public and representatives of the bereaved parents and action group were invited to take part in the fact finding exercises referred to in paragraph 5.1 above.

5.4 In addition, forms had been circulated on which interested persons could make a written submission as part of the review and the views received were placed before the Sub-Committee as was correspondence with the Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings (see paragraph 6 below).

5.5 A bibliography was established and is available separately.

6 The Need For A Faculty

6.1 The Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings had drawn the Council's attention to the fact that "any memorials on consecrated land, be it in a churchyard or public cemetery, are subject to the faculty jurisdiction measure which of course is not only part of the law of the church but also the law of the land".

6.2 However, the Council had taken the view that the testing exercise in itself did not constitute works to or affecting any memorial and therefore the inspection and testing programme could properly be carried out without a faculty.

6.3 The Council had also taken the view that where memorials were found to be dangerous and presented an immediate threat to health and safety, then a local authority was not required to obtain a faculty prior to carrying out emergency works to make memorials safe.

7 The Way Forward

The Sub-Committee concluded that the Council should adopt a way forward which would enable the Council's cemeteries, and Seaford cemetery in particular, to be restored as soon as practicable to the level of ordered tranquility which the relations of the deceased had a right to expect and accordingly

Recommend

7.1 That the Council reinstate the private war memorials under its agreement with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

7.2 That in those cases where the test was applied and the memorial failed the test, the Council will pay to the owner where known and any owners who are traced before 31 December 2002, a grant equal to the full cost (agreed in advance by the Council) of reinstatement of the memorial to the standards set by the National Association of Memorial Masons (NAMM), except in those cases where the cost of the reinstatement has or is to be met under the owner's insurance or a maintenance contract. Alternatively, the owner may request the Council to arrange the reinstatement with a memorial mason.

7.3 That in those cases where the test was applied and the memorial failed the test but the owner of the memorial is not known, the Council will ask an adjudicator from NAMM to appraise the memorial and to advise on the most appropriate way of reinstating the memorial to meet safety standards.

7.4 That application be made to the Archdeacon of Lewes and Hastings for a faculty to enable the necessary works to be undertaken.

7.5 That the programme of maintenance for closed churchyards will include structural surveys to assess the condition of large structures and the historical significance of the memorials.

7.6 That the Sub-Committee be authorised to act as the Council's Complaints Panel for the purpose of considering the formal complaints received from members of the public, the complaints to be considered on the basis of the written complaint, the department's response and with the complainant and the department having the right to attend and speak at the meeting of the Panel. The complainants are to be informed of the decisions of Cabinet based on the recommendations above and given the opportunity to reconsider whether they would still wish to proceed with their complaint.

8 Future Work Programme

8.1 The Sub-Committee agreed that further meetings be held, on dates to be arranged, to agree a formal response to the various questions and issues which remained to be addressed, to consider and recommend a revised burial scheme for the future which shall include all aspects of the burial process and to consider and recommend the test procedure to be adopted for the remainder of the memorial testing programme.

 

[Brixtaan]

speechless.a whole different world of morons



what are kids doing running around graveyards anyway?

 

[NMH]

You have to consider, what kind of a person is a town councillor?

I would align them with traffic wardens, the sort of narrow-minded pricks and arseholes who have no consideration for the ramifications of their work other than the self-serving collection of their own pay . They all deserve complete and utter death, and then removal of their own gravestones to an impound yard so they cannot retrieve them.

 

[Gwylan]

I'm with you on town councillors - my missus and I were having this very conversation the other day. You have to have a very weird personality to want to be a councillor, must absolute love bureaucracy.

Disagree totally about traffic wardens - they're just doing a job. Lot of the ones round south London are Africans who (sadly) have found it difficult to get other jobs. Nothing to do with their personality types.

No, people who become school caretakers, gym teachers and mortuary assistants are the real weirdos.

 

[NMH]

Once a person has been named 'a traffic warden', they become one. I will hear nothing about them being victims of low employment prospects - that's like saying "some Nazi's were nice people and shouldn't have been shot at" .

The only good traffic warden is that one I just crushed by throwing the truck into reverse, accidentally while they were writing me a ticket.