 
The Stratton Memorial Garden

The creation of a burial ground in

Princes Risborough

Maggie Wooster

Copyright 2012 Maggie Wooster

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

Thank you for downloading this free ebook. You are welcome to share it with your friends. This book may be reproduced, copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes, provided the book remains in its complete original form. If you enjoyed this book, please return to Smashwords.com to discover other works.

Thank you for your support.

**Contents**

Prologue

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 2. The Early Years

Chapter 3. Fresh Impetus

Chapter 4. Hopes Renewed [and dashed]

Chapter 5. A Fresh Approach

Chapter 6. Shootacre Lane and the Ragpit

Chapter 7. Continuing Investigations

Chapter 8. Fields of Hope

Chapter 9. The Ransom Strip

Chapter 10. Developing the Design

Chapter 11. Addressing Concerns

Chapter 12. The Alternative Site

Chapter 13. The Pond

Chapter 14. The 'Wells'

Chapter 15. The Long Wait

Chapter 16. Formalities

Chapter 17. Construction and Earlier Work

Chapter 18. Conclusion

Chapter 19. Funding Investigations

Chapter 20. Financial Planning

Chapter 21. Aspects of Management

Chapter 22. Development of Policy

Chapter 23. A National Problem

Chapter 24. A Personal Perspective

Appendix 1. Summary of Investigated sites in Elimination survey

Appendix 2. Literature concerning 19th Century Plumbing

Appendix 3. Legislation concerning Boreholes

Appendix 4. The Original Regulations

Acknowledgements

References

**Prologue**

The Stratton Memorial Garden

The creation of a burial ground in

Princes Risborough

This is a record of all the work put in over many years by Princes Risborough Town Council to provide a new burial ground, the Stratton Memorial Garden. It describes the long search and the problems encountered trying to find a suitable site.

After a number of abortive attempts, and, having resorted to an elimination survey of every field in the parish, a beautiful site was generously offered to the Council if the problems associated with it could be overcome.

After soil testing was performed, the Environment Agency recommended its suitability for the purpose of burials and outline planning permission was obtained.

To try and ensure that the final plans would be acceptable to the residents of Princes Risborough, the Council's Burials Committee ensured that everyone had an opportunity to become involved in the design of the facility, with the use of public meetings, questionnaires delivered through the Council's CROSStalk newsletter, poster displays and consultation meetings.

There was difficulty in obtaining an access to the site due to its designation as an area for future housing development. Developers owned a narrow strip of land called a ransom strip and were not willing to sell it for a reasonable price.

Once this issue was resolved, the Council applied for full planning permission. At this stage further setbacks occurred. Objectors raised some formidable problems, which are described, with details of how the Council was eventually able to overcome them.

Finally this record describes the stages of progress towards the actual development of the facility, and how all the associated issues, such as funding, management and policy, were tackled.

The first 18 chapters detail the problems encountered and lead through to the culmination of the project. The last 6 chapters give supplementary information.

This record is the author's perspective of the whole project and is not necessarily the record or the policy of the Council or other councillors. Problems encountered with producing it are mentioned in chapter 24. Many people have been involved with the project over many years, but only those who gave of their time for no remuneration and who have been willing for their name to be included have been mentioned by name.

The cover photograph is of Whiteleaf Cross, taken from the Stratton Memorial Garden and provided by Tim Addison.

Due to various constraints, this electronic version is an abridged version of the original printed version, which contains more script and images.

Chapter 1
Introduction

On the evening of 21st August 1987, two brothers were enjoying an evening out with their friends. The fun came to a sudden end when, driving from one location to another, they had a bad accident which resulted in the death of one of them. Many years later, the tragedy of that night was to provide the motivation and driving force which eventually helped to resolve a problem that had been rumbling on even longer.

This is a record of all the effort that went on behind the scenes on behalf of the residents of Princes Risborough to resolve the problem of finding a much-needed burial ground for the town.

The Local Background

Princes Risborough is a small market town in the Chilterns. Like many other towns in the country, it was gradually outgrowing the facilities that it had taken for granted over the years. The more obvious ones, schools and doctors' practices etc, had increased to meet the town's needs but a very important facility, the local parish graveyard, was slowly becoming full and unavailable for future burials.

Before the church was established, there had been burials in other areas of the parish of Princes Risborough and the surrounding locality. Stone Age remains have been found at nearby Whiteleaf, Bronze Age remains near Lodge Hill, and Roman burials have been unearthed near Saunderton. Bones have also been excavated in several places in and around the town.

St Mary's Parish Church

The present structure of St Mary's Parish Church in Princes Risborough dates from around 1250 [Kidd 1997 page 2]. It has accepted burials for centuries, usually in the churchyard but a small minority actually within the church itself. St Mary's has always had the policy of allowing people of all faiths, or none, to be buried in the churchyard whilst there was room available. The original churchyard was much smaller and, in medieval times was constantly reused. As the churchyard lies above a very high water table and no coffins were used, decomposition would have been quite fast and if any bones were found these would have been removed and placed in a crypt [Kidd 1997 page 24].

The practice of placing stone memorials on graves from the 17th century onwards has thwarted the continued reuse of the churchyard. Lord Rothschild donated some land on the west side of the church in 1908 and, in 1934, a generous local benefactor William Walker donated the 'extension' to the churchyard, which seemed to be large enough to be sufficient for many years. However this has been filling up fast as the population of the town has increased considerably in recent years.

St Mary's Parish Church has received small grants to help towards the maintenance of the churchyard from the local Parish Council for many years but most of the labour has been given on a voluntary basis by a small and dedicated number of church members. Without their valuable input the residents of Princes Risborough would not have had a churchyard so well cared for as it is at present.

Once the remaining plots in the churchyard are used, the Parochial Church Council can apply to the Privy Council to make an order in Council to close it and there is currently no legislation that can enable a closure order to be lifted to allow the continuation of parishioners to be buried there.

At this point it should be explained that the Parish Council [referred to later as the Council] refers to the administrative body in a civil parish, and that the Parochial Church Council [PCC] refers to the elected representatives of the congregation of a church, the overwhelming majority also residing in the civil parish. During the course of this record the Parish Council changed its status to Town Council.

Princes Risborough Baptist Church

The local Baptist Church was established in 1707 [Hailey and Knight 2007 page 13], and has been accepting burials since 1727 in their churchyard. For nearly a hundred years, these were placed adjacent to the original Meeting Place on land donated by Thomas Cartwright, and then, from 1822, in the 'Old' Burial Ground behind the Lower Hall. A 'New' Burial Ground was purchased in 1858 and this was further extended in 1897. A Forty Foot Strip was purchased in 1926 [page 25] for a possible further area for burials but was never used and in 1934 the church purchased Bell Meadow, intending to use it as a burial ground, but planning permission was never granted. The Baptist churchyard is unable to accommodate any new burial plots.

Future Provision

During the last century there has been a movement away from burial towards cremation. Cremation as a practice was hindered in the past by Christian apathy [May 1996 page 27], as there were fewer than 2,000 performed before 1900. Nevertheless May notes that by 1968 over 50% of people who died were cremated and the trend is increasing, but there will always be a need for burials. Many people still prefer burial, whether for religious or personal reasons. Watching the coffin containing the body of someone you love being lowered deep into the ground is an overwhelming experience which is completely different from the production line disappearance of the coffin behind curtains as witnessed in cremation services.

Litten [1991 page 3] notes that few funerals now take place in church and considers aspects of the cremation service to be rather banal, and cremations themselves being 'clean' but not 'green', as they contribute to the 'greenhouse' effect.

Where churchyards have become full, despite a general discontinuation of the practice of recycling grave spaces, the practice of reuse, or using the space between graves [interburials] still continues where the local community have no wish to travel to distant cemeteries [Local Council Review July 2004]. A local village has been using space between old graves for new burials so that the residents did not have to use the cemetery at Aylesbury that was situated 14 miles away.

However, once full, most churchyards, especially in populated areas are being closed. With no available local burial plots, the bereaved, already having to cope with the loss of a loved one, would have the additional upset of finding that their relative could not be buried close by. The alternative burial facility for residents of Princes Risborough is at Hamilton Road in High Wycombe, 9 miles away. This is a large and unfamiliar cemetery and is not conveniently accessible. On top of this, Princes Risborough residents, as parishioners from outside High Wycombe, would be paying double the going rates for using it.

As the law stands, when a churchyard closes the Local Authority is not obliged to provide alternative burial facilities. As the Princes Risborough Draft Community Needs Assessment of January 2004 revealed that locally 25% of the residents would opt for a burial, rather than cremation, the national trend being 30%, it seemed that there should be a moral duty to try and find a replacement facility, even if there wasn't a legal obligation.

The Parish Council of Princes Risborough, after being chivvied by the local Church, was willing to look for a replacement site to use for a burial ground. However because of all the problems encountered over many years in trying to achieve this objective, councillors occasionally lost heart and periodically tried to pass the responsibility back to the Parochial Church Council or to the local District Council.

It was to take over 20 years of work before the Stratton Memorial Garden and Burial Ground was finally successfully established and inaugurated.

This was due to the town being situated in one of the most difficult locations in the country with regard to available land. Most of the town overlies aquifers and to the east are hilly woodlands, and areas of Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is also in an area where property developers have acquired options on much of the surrounding farmland. Added to these were some objectors who seemed to be prepared to go to great lengths to thwart the creation of the burial ground.

Chapter 2

The Early Years

1979 -1991

1979

Evidence from the minutes of St Mary's Parish Church, Princes Risborough, indicate that as far back as 1979 the Parish Church had begun the process of warning the Parish Council that the churchyard was filling up and that a new burial ground would eventually be needed. They also record their continuing concern about this matter. None of the councillors currently serving on the Council were in position at that time and unfortunately, no letter could be traced.

1983

In October, the Parish Council received a letter from the churchwarden of St Mary's Parish Church, advising that the churchyard extension was becoming full, and that it was thought prudent to advise the Council of this in order that they could arrange for a new burial ground to be provided for the community under the Council's control. This letter was read to the members of the Council at their meeting the following month but there are no further references to the subject of the provision of a new burial ground until 1986.

Cllr Leslie [Ben] Benifer was Chairman of the Council. At that time only one evening each month could be allocated for business meetings. From the minutes it can be seen that there were numerous issues being discussed at each meeting, some needing immediate action, and these took precedence, occupying the councillors' time and thoughts. As there was still plenty of space in the churchyard, there was thought to be plenty of time before a burial site for the town needed considering.

1986

No further references were recorded until nearly 3 years later when during the May meeting of this year, a further letter from the churchwarden was registered indicating that the last quarter of the existing churchyard extension was now in use and likely to be filled within 5 - 7 years. This led to a meeting with church representatives in September and resulted with the Council commencing their long search to find a new burial ground. With 5 - 7 years to find a site, there appeared to be no need for haste. At the November meeting there was a proposal that the Forward Planning Section of Wycombe District Council be asked to undertake a survey to identify a 4 - 5 acre site for a new cemetery. All agreed.

By the end of this year or early in 1987, eight sites were under consideration. These were: -

Site 1. Off Kop Hill on the left from New Road.

Site 2. Off Clifford Road.

Site 3 and 3a. Off Picts Lane on the left from Station Road.

Site 4. Off Horsenden Lane on the left before the cricket ground.

Site 5. Near Park Mill.

Site 6. Longwick Road on the right on leaving the town opposite Oak Tree Farm.

Site 7. Mill Lane – first field on the left on passing under the railway bridge.

Site 8. Mill Lane – first field on the right on passing under the railway bridge.

It doesn't appear from the minutes or from ex-serving councillors' memories that any of the owners were approached at this stage.

1987

There is no further mention of the subject until May when a letter was received from the Planning Department of the District Council containing their observations regarding the potential of these sites becoming used for a burial ground. It included a report from the County Council Engineers Department commenting on the accesses to them, advising that some would not be acceptable, whilst others would require road and pathway modifications. Together, with the observations made by the Planning Department, three sites appeared to be suitable in terms of access and topography in particular, but also other considerations [screening etc]. These were sites 1, 3a and 6. It was suggested that Site 1 would seem to be the most obvious choice in that screening was better than at other sites and the land was flat.

Ron Wynands joined the Council that month. Recently he commented that the clerk at that time was unfortunately unwell for many months, which inevitably limited the extent of the records. He said procedures were more informal then and somebody would have a word with somebody rather than letters getting sent. If a letter was sent then anyone might write it. If something needed doing, someone would volunteer to do it, and 'we didn't vote on things'. Problems were solved in the most practical and speedy way with less expense placed on the precept.

There is no further reference to the search this year but it seems that as Site 1 was apparently considered to be the most suitable, plans were underfoot to have it placed onto the Local Plan, which was being updated that year. The clerk left the Council and another was taken on in his place.

1988

Barbara Richer, who was well known in the town, and Dave Allworth, also well known as 'Bookie' the policeman in his younger days, joined the Council this year. They were later both to become heavily involved with the search for a burial site.

1989

The draft Local Area Plan for consultation had now been published and included the allocation of the Kop Hill site for use as a burial ground. An exhibition was staged at the library early this year. A councillor who had been present for most of the exhibition, advised that, among other comments, the proposed site for a burial ground at Kop Hill [Site 1] had not been well received by the owners, nearby residents or potential visitors due to practical difficulties in reaching it, environmental grounds and doubts about technical suitability, the site overlying chalk rock. It was suggested that the District Council be advised that the Parish Council would prefer to consider alternative sites and that further discussions should be held to identify these.

On receiving this news the District Council queried which alternative site should be included in the Local Plan. The Council had Site 6 in mind in Longwick Road but there would not be time to complete an assessment on it in time for the deadline. They requested that the reference to the site at Kop Hill [Site 1] be deleted.

No further references to this issue are found in the minutes for this year.

1990

Early this year, another clerk took over the clerical duties for the Council as the previous clerk had moved away from the area. It was confirmed with the Planning Department that the exact location of the Longwick Road site was on the NE side of the road opposite Oak Tree Farm. In reply they said that the proposed site could be used for burials as it was now covered by Policy OC3 of the Wycombe Rural Areas Local Plan. This policy, which refers to areas of open countryside beyond the Green Belt, is very restrictive and precludes most types of development. However, use as either a burial ground or for allotments would be acceptable. They added though, that it was not known whether the site's physical capabilities would be suitable for burial purposes and advised the Council to seek advice from one of their officers regarding this. The Council would also need to investigate the ownership of the site.

There is very little recorded about the activities of the Council in relationship to any progress being made with regard to this site but over the next few months it seems that three sites were being discussed as possible burial sites as in November the clerk wrote to the District Council's Legal Department requesting help in wording letters to the owners of the possible sites under consideration. They suggested that the clerk contact Stokenchurch Parish Council for advice on this issue, which the clerk duly did before the Christmas break.

1991

The Parish Council minutes of January indicate that a discussion took place as to whether the Council should abdicate its responsibility as a Burial Authority to the District Council. However they were advised that, under such circumstances, the District Council need not provide burial facilities within the parish.

The January minutes of St Mary's Parochial Church Council [PCC] indicate that the rector and churchwardens had recently attended a meeting with members of the Parish Council to discuss the future provision of a burial ground.

A further meeting between councillors and representatives from both St Mary's and St Dunstan's Churches took place in March. It was an attempt to re-state the urgency of the problem and to start again the process of finding a suitable site for a burial ground. There was an expectation from the Council that the Church would undertake to continue their role as Burial Authority, but in the event, it seemed that the ball remained in the court of the Parish Council, and that if a resolution was to be found, it was up to them.

It was estimated that there were now fewer than 15 burial spaces left in St Mary's churchyard. The possibility of a small parcel of land adjacent to the churchyard being made available for use by the church for burials had been queried and also the possibility of burials taking place in other churchyards, whilst the search for a new burial ground was being made.

At a General Purposes Committee [GPC] meeting at the end of March, councillors received a report of the informal meeting that had taken place with the churches. Those present were told in confidence of the areas selected by the District Council as possible sites for a burial ground and that both rectors had favoured the site in Longwick Road [Site 6]. General Purpose Meetings were held with no press present as if any field was mentioned at the main Parish Council meeting, it would be in the Press the following week before the Council had an opportunity of dealing with all the issues appropriately. After discussion it was proposed that a Burial Ground Sub-Committee [known as the Burials Committee] be set up to gather all available facts.

As the churchyard was almost full, the clerk sent a letter to the National Association of Local Councils [NALC] seeking advice. Their response indicated that once the churchyard was full, the Parochial Church Council might apply for an Order in Council to close the churchyard for future burials. Once the Order was made, the PCC may pass responsibility for maintenance on to the Parish Council, which in its turn may pass that responsibility for maintenance on to the District Council in the manner described in "Local Council Administration". Until the Order was made, there was no legal obligation on the Parish Council to contribute towards maintenance, although it was certainly free to do so.

However, if the Parish Council did pass responsibility on to the District Council when the churchyard was formally closed, it was quite likely that they would charge the cost of maintenance exclusively on to the community chargepayers of the parish. If this happened, there would be no saving in financial terms to local people and the Parish Council would not be directly in control of the standard of maintenance in the churchyard.

The response also referred to the provision of a new burial ground, saying that the Parish Council had a power, but no duty, to make such provision; a decision on whether or not to provide new burial facilities being one of policy, rather than law. However it was advised that it was perhaps now appropriate for the Parish Council to provide burial facilities, rather than the Church of England, because the Council represented all parishioners, and not simply those who were members of the Church.

The first formal meeting of the Burials Committee occurred at the beginning of April with Cllr Ron Wynands elected as chairman. Their remit was to consult with others and gather all relevant and available information about providing a burial ground and to report all their findings to the Council, which would then debate the matter.

Cllr Ron Wynands

1st chairman of the Burials Committee

Over the next week or so information was sought from appropriate departments of the District Council, and from a number of local Councils known to have experiences which might help, such as: Hughenden Parish Council, who were managing their own burial ground at Four Ashes, Chesham Bois seeking knowledge of the costs, and advantages and disadvantages of having a burial ground, and Long Crendon Parish Council for information and their experiences of the problems they encountered purchasing land.

At the end of the month, the committee met again. A meeting had taken place with officers from the Forward Planning Department at the District Council, who had wished it to be confirmed fairly soon whether Site 6 was the preferred site and did the Council wish it to be included in the Local Plan, which was due to be published for public consultation in September 1991. With regard to this Local Plan, if the preferred site was included, public responses would be known by January 1992 and then planning permission could be determined in 8 weeks as this was the usual way forward. If the site was not published in the Local Plan, a planning application could be submitted immediately. It had been confirmed that Site 6 was acceptable from Planning and Highways considerations although other sources queried a satisfactory water table level.

The Burials Committee discussed the conversation that had taken place at this meeting and agreed to make a strong recommendation to the Council that the District Council should not include details of any potential burial site in the Local Plan, as this would cause delays in establishing a facility. As the latest target time for a new burial ground to be operational was October 1993, the above procedure was too drawn out in time, and the best way forward would be to apply for outline planning permission very soon, which would be determined hopefully in 8 weeks. It was decided that Cllr Dave Allworth would have an informal chat with the owner of Site 6.

The clerk had ascertained that burial grounds usually run at a net loss involving a 'special charge' on the parish and that Parish Councils had no powers to make a special charge on other parishes although a District Council did. He was detailed to write to the adjoining parishes to see if they would require a burial site in the near future, with the hope that perhaps they would join in as partners, which would enable the potential cost to be shared. However the committee agreed that the Council should first urgently resolve whether it wished to pass the responsibility of being the Burial Authority to the District Council, as this was the decision around which all other decisions revolved. [This issue had seemingly been resolved in January but had been revisited]. They also agreed the site needed to be in the Princes Risborough area.

A GPC was called to discuss the Burials Committee chairman's resolution that the Council should pass the responsibility for provision of a burial ground to the District Council, providing that the District Council agreed that the site would be in the Princes Risborough area. The chairman of the Burials Committee, Cllr Ron Wynands, then proposed his resolution to the Parish Council, detailing his reasons why he did not think the Council should become the Burial Authority, which were as follows: -

A councillor or committee would need to carry out all negotiations for the acquisition and planning requirements of land for this purpose. Extra administration would be required to run the facility. Maintenance would be costly on a continuing basis. A loan would be needed to purchase, fence and prepare a site. A loss would be incurred on running a burial ground, the District Council at present having a loss of 80% of the fees generated, and the Parish Council could not levy a charge on any nearby parishes using a Princes Risborough cemetery.

Councillors acknowledged that it was uneconomic to run a burial ground but felt that it was preferable to have a burial ground within the parish. It had been confirmed that the local church did not want to take on more land for this purpose, and once the existing churchyard was full would be passing the cost of maintenance to the Council. It was pointed out that much of the negotiation for any site would be handled by professionals such as the local valuer and solicitor acting for the Council with the administration being handled by the clerk or another person employed specifically for this role. However it was then proposed, and seconded, the resolution 'that this Parish Council resolves that the responsibility to provide a new local burial ground is passed to the District Council, providing that the District Council agrees the site will be in the Princes Risborough area.' This was passed without dissent. This resolution would be sent to the District Council.

At this meeting the Council also agreed to the Burial Committee's recommendation to request that the District Council omit mentioning any potential site in the Local Plan. The meeting was informed that the owner of Site 6 was not the person thought to be the owner so no contact had yet been made.

Ron Wynands, many years later, said that there was only a low precept at that time. The Audit Commission had advised that burial grounds had to pay for themselves. He felt that there was no way the Parish Council could have afforded it and the problem looked too huge.

Despite the Council's apparent reluctance to accept the responsibilities of a Burial Authority, the clerk was requested to arrange a meeting with a nearby Parish Council who were a Burial Authority to discuss details of administration of a burial ground. Letters were sent to the District Council, one requesting them to omit any reference to any site for a burial ground in the draft of the Local Plan to avoid another 'rumpus' as arose when the Kop Hill site was mentioned in a previous document, and the other notifying them that the Council had resolved that the responsibility for provision of a new burial ground was to be passed to the District Council, adding that Site 6 was favoured.

A response arrived from their Chief Executive indicating that the District Council did not see itself as a Burial Authority for Princes Risborough, explaining that their powers as a Burial Authority stemmed from the 1972 Local Government Act where they had powers as successor to the old High Wycombe Burial Board. These powers were restricted to the town of High Wycombe. Under the same act, Princes Risborough Parish Council had burial powers for their own parish and powers to set up a joint committee with Longwick-cum-Ilmer if they wished. He further advised that only where maintenance of an existing burial ground is involved could the Parish Council call on the District Council. This put the provision of a burial ground firmly back with the Council.

Years later Barbara Richer said that, on receiving this response, councillors were somewhat surprised, as they didn't think it would ever be their responsibility. A letter was sent to the National Association of Local Councils seeking advice on this issue. However it seems that their response would have confirmed the situation as shortly afterwards, a meeting took place with a District Council officer who outlined the responsibilities of a Burial Authority.

About this time it was confirmed that Long Crendon Parish Council had failed to purchase ground for burials after 5 years of trying and were now undertaking interburials in their local churchyard. At the meeting of the Burials Committee at the end of May the chairman sought clarification that the sub-committee should seek 6 acres of Site 6 by compulsory purchase if required. This was agreed. It was planned that councillors should meet with the local solicitor and a visit should take place to see the cemetery at Hughenden and gain information from their clerk.

Responses had been received from some neighbouring Parish Councils. It seemed that none of them were experiencing any problems with provision of burial spaces. This meant that the costs would fall completely on the Princes Risborough parish. However it was later learned that Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council might be interested in joining in with the project.

A meeting took place with a local solicitor who had produced a handout, which included all his findings on the subject. He advised that St Mary's Church would be able to extend the life of the present cemetery. Alternatively the Parish Council could be a Burial Authority and may provide and maintain cemeteries whether within their area or not under the Local Government Act 1972 S.214 [1].

He included a list of various points to consider when selecting a site:

\- Would planning permission be granted for change of use?

\- Would the proposed acquisition represent the taking of an undue or inconvenient quantity of land from one owner?

\- Who was the owner and were there any occupiers?

\- What would the District Valuer consider to be a fair price for the land?

\- Were any grants available from Central or Local Government?

\- Acquisition should be by agreement if possible.

He also included full details of how compulsory purchase would be managed by the District Council if required and advised that he was in touch with the Archdeacon to see whether a part of St Mary's churchyard could be used for reburials in the interim as a Compulsory Purchase Order [CPO] was likely, as the land owners did not seem very willing to help, and a CPO could take 2 - 4 years. [With the benefit of hindsight, an omission in the solicitor's list on selecting a site was ascertaining whether the ground conditions were likely to be suitable although, to be fair, he probably saw his responsibility as flagging up legal rather than practical issues.]

It was decided that approaches were to be made for the acquisition of land for a burial ground. At a GPC at the end of the month, the Council agreed to approach the owners of two sites and that the solicitor should be asked to act as secretary for the Council, his fee being £3,000. The solicitor was formally asked to approach the owners of Site 6 in Longwick Road and Site 3/3a in Picts Lane. This he did, asking if they would sell 6 acres of their land.

The Archdeacon had responded to the solicitor's letter saying that an application for a faculty for reburial had to be instituted by the incumbent. The clerk therefore wrote to the rector giving an update regarding progress, and requesting the church cater for reburials should lengthy delays occur in establishing a burial ground. However there was no incumbent as the rector had retired and there would be no new rector for at least 5 months. The church would be in a period of interregnum until a new rector was officially in post and therefore no response could be made to the clerk's request.

In August the Council was advised that the owner of the site in Longwick Road was not interested in selling, having just entered into a 5-year building option with a developer. Later a communication from a local farmer owning the other field in Picts Lane indicated that the area indicated on a plan sent to him formed an intrinsic part of his farming business and was very necessary to be retained for this purpose. Of the three sites that had appeared to be most suitable to progress out of the eight, one had met with local opposition and the owners of the other two did not wish to sell. The other five sites were deemed unsuitable by either the Planning Department or the County Engineers Department so the Council were back at square one.

Summary of the first eight sites investigated and reasons why they were not progressed.

A map showing their location follows.

Site 1 Off Kop Hill on the left from New Road. The roadway would need widening to 4.8m and a pavement would be required. There was also public opposition and the owners declined to sell anyway.

Site 2 Off the top of Clifford Road. The Planning Department of the District Council felt it was not suitable because the land rose steeply in a SW direction, probably too steep to allow the creation of an extension to Clifford Road at reasonable cost and it was very exposed and visible from elsewhere in Princes Risborough.

Site 3 Off Picts Lane on the left from Station Road end. Access would have been through a private car park and a wooded bank and would be fairly costly, and it didn't seem an obvious solution. The owner declined to sell anyway.

Site 3a next to Site 3 in Picts Lane. The access would have been easier here but the owner declined to sell.

Site 4 Off Horsenden Lane on the left before the cricket ground. The County Engineers Department felt this was unsuitable due to poor visibility and the need for road improvements involving a considerable length of road. Also the visibility was not good at the turn into Horsenden Lane at the railway bridge and they felt that this site would not be desirable. Much screening would be required along the NW and SW boundaries.

Site 5 Near Park Mill. Vetoed by the County Engineers Department due to access being through a single-track road. The Planning Department noted that the site rose steeply in a NE direction from an industrial unit, and along with the access, felt the site to be inappropriate.

Site 6 Off Longwick Road on the right side on leaving the town opposite Oak Tree Farm. The owner declined to sell.

Sites 7 and 8 Fields on the left and right after passing under the railway bridge in Mill Lane. The Highways Engineers Department commented that there would be restricted visibility to the accesses of both these sites so that the required stopping distances could not be achieved and any improvement would involve land beyond the sites. There was no footway on that section of Mill Lane and it was suggested that one would have to be provided.

Map of Princes Risborough

showing the approximate location of the 1st 8 sites investigated

Contains Ordnance Survey data copyright

Crown copyright and database right [2011]

Chapter 3

Fresh impetus

1991 - 1994

1991

During 1991 Cllr Ron Wynands gave up the chairmanship of the Burials Committee. He felt that the Council had gone as far as it could. A new chairman of the Burials Committee, Cllr Barbara Richer, was elected to lead the search for a suitable site for a burial ground. It wasn't a highly sought after position. She felt that no one really wanted to be chairman of a committee that wasn't getting anywhere. She and her vice-chairman, Cllr Dave Allworth, who was also currently Chairman of the Parish Council, were to expend much time on this problem. At this time, there were still ongoing enquiries regarding some of the first eight sites but the Council had started to look at other areas.

Cllr Barbara Richer

2nd chairman of the Burials Committee

At a General Purpose Committee [GPC] held in the summer of 1991, the clerk circulated details he had obtained from estate agents of plots of land in the area that were for sale so that the committee might have some indication of the market price for land. Included was a site adjoining the Aylesbury Road in Askett, opposite what was then the Askett Garage. Known as Lot 3 of 9 acres it was designated Site 9, as it was considered to be worth investigating further.

The District Planning Department advised that it was situated in the Green Belt, which was not a problem, but an informal opinion would be required from the County Engineer. This was duly requested.

Other plots of land the clerk had found details of were 8.09 acres at Kingsey, near Thame, selling for £32,000 - £35,000, nearly opposite Tythrop Lodge and 4.30 acres on the Thame Road in Longwick on west side just before Ray Farm, priced at £20,000.

At a GPC at the end of September a further site at Well Lane had been considered but it was known that a water main passed over part of the site and ownership was not known. It was agreed not to proceed with this site for the time being. It has not been possible to identify the location of this site.

The agent's indicator price for Site 9 was £30,000 - £35,000 and the Council's solicitor had advised the Council that an offer nearer to £20,000 might be successful. As the churchyard was expected to be full by October 1993, it was resolved that the solicitor should approach the agents to make a formal offer for the whole of Lot 3 and that a contract for the purchase would be subject to the suitability of the site and granting of planning permission. This he duly did, offering £20,000. However the Council was informed that this was insufficient, and that the land was being withdrawn from the market.

All agreed that the solicitor should increase the offer to £25,000 for the 9 acres or £20,000 for 6 acres having road frontage. It was later ascertained that the client might sell 6 acres for £20,000 and was asking what road frontage would be required.

Whilst waiting in hope for a positive response from Bucks County Council Engineers regarding Site 9, the committee decided to identify the landowners of all the sites on the District Council's original list. The Council also agreed to ask the solicitor to approach the owner of some land in Longwick Road adjacent to Oak Tree Farm to see if he would be willing to sell. However it was subsequently learnt that the owner was not prepared to consider selling, as he only owned 44 acres.

The Council set aside £5,000 at the November Estimates Committee to cover initial costs should a site be successfully acquired. This committee meets annually to work out funding requirements for the following financial year and this forms the precept, which Wycombe District Council collects in the council tax.

1992

In January there was unwelcome news for members of the Council in that the Senior Engineer of Bucks County Council Highways Authority considered the access to Site 9 [on the A4010] to be unacceptable because it was on a main road. This site was therefore no longer considered. Further sites were to be considered at the GPC that followed.

At this meeting Cllr Barbara Richer and Cllr Dave Allworth informed the Council that they had toured the parish and identified 3 new areas. These were part of a remote recreation field, identified as Site 10, an area at the top of Culverton Hill, identified as Site 11, and some land at the junction of Summerleys Road and the Lower Icknield Way, which wasn't later pursued. However as all three had disadvantages it was agreed to contact an officer at the District Council to seek her views first. The clerk was instructed to make arrangements for three councillors to meet with the planning officer.

Also at this meeting a report found in the Legal section of the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils [BALC] newsletter [December 1991] regarding the closure of a churchyard was discussed.

This concerned a parishioner's request for a faculty to reserve a grave space for herself in the churchyard where her mother was buried, which was opposed by the incumbent and the PCC. This had led to the Bath and Wells Consistory Court holding that there were no grounds for refusing her request and the faculty would therefore be granted. The court had also commented that no churchyard is full and ripe for closure until all the parts in which reburial is possible have been buried over again at least once.

Councillors felt that this report indicated that the Church could be persuaded to remain a Burial Authority and reuse plots where only one burial had taken place. The clerk sent a letter to the Bishop of Oxford referring to the Wells Consistory Court, asking how to get permission to reuse grave plots at St Mary's.

A snippet of good news that Longwick Parish Council had resolved to join with Princes Risborough in the purchase, financing and administration of the proposed new Burial Ground came after the news that the County Engineer had deemed Site 9 unsuitable. This meant that the clerk had to respond to tell them that things were going backwards.

In February, a meeting took place with a planning officer at Wycombe District Council and an initial favourable response was received in respect of Sites 10 and 11.

Site 10, the field between the Upper Icknield Way and the rear of some properties in Eastfield Road, was accessible through the end of Salisbury Close. It had been acquired by the Council as a recreation ground and named the Earle Mitchell field after the last two trustees who had sold it to them for a nominal sum. The clerk sought quotations for soil testing of this land, but there were objections from the County Engineer as the access lay between two dwellings and was too narrow to accommodate the required road width and footpaths. This terminated the Council's investigations relating to this site.

A response arrived from the Archdeacon of Buckingham, who had been forwarded the Council's query from the Bishop of Oxford, saying that provided the churchyard had not been closed by Order in Council, the Parochial Church Council [PCC], as the Burial Authority, could adopt the practice of centuries and reuse the ground, provided that no burials had taken place there in the last 50 years. No special permission was needed to reuse burial ground. It could be done by a simple resolution of the PCC.

The clerk subsequently wrote to the churchwardens of St Mary's. The minutes of St Mary's PCC's March meeting record that the Parish Council had asked the PCC to consider reburials after 50 years, which they unanimously rejected.

In March councillors visited Long Crendon, and met up with some of their councillors, the local vicar and a churchwarden. The Parish Council there had, in the past, experienced difficulties in acquiring more land for burials. Their chairman explained that they had tried to get their District Council to compulsory purchase a site but they had refused, saying that the District already had a burial ground in Aylesbury 14 miles away into which the people from the village could be buried. Therefore the PCC and Parish Council had got together and surveyed the churchyard and dated as many graves as possible so that reuse could take place between the graves. This had now been carried out for some years with no problems and all the parties at the meeting agreed that it worked well.

Following their visit to Long Crendon the Council arranged a meeting with a churchwarden from St Mary's Church. This took place in May. After a brief history had been given of the events leading up to the present situation, the Council failing to gain success despite a considerable amount of time and effort, the reuse of the churchyard by burial between graves, ie interburials rather than reburial, was suggested. Although the Council were still pursuing the goal of finding a new burial site, in the back of everyone's minds the continued use of St Mary's churchyard was the likely way forward.

The churchwarden took this suggestion back to the Church where, at their next meeting at the end of the month, members of the PCC discussed it. They felt that the graves were too close together and that it would be impossible to get the mechanical digger between them without unacceptable disruption and unanimously voted against the idea. However the PCC was willing to try and find more space for burials and during the next few weeks organised for a large rubbish dump to be removed from the churchyard, which created room for two more years of burials. At this stage the PCC also decided to seek authorisation to close the churchyard. The Council were subsequently informed of this decision.

A meeting took place in June with the Inter Church Group in the Literary Institute with representatives from the five local churches. Cllr Barbara Richer had called the meeting so that interested parties in the town could be made aware of the current situation regarding the future provision of a burial ground. There was still hope that the PCC would reconsider the continued use of the churchyard. An update of the situation was given, and the meeting was advised of the situation at Long Crendon.

Representatives of the Baptist Church advised that their church had limited grave space and they were not able to use all of their land due to planning regulations. The churchwardens from St Mary's confirmed their opposition to the reuse of land around St Mary's Church. Suggestions were made regarding possible sites to investigate and the chairman said that these would be pursued and concluded that the Council would continue their efforts to find a solution to the problem and would keep parishioners advised of developments. The churchwardens who had represented St Mary's reported back to the PCC that little progress was made.

One of the reasons why councillors persisted so long in trying to maintain the status quo with the Church as the Burial Authority lies with the literature that they had been issued with. Photocopies of Chapter 32 from the 'Local Council Administration 1975, English Parishes - Powers relating to the Dead' had been given to members. From this publication it was learnt that 'Parishioners have a right of burial in their churchyard even when it is full.' On page 277 was written: -

C. BURIAL FACILITIES GENERALLY

When it becomes apparent that a churchyard's further usefulness for burials is limited, the local and parochial church councils should consider in good time what should be done.

Churchyard Extension

One possibility is that the parochial church council should acquire land, preferably but not necessarily adjacent to the churchyard, as an extension to it. If this is done before the churchyard is full, it becomes unnecessary to obtain an Order in Council, and the local burial customs and responsibilities remain unchanged. A burial authority may contribute to the expense and often saves the ratepayers considerable sums in the long run by so doing. Even if an Order in Council has had to be made, it is possible to make an agreement between the two councils, that in return for financial assistance, the parochial church council will not issue a written request to transfer the liability for maintenance.

From the PCC's perspective, its decisions were always made on the understanding that once the churchyard was full, the legal responsibility for providing a burial ground lay with the Local Authority.

Returning to the Council's search...as there had been an initial favourable response from the Planning Department regarding the area of land at the top of Culverton Hill, Site 11, the Council made further investigations. The Council's solicitor made contact with some agents of the owner of the land and they were asked if they would sell six acres and if so what the price would be. Although the agents responded, asking the Council to indicate on the plan which part of the site they wished to purchase, and they were informed that access was desired through Culverton Hill, there are no further references to this site. The Council had contacted the District Council to see if they would support the Council if a Compulsory Purchase Order [CPO] were required. In his response the chief executive summarised the legal position of CPO from the 1972 Local Government Act advising that it was complex and costly. It is assumed that this deterred any further consideration of this site.

The area of the large field accessible from the top of Clifford Road adjoining Site 11 had been investigated previously as Site 2 but had been considered unsuitable by the Planning Department. The other area of the field, adjoining the Upper Icknield Way, was pursued as Site 12. Investigations commenced in 1992 with letters being sent to two different solicitors' practices.

From May to October there are references to the Council awaiting responses regarding this site. A councillor had met with a tenant farmer using it but, by October that year, there had been no further communication from the solicitors acting for the owner, apart from an acknowledgement, and the Burials Committee were getting very interested in another site, so this site was not progressed any further at this time.

During July investigations had commenced on Site 13, situated in Longwick Road on the south side before some houses near the Longwick roundabout. There were some allotment gardens there and a well was situated in the middle. By the end of August it had been ascertained that the Planning Department had no initial objections to this site.

A positive meeting took place with the tenant farmer. It was learnt that this site was also acceptable from the highways point of view so a letter was sent to the developers who owned the site requesting a meeting on site. At this meeting it was learnt that a line indicating a proposed road by-passing Princes Risborough appeared to go straight through Site 13 and so an area of the field was chosen which would avoid this and have a frontage to the road. A subsequent letter from the developers indicated a possibility of selling.

In the autumn the clerk wrote to the owners confirming the Council's interest and requesting that a further site meeting be arranged. The developers wrote to the County Engineers Department regarding the proposed by-pass, saying that Princes Risborough Parish Council wished to purchase some land there for a burial ground. A copy was sent to a councillor indicating that if they did sell, it wouldn't be at agricultural land value but would be at least £20,000 per acre. It seems though that this valuation was later reduced.

Whilst interest was growing over the prospects of developing Site 13, there was news of land for auction in Summerleys Road and the clerk undertook to obtain details. It was designated as Site 14. However it was later learnt that the land had to be sold as one lot of 38 acres, which was too large for the Council so this site was no longer considered. [The exact location of this site is not known].

In November, the developers owning Site 13 specified a price and the clerk wrote to them saying that the Council would be keen to proceed if the site was found to be suitable. A site meeting with the owners was to take place at the end of the month and another meeting took place with a local architect and the local undertakers with the result that a draft layout for the site was produced. The committee then requested that the clerk write to the National Rivers Authority [NRA] to ask for observations regarding the site and a letter was sent to the owner offering £20,000 subject to planning permission being granted, approval from Bucks County Council, satisfactory soil tests and provision of funding and legal contract.

Permission to enter the site to undertake soil tests was requested from the developers. The Council's offer was accepted and the owners advised that confirmation that the ground conditions were suitable should be obtained first and that they had no objection to contractors entering the land to carry out soil tests. A quotation of £1,003.45 was received to connect an electrical supply to the site. A further meeting took place at the end of the month just before Christmas to review the proposed layout of the site, where various revisions were suggested. It was hoped that this would lead to a successful setting up of a burial facility in the parish.

Later a letter was received from the owners of the site asking the Council to advise the tenant when the soil testing was to be done and stating that there would be strong opposition from a neighbour of the site who had contacted them.

In the November Estimates a further £5,000 was set aside to progress this site.

1993

The year started with a press release to advise the public of the progress:

'After an extensive survey carried out over the last 2 years, the Burials Committee under the Chairmanship of Cllr Mrs Barbara Richer, has identified a site for a Burial ground. The Parish Council has made an offer for purchase, which has been accepted by the owner of the land. Investigations are in hand to establish that the land is suitable and that a loan can be obtained from the Public Works Loan Board.'

At a GPC, following a meeting with a representative from Longwick Parish Council, the Council agreed to invite Longwick to join in as financial partners with the progression of Site 13, and agreed that Longwick should contribute £500 for 1993 - 1994. The clerk sent them an update of progress along with a draft plan of the site.

There was further contact with the undertakers and the architect who had produced more plans for the site and provisional costings. The undertakers suggested that a liaison group of churches, undertakers, Parish Councils and users of the burial ground should be set up to meet annually once the facility was operational. Quotations for soil testing were sought. Funding had been investigated and at that time a loan of £120,000 over 60 years would cost £7,250 annually.

Early this year a letter from the developers had advised the Council to forestall purchase of the site pending publication of the Structure Plan, as if a further 1,500 houses were built in the town then it could be that the land for the burial ground could be obtained free of charge, but the Council decided to go ahead with the soil tests as the situation was urgent and informed the tenant farmer. With the aid of the local MP, the NRA was chased for a response to the request for observations regarding the suitability of the site - it was not very encouraging when it finally arrived.

It stated that from their records the proposed development site appeared to be situated in an area with a high water table, and in addition there was evidence of a well adjacent to the eastern boundary.

It advised that, as the site was particularly sensitive from a groundwater pollution viewpoint, further investigations would be required in order to satisfy the Authority that the proposed development did not create an unacceptable risk of groundwater pollution. Such an investigation should take the form of trial pits to determine the nature of the underlying strata and depth of the local water table.

Other developments that month were confirmation from Longwick Parish Council that they wished to be associated with Site 13 and a letter had arrived to advise the Council that the owners of Site 12 were going to discuss their response at a trustees meeting.

Three quotations were received from contractors wishing to undertake the soil testing investigations. The chosen one was advised to go ahead and arrange to do the soil tests.

The April Council meeting was the last one of the Parish Council, as its status was changed and it became Princes Risborough Town Council. The tenant farmer at Site 13 was advised of the dates that the contractor would be entering the site to carry out soil tests. These were done mid-April. Unfortunately the contractor's report was to scupper any further progress with this site. The findings confirmed that the water table was high, there were a number of springs issuing locally, and it was the junction of the Greensand aquifer and Gault clay formations and, as such, was very sensitive to groundwater pollution. Furthermore a gas main crossed the site and it would need to be diverted for the site to be adopted for its anticipated use. The overall recommendation was that the site was not suitable for a burial ground.

The clerk wrote to the NRA enclosing the results and recommendations from the contractor pleading that this was the 14th area considered by Council, and querying the possibility of using the higher part of the land for a cemetery. In response the NRA regretted they could not give approval to this site but said they were willing to give opinions on any other site considered. They advised that much of the land in Princes Risborough was on a high water table and therefore unsuitable for use as a burial ground. The owners of Site 13 were informed that the Council would be withdrawing from negotiations to purchase it.

The situation must have been very disheartening for the members of the Council. At the Burials Committee in May councillors agreed to remake contact with the solicitors acting for the owners of the land designated as Site 12 to see if they would sell, and also to reconsider the Kop Hill site at the junction with New Road [Site 1], which public opinion had been against when last suggested, but it was later learnt that the owners were not interested in selling.

The agents for Site 12 were contacted and a meeting was suggested. The site plans showed that the rear part of the field adjacent to the Upper Icknield Way might be used for a burial site with access from the top of Clifford Road. At the subsequent meeting with the agent acting for the owners of the land, the Council was advised that the owners were not interested in a sale of a part of the land although they would consider a comprehensive development of the site to include housing and leisure facilities along with a burial facility.

An informal approach was then made to the Planning Department, concerning both this land and another Kop Hill site on the south side of the road and designated Site 15, asking whether they were suitable sites from a planning perspective.

By August the Planning Department had advised that the Kop Hill site at the junction with New Road [Site 15] was considered to be the most appropriate although road improvements would be necessary. The other site [Site 12] was in a more prominent and sensitive location and had a bad access, a steep gradient, and an environmental impact on nearby residents if access were to come from Clifford Road. The outlook didn't look promising for this site.

An approach was then made to the owners of Site 15 but their agent responded saying he felt unable to recommend a sale, advising that the tenant farmer objected to giving up the land. He added that there was a water main running through the western corner of the field. Despite this, a further letter was sent to him, noting his concerns, but requesting an on site meeting as the Council had been searching for 3 years, and had problems elsewhere with the underlying aquifer and that informal discussions with the Planning Department encouraged the Council to continue discussions about this site.

A further meeting was arranged with the agents and the tenant farmer of Site 15. This was due to be held mid October, but didn't take place as one of the trustees was absent and a further meeting was to be sought with the owners. The District Council Legal Department confirmed they would be prepared to proceed with a CPO if necessary. Details came from the Highways Department at Bucks County Council advising that the access should be 60m from the road junction with New Road where the carriageway was 4.7m and that a footpath would be desirable but was not essential. The Council would have to pay for any footpath.

The November minutes record that a meeting was sought with the District Council to seek advice on how to progress. It was also recommended that £5,000 be included in the 1994 - 1995 budget towards costs for a burial ground.

Information received at that time confirmed that burial grounds run at a loss. In respect of the High Wycombe Cemetery, for every £100 worth of expenditure only £20 was then received as income from fees, and the District Auditor considered that future income levels must increase to match expenditure. However until this was achieved there would be a substantial subsidy to be provided from the Council Tax.

1994

The year commenced with a meeting with an officer of the District Council and an update of the problematic search was given to him, and advice and guidance was requested regarding the possibility of success if a CPO was undertaken on the Kop Hill site [Site 15]. An estimate of what the total cost might be and the timescale of a CPO was also requested. It was still hoped that the District Council might provide a new facility in the North of the District, but the Council was advised that the District Council needed a new cemetery themselves, and were looking for a site, and that the difficulties faced by the Town Council were appreciated, but they did not think they would to be in a position to establish a facility in the North of the District.

There still had been no meeting with the owners of Site 15. Two further sites had been located outside the parish, one in Longwick Road on the east side past Alscot and one in Stockwell Lane near Meadle, and had been considered but Cllr Barbara Richer doubted if either would be suitable.

The Town Council minutes of March state that a Position Statement had been agreed which would be shown to all local churches with an invitation to attend a meeting in April. This took place with representatives of the local churches with the hope that, with the situation still unresolved, St Mary's PCC might reconsider the reuse of the churchyard. The difficulty of locating the exact position of old burials must have been mentioned, as, following this meeting, the town clerk wrote to the church saying that he had sought information from a company that had a very sophisticated machine for identifying the position of human remains and had asked for quotations for the cost of the work that would enable a plotting of old graves to be made. However the PCC subsequently reaffirmed their decision against interburials, pointing out that locating the exact position of graves was an expensive procedure and that this facility had not been offered to Princes Risborough. [The use of this machine had been mentioned in national newspapers at that time in relation to a mass murder investigation.]

Little progress was made at this time. The only way forward seemed to be through a very long CPO action that would be very costly and held no guarantee of success. The weeks went past with no further response from the owners of Site 15 at Kop Hill.

At the Annual Town Meeting that month the Position Statement was presented to the community. It gave a history of the search, and referred to all the sites that the Council had investigated, giving reasons why each had been rejected. It advised parishioners that the District Council had confirmed it did not wish to be responsible for providing a burial ground, and gave details of the exchanges with St Mary's Church, and lastly showed some figures giving an indication of the estimated costs of providing a burial facility that totalled £142,000. These had been calculated when the Council thought that the site in Longwick Road [site 13] was going to be viable. It did not include the cost of providing an entrance from the highway, a footpath for pedestrians or additional fencing and hedging. The attendees put various opinions forward as to whether the Council should continue with the search.

At the May Burials Committee, Cllr Ron Wynands tabled provisional wording of a possible resolution that -

'The Town Council notes the Town Meeting Position Paper, which sets out the onerous financial implications of providing a civic burial ground, and gives details of the unsuccessful negotiations at 16 local sites. The Town Council believes there are no currently affordable local burial ground sites suitable for the area of Princes Risborough and resolves to take no further action in this matter'.

The hopelessness of the situation must have been conveyed to the Council as a whole as that month the main Council minutes stated that all councillors were to serve on the Burials Committee. Several councillors made a visit to the Council-owned Ragpit land but it was not thought to be suitable for a burial facility, probably due to its location and topography.

At the main meeting the following month, Cllr Ron Wynands tabled his resolution that no further action was to be taken, negotiations having been unsuccessful at 16 sites. The chairman of the Burials Committee, Cllr Barbara Richer, expressed disappointment but she felt she had to support the resolution. Two councillors regretted that the search was to be brought to a close and hoped a landowner would offer a suitable site.

The motion was seconded by another councillor, saying that the Council didn't have a duty to assume the power to act as a Burial Authority; they had undertaken an extensive search in good faith but had been unsuccessful in locating a suitable site and that costs would result in high burial charges; also that there was no guarantee of a successful outcome if a CPO was undertaken. He shared the disappointment of other members and thanked the chairman and vice-chairman of the Burials Committee for their efforts but asked members to support the resolution. The result was 7 for and 2 [against. The Burials Committee was wound up. As far as everyone was concerned the search was over.

There is no positive identification of Site 16. Because the Council had experienced problems once a site had been publicly identified previously, it was considered wiser to refer to possible areas under consideration by a reference number, rather than their actual location. This caused difficulties when certain sites were allocated a number and then discounted, the number being reallocated to another. There were actually at least 12 sites looked at during this period [see below]. Site number 16 could possibly have been any of 6 sites.

Summary of Sites 9 –16 and reasons why they were not progressed.

Site 9 Situated on A4010 opposite what was then the Askett Garage. Rejected by the Senior Engineer at Bucks County Council as the access was on a main road.

Site 10 Recreation Grounds. Access from Salisbury Close was too narrow.

Site 11 Land at the top of Culverton Hill. The author can only assume that the area of land wasn't large enough to consider compulsory purchase or that the Council were deterred from pursuing it because of the likely costs of CPO.

Site 12 The agents acting for the owners would help if the Council could get planning permission for other development to take place there, which was very unlikely to be given. However the Planning Department advised that it was in a prominent and sensitive location and had a bad access, a steep gradient, and would have an environmental impact on nearby residents if access were to come from Clifford Road.

Site 13 South side of Longwick Road before some houses near to the Longwick roundabout. Vetoed by the National Rivers Authority.

Site 14 Land in Summerleys Road. Had to be sold as one lot of 38 acres. Also enquiries to the National Rivers Authority revealed it would likely be vetoed.

Site 15 Land at the junction of Kop Hill and New Road on the south side of Kop Hill Road. The tenant farmer wished to continue farming the land. The possibility of compulsory purchase, the presence of an underground water main and the need to pay for the road to be widened probably all contributed to this site not being pursued.

Site 16 Not shown on map as it could be any of the following:

a. Land in Longwick Road adjacent to Oak Tree Farm. The owner was not prepared to sell as he only had 44 acres.

b. Land at the junction of Summerleys Road and the Lower Icknield Way identified in January 1992. A meeting with the planning officer discouraged further interest in this site.

c. Land for sale at Kingsey near Thame. Probably discounted because of its price and the distance from Risborough. [Not shown on map]

d. Land beyond Longwick on the west side of Longwick Road before Ray Farm [near the Ilmer turning]. Not for sale. [Not shown on map]

e. Land on the east side of Longwick Road just past Alscot. Not for sale. Longwick Road did not have a regular bus service at this time, which was another factor for not pursuing some sites.

f. Land in Stockwell Lane. Enquiries by the clerk revealed that a nearby business had water extraction rights and would therefore be vetoed by the National Rivers Authority.

Approximate location of further sites investigated.

Site 17 is detailed in the next chapter

Contains Ordnance Survey data copyright

Crown Copyright and database right [2011]

Chapter 4

Hopes renewed [and dashed]

1994 - 1997

1994

With the decision made to wind up the Burials Committee and take no further action, it appeared that the problem was being shelved and forgotten by the Council, but it was still rumbling along in their minds.

The local press reported this decision and the Council subsequently received several letters from concerned residents. One suggested 'why not offer a site for cremations'; another pleaded 'please think again'. Another expressed deep concern that the Town Council was intending to abrogate its responsibilities in this matter. The writer added that there might be some doubt over the legal responsibility to provide a burial ground but that councillors had accepted that responsibility in the minutes of a meeting they had 4 years ago. This was confirmed by their subsequent search for a suitable site. A further letter asked the Town Council to re-open the search for a burial ground and honour its responsibilities to the town with urgency, and in the certain knowledge that the Grim Reaper will not wait while councillors try and find someone else to make the provision.

Another possibility, two small paddocks owned by the Monks Risborough Parochial Charity [MRPC] currently used partly for allotments and partly for exercising greyhounds, was being considered. A meeting was arranged between the trustees of the charity, and a few representatives from the Council, and the trustees were asked about the possibility of the Council acquiring some of their land for use as a burial ground.

This land, consisting of between 3 and 4 acres, lay on the north side of Cadsden Road, about a mile or so north of the town. However the location of the site was kept under wraps and referred to only as 'Site 17'. The representatives of the Council, having had past experience of objections multiplying when the location of their first proposed site became public knowledge, wished to not broadcast its whereabouts until most of the groundwork had been dealt with. This included getting confirmation from the Highways Department that the location of the access would be acceptable, obtaining an informal positive response from the Planning Department and confirmation from the National Rivers Authority [NRA] that the site was suitable for burials. Only if all these were encouraging could the next stage occur, where the whole Council would become involved and the matter 'go public' and formal contacts with the public initiated. All the trustees were happy to proceed. The question of leasing or selling was raised and the clerk to the trustees was asked to contact the Charity Commission about the possibility of a sale.

The MRPC trustees were meeting again on the 28th November and would inform the Council the next day of their decision. With the possibility that this site would prove to be viable the Council reconvened the Burials Committee. The chairman of the Town Council, Cllr Dave Allworth, was elected chairman and Cllr Mrs Barbara Richer as vice-chairman.

Cllr David Allworth

3rd chairman of the Burials Committee

Other members during the next three years included Cllrs Vic Baker, Ben Benifer, Dorothy Cook, Gary Hall, Fred Harrold, Robert Martin, John Mason, Don Morris, Dawn Smith, Mary Williams and Ron Wynands. There was cautious optimism following advice from the NRA that the location may be acceptable although test holes would need to be dug as there were springs nearby and a local landowner had water extraction rights close to the site.

The Estimates Committee set aside £5,000 in the budget for 1995 - 1996 for expenses relating to progressing this site.

1995

Early the following year other councillors were informed of the meeting that had taken place with the trustees of Site 17, but the identification of the site was to remain confidential. By then, informal contacts had confirmed that the site was potentially suitable with regard to planning and highways, the Highways Department having advised that a suitable access point would have to be made and that parking would be required for 6 - 8 vehicles. The Council was advised that the trustees had sought advice regarding a sale of the land to the Council from the Charity Commissioners and were pressing for a response. The clerk had got a quotation for soil tests [costing £868 plus VAT] and these would be undertaken once the situation regarding the trustees' ability to sell the land had been confirmed. The view was expressed that it was unlikely that the Council could offer leasehold land as security for a Public Works Loan [PWL] but this would be checked.

By spring the clerk had ascertained that a PWL could be secured by leasehold land provided the term of the lease was greater than the term of the loan. There had been no further progress with the investigations to test the suitability of the site as the Council was waiting for confirmation from the trustees of Site 17 as to whether or not they were able to dispose of their site for use as a burial ground, before it was willing to spend funds on this project.

In April Cllr Ron Wynands, the first chairman of the Burials Committee, retired from the Council, having completed two four-year terms. The rest of the year went by, the Council waiting for word from the trustees. For months there was no response from them, although councillors were pressing for a meeting.

At the Estimates meeting in November £6,500 was included in the budget for 1996 - 1997 towards the costs of setting up a burial facility.

By December it was reported that the trustees were still pressing for a response from the Charity Commission.

1996

By 1996 it seemed that the trustees of the MRPC were not making progress. To add to the problem it was learnt that St Dunstan's Parish Church in Monks Risborough wished to close their churchyard once the present area was fully used, and that their Parochial Church Council had decided not to use the 'extension land' for burials. However sometime later they changed their minds.

In March another letter was sent to the clerk for the MRPC requesting a meeting with the trustees to progress the acquisition of Site 17. Their response indicated that the Charity Commissioners had advised the trustees of a way forward to enable the Council to acquire it. It could not be sold but could be made available by way of a long lease subject to an independently agreed rental. The trustees had appointed someone to carry out a valuation and the Council's solicitor was to handle the legal work. It was explained that the Council first had to carry out soil tests to ensure that the site passed the water level requirements of the NRA. Confidentiality would be maintained until such a time as the Council was in a position to enter into formal negotiations.

In spring, the Town Council's first newsletter entitled 'CROSStalk' was published and circulated to the residents of the parish. The public were informed that the Council had, for years, been searching out suitable land for burial purposes due to the churchyard at St Mary's Church being exhausted and that they were committed to continue the search and were optimistic that a solution wasn't too far away.

A notice had arrived to the Council from the Home Office to advise that St Mary's Parish Church had applied for closure of their churchyard. A member of the public also informed the clerk that she had heard that the Parochial Church Council [PCC] was selling off the piece of land next to the church. The clerk responded to her saying that the area was too small for the establishment of a civic burial ground to be operated by the Council, as the cost would be very expensive in relation to the area of land.

In August 1996, Maggie Wooster, the author of this record, having been co-opted on to the Council earlier in the year, joined the Burials Committee. At the meeting it was explained that there had been a delay in getting permission to enter Site 17 to conduct the soil tests but that these were soon to be carried out. However the exact location of the site was still under wraps with many councillors still unaware of its whereabouts.

In the 2nd issue of CROSStalk residents were informed that work was continuing at a frustratingly slow pace to find a new cemetery and that soil tests were awaited at a possible site, and that development of this site would be considered if it became available. Parishioners were advised that it was anticipated that the PCC would shortly close the churchyard when its maintenance would become the Council's responsibility. However it seems that the PCC changed its mind about proceeding further with this application, as the churchyard was still open for burials in the following years.

The soil testing for Site 17 was finally carried out in the autumn and the contractor's report was able to recommend the use of the site for a burial ground, although the ground was found to be very hard and hand digging was unlikely to be a viable option. A report was sent to the Environment Agency [EA], successor to the NRA. It was anticipated that, once approval had been received from the EA, formal negotiations would commence with the Highways Authority, Wycombe District Council Planning Department and the site owners.

At the Estimates Committee in November, the Burials Committee requested that £10,000, as well as any unspent balance from this year's budget be included in the Estimates for 1997 - 1998 to cover legal fees and other costs associated with the setting up of the site.

By the end of the year, the Burials Committee had received notification from the EA that they had no objections in principle to the use of Site 17 for burials providing that the Council demonstrated in their planning application that the base of any burial would be at least 1 metre above the level of the maximum water. A local architect was requested to draw up a layout scheme for a burial ground on the site.

With investigations looking very promising, the remaining councillors were made aware of the whereabouts of Site 17.

1997

News concerning the location of the proposed burial site gradually leaked out. In the New Year rumbles of opposition were heard from some residents living in the vicinity of Site 17. One resident was very concerned, suggesting that the plans had been circulated for some time to only a very limited but influential circle. Apparently previous nearby residents, who had been informed, had raised no objections, but had all moved on. Over the next few weeks many more letters arrived from concerned residents along with a petition signed by 52 people. Numerous reasons were put forward as to why they considered the site to be unsuitable.

The Council considered their concerns. Some were justified and some were unfounded. The Council had tried unsuccessfully to obtain a site within the parish boundary. The size would be satisfactory, and the access and car parking would be designed so as to be adequate. The chairman had been advised by St Mary's Church that an average of 16 burials took place each year and it was commented that this rate of burials would not produce a significant increase in traffic along Cadsden Road, which according to the latest traffic count figures, had a flow of over 3,000 movements per day. Vehicle movements were at their peak between 8 am and 9.30 am and 4.30 pm and 6.30 pm but funerals took place generally between 10 am and 4 pm when traffic counts were minimal. The EA would not have allowed the site to be used if there was to be any pollution of the water table from burials. The Council, from past experience, felt they had justifiable reasons for not broadcasting widely the location of the site before it was found to be viable. The Planning Department had advised that the site would be suitable in that location. The Council would try to make the site as acceptable as possible by having no upright memorials and ensuring good screening so as not to cause any distress to residents.

At the Burials Committee members studied the drawings of the layout for the cemetery and agreed that they did not fully reflect the wishes of the Council and the architect was requested to draw up alternative plans, to include more boundary screening, a reduced size of building and the use of grasscrete for the parking surface instead of tarmacadam.

The chairman wished it to be known that the Council had no intention of building either a Chapel of Rest or a Crematorium and that it was likely that the allotment holders would have ground at the site for a period of up to 10 years. It was decided to place a statement regarding the site in a special edition of CROSStalk, which would hopefully allay the concerns of the residents. The plan of action was that once suitable plans had been agreed these would form the basis of a planning application to establish the burial ground at Cadsden. If approval were given, then the Council would negotiate terms with the owners of the land, obtain costings and then submit an application for finance to the Public Works Loan Board. Councillors were advised that the trustees were meeting shortly to discuss the project. The clerk wrote to the neighbouring parish where the site was located to inform them of the Council's intentions.

By March the local press had published several items regarding the objections to the proposed burial ground. Residents were angry that their objections were seen by some as based solely on the NIMBY [not in my back yard] syndrome and had formed the Cadsden Conservation Society to fight the plans and had appealed to the owners of the land to retain the site for its current use. The chairman of the Princes Risborough Town Council was publicly told by one of the residents in a newspaper article that his words that people must be 'prepared to bury their dead in Wycombe' was a threat and a grave dereliction of his duty, which was to continue to look for a burial ground which is generally acceptable. 'If he lacks the patience, stamina and sensitivity to do this, let him hand the task to someone who has the right capabilities'. This was rather unkind when the chairman had spent so much of his own time and effort trying to resolve the problem. It seems councillors are damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

The Burials Committee continued to try and progress the project. The amended plans were scrutinised. Much more screening had been added and on a projected use of 16 - 20 burials per year, it could be 40 years before the allotment area would be required. Every effort would be made to give the area a rural and rustic appearance with ground level memorials. It was proposed that the plans should be submitted to apply for planning permission and this was agreed, although not unanimously. Plans were obtained from the contractors who had conducted the soil tests showing the position of the trial pits and giving details of the soil conditions and water levels, which were required for the application. Although it was agreed to submit the plans the application apparently was never sent.

A special publication of CROSStalk had been circulated in April advising the public of the situation. This had a long article about the history of the search and the current position of seeking planning permission, and asking people to submit their views, comments and opinions to the Planning Committee and the clerk at the appropriate time, adding that the Monks Risborough Parochial Charity had agreed in principle to lease the land to the Council. Several letters expressing support for the site were received shortly afterwards, but also one whose writer would prefer to see reburials being conducted at the churchyard instead.

Councillors were extremely disappointed shortly afterwards, to receive a letter from the MRPC informing them that the trustees had decided not to proceed further with the proposals for the use of the land at Cadsden Road as a burial site. It seemed that they were responding to local residents. A councillor offered various suggestions about other possible sites but they were rejected by longer-standing members who had already considered them.

At the May Burials meeting it was again suggested that the District Council be requested to include some identified sites for possible burial grounds in the North of the District in the Local Plan and the Burials Committee was wound up in June until a new site had been identified.

During the summer a letter was received from a Whiteleaf resident sympathising with the indignation of the Council owing to the situation that had arisen with the Cadsden site proposal, wanting to help and amongst other comments suggesting land in Summerleys Road. He was told of the underground aquifer and that the area was scheduled for industrial use and that the cost of purchasing an area of the site was almost certain to be prohibitive. It looked increasingly likely that the problem of finding a new burial ground in the parish would never be resolved.

At the September meeting it was queried whether the field by the car park at Whiteleaf Cross had been considered. It wasn't an ideal site but the water table was likely to be satisfactory; it was pretty and not too lonely as people regularly went there for walks; an established car park was available and, if there were an extension of the access entrance to the right, there would be privacy for funerals and hearses. However the chairman advised that the ground conditions were unsuitable.

It was then suggested that the people of Risborough should have a chance of responding to a survey regarding burial needs so that the Council could be aware of public opinion, and perhaps be in a situation to provide an alternative solution. The editor duly included an article in the November CROSStalk with a number of questions.

The newsletter also included the following letter from the Monks Risborough Parochial Charities in respect of their decision to withdraw from negotiations with the Council to lease their land for a burial ground.

'The Trustees naturally regret that the Town Council has expended funds on this project and it may have been that the Trustees and the Town Council had been too hasty in their endeavours to provide the proposed facility in the first instance before full information was available. The legal advice obtained by the Charity Commissioners clearly states that under the Scheme approved and sealed on the 22nd July 1938, which replaced an Award and Order made on the 21st May 1895 under the Monks Risborough Inclosure Act, the Trustees under these Orders were unable to lease the land for the purpose proposed by the Town Council. It clearly states that the land should be used for the purposes of recreation and exercise and let as allotments.'

A number of responses to the CROSStalk survey were received by the clerk over the next few weeks.

At the Estimates Committee in November, there was no funding allocated for investigation costs towards a burial ground for the following financial year 1998 - 1999 although there had been £10,000 set aside for the year 1997 - 1998. This reflected the feelings of resignation within the Council that they would never be able to successfully resolve the problem of finding a new site for a burial ground that would meet all the criteria required and also be acceptable to the people living close to the site.

Chapter 5

A Fresh Approach

1997 - 1998

1997

The demise of the proposed burial ground at Site 17 left a feeling of unfulfillment within the Council and it seemed that a huge amount of time and effort had been futile. Cllr Maggie Wooster, not being fully aware of the extreme difficulties that had been experienced, and definitely unaware of what she might be letting herself in for, periodically suggested the possible suitability of various sites in the parish.

1998

In February, the chairman, Cllr Dave Allworth, in response to a further suggestion, challenged her to find a suitable site as both he and Cllr Barbara Richer had other heavy workloads, he being chairman of the Town Council and she being chairman of the Parks Committee. As Cllr Wooster had time on her hands that was unplanned, she accepted this challenge.

She started thinking on how to approach the problem. She asked other councillors if she could read their notes and records regarding their previous work and spent some time with these, recording all the relevant information. She decided that it would be a case of looking at every field in the parish and eliminating them one by one and seeing what was left. To do this she required large-scale plans showing the parish boundary and all the fields, which Cllr Allworth promised to obtain.

These arrived in April. The first task was joining them together so that the whole parish was on one sheet, and then to mark the parish boundary. Much of the farmland within the parish was landlocked and it was unimaginable that anyone would wish to place a cemetery in such an area, as there would be huge expense in making a roadway access to it, and there would be difficulties for people using public transport to access it. So many fields were immediately discounted leaving 86 [which was later increased to 98] to investigate further. There were some fields which did have access albeit via the Upper Icknield Way, a narrow track, which wouldn't be ideal, but they were included anyway, just in case. Also included were some fields that were just outside the parish boundary as they were accessible by car, although there was no public transport. Then all these remaining fields were allocated a number, which was marked on the plan. These numbers bore no relationship to those of previous sites investigated by the Council. A summary of investigated sites and a map showing their locations is found in Appendix 1.

As there had been problems with a previous site overlying an aquifer which had prevented the Council from using it as a burial site, the Environment Agency [EA] was contacted to request some assistance in eliminating any sites that they knew would be geologically unsuitable. They were very helpful in this respect. A copy of the large-scale plan was sent to them and, in return, their Scientific Support Officer sent a letter stating that most of the fields overlaid the Chalk or Upper Greensand aquifers within the Thames Region. The groundwater quality in both of these strata was likely to be considered highly vulnerable.

In view of this, those fields with the highest elevation, where there was likely to be a large unsaturated zone available for the attenuation of any discharge, were likely to be considered more suitable from a groundwater quality point of view. They had indicated these preferred fields on the plan with a green highlighter. [These included fields numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76 and 89] The exception to the above was a site at a nearby hamlet [numbered 84] that overlaid the Gault Clay, a non-aquifer and an area of low vulnerability in terms of groundwater quality. He considered that site to be the most appropriate for development of a burial ground, although this wasn't pursued, as it was rather remote. He added that the initial assessments he had provided indicated the likely conditions at the various sites but that some investigation would be required to confirm them.

In summary a large unsaturated zone was required to allow a safety margin by providing degradation. He included a list showing ground levels [GL] and ground water levels [GWL] for every numbered field and comments regarding the likely suitability [or not] of each of them. The fields numbered from 19 – 60 were considered to be unsuitable in this respect and were immediately eliminated from the list. Cllr Wooster queried the extent of the Gault Clay area, and the GWL and GL of the land by St Mary's Church after thanking him for his help. In response he sent a plan showing the extent of the Gault Clay area and confirmed that the ground at Wades Park next to the church [numbered 87] was unsuitable.

Further enquiries were made with various officers in Planning, Leisure, and Development Control at the District Council, in order to get acquainted with all the facts that may have been imparted to others over the years. They were willing to help if the Council could find a particular site, and would share their expertise. They did however stress they couldn't do the work and could only help if a site was identified. They had not identified any suitable site either for Princes Risborough or the North of the District in the Local Plan although they were investigating the idea of having a policy on burial grounds.

Privately, the councillor started visiting local cemeteries, including Four Ashes at Hughenden, to learn more about the subject. The clerk there advised that between £500 and £1,000 was spent yearly on plants etc. and that an employee spent approximately a half to one day on their 4 acre site weekly between October and March and two to two and a half days between March and September.

Another Cemetery Supervisor gave details of their Exclusive Right of Burial procedure. The length of the exclusive right is chosen by each burial authority and theirs was for 50 years and during the last 5 years of the 50 year period they notify the registered owner and ask if he/she would wish to purchase the right of burial for a further 10 years and this could go on indefinitely. It provides for a further income to the facility to offset maintenance costs.

At the Annual Town Meeting in May the audience was shown photos of the Hughenden Parish Cemetery with its flat memorials and attractive planting, showing that the presence of a burial facility need not be an unwelcome intrusion on the landscape. It could be made beautiful especially if lots of trees and shrubs were planted, not just around it, but within it as well.

As they had been instrumental in vetoing a potential site in the past, in order to make further progress the Bucks County Council Highways Department was contacted in the hope that other sites, which would be unsuitable on Highway Grounds, could be eliminated. However they were unable to help, saying that they were very stretched for time.

On receiving the information from the EA, the Council gave the go-ahead for the councillor to contact the planning officer who later became the main officer involved with the eventual planning application. She had a very useful meeting with him, and provided him with a numbered map and asked for planning comments on the fields that were geologically suitable. At this meeting he imparted contact details of a Parish Council which he thought was doing a Compulsory Purchase Order [CPO] for a burial ground at that time.

In response to a phone request the clerk of this Parish Council sent details of their CPO action. They'd apparently had a verbal agreement with an elderly farmer to buy 4 acres of agricultural land [which adjoined their civic cemetery] but his solicitor said the price offered was too low. To do a CPO, proof is required that the land is suitable for the purpose so the Council, over the next 6 years, did test digs to ensure that the EA would have no objections and also got planning permission for the site. Although the public enquiry wasn't necessary in the end, they had had to pay for its cancellation and ended up paying more for the land and about £4,000 on solicitors' fees for themselves and the unwilling vendor.

She recommended that any approach made to a potential vendor should be done through a third party, as it was possible to say things which might be regretted afterwards. She added that a CPO is the final leverage to call someone's bluff. The Council hadn't known in advance that they would have to pay for an arbiter [The Lands Tribunal] to set a price, which all parties had to agree to. Apparently they can charge up to £20,000 to do this. Their action took 6 years - it seemed that CPO was to be avoided at all costs and would be a very last resort.

In June and July the councillor started making contact with the owners of the remaining potential sites in her elimination survey by letter, to elicit their feelings on the suitability of their land and whether they might be interested in selling it. A small plan showing the location of the site was enclosed with the relevant land outlined and numbered.

There was a problem trying to identify the owners of some of the fields so the task took several months. In time they were elicited either through word of mouth, the help of a local farmer, the Leicester Land Registry [who could only help if the land was registered which in many cases it wasn't], and from responses from those who were not the presumed owner of a site but who knew who was. In some cases there were agents representing the owners and this caused delays in responses whilst they were, in turn, contacting the owner.

Some owners requested a visit in order to discuss the issues further. One of these was to the owner of fields numbered 1 and 2, a large proportion of which was scheduled for building. A very pleasant lady, she believed the lower ends of her fields were Green Belt and could possibly be suitable for a burial ground. However to access the area, the Council would need to buy a plot of land owned by a householder in Queens Road and make a roadway right next to their home, or get access across a field from Mill Lane, neither option looking feasible. In conversation the councillor told her of her efforts to try and keep the churchyard open [mentioned briefly in Chapter 24]. The lady wished to be kept informed of progress so further contacts were made from time to time.

Responses from land owners started to arrive, but some would need chasing up eventually. One sounded promising: Mr Jim Walker, a local farmer said he was willing for his field [numbered 66] to be considered. Although this was very encouraging the EA had assessed his land as 'possible' rather than 'probable' and it was at some distance from public transport. Other owners sent details of various factors that they felt rendered their land unsuitable, or gave further information regarding ownership. They were all thanked for their help.

A letter arrived from the planning officer to say that, unfortunately, his department didn't have the resources to check all the remaining sites for suitability. In response he was requested to look at a smaller number and confirm whether they were suitable from a planning point of view. This he very kindly managed to do, over the next few weeks, visiting each site and making general and specific comments regarding them.

His report stated that most of the sites he'd visited fell within the Green Belt and Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty [AONB], and that although development in the Green Belt is generally considered to be inappropriate and unacceptable in principle, the use of land for cemetery purposes is one of the few exceptions to Green Belt Policy as it would normally enable the open character of the area to be maintained. Any buildings associated with such a use should be restricted to only those minimal facilities that are essential to support the cemetery and regard must also be paid to the need to retain the openness of the Green Belt. As the selected sites also fell within the Chilterns AONB any proposal would also have to preserve and enhance the special character, appearance and enjoyment of the area.

He added that a further consideration relating to all the sites would be the need to provide a satisfactory access from the adopted highway network with adequate on-site parking and turning facilities. The impact of these highway/parking issues would also be considered against the Green Belt and Chilterns AONB policies.

Any proposal involving the loss of playing field facilities would have to be referred to the Sports Council who would normally wish to see their retention unless it could be shown that alternative facilities had been provided or that there was an excess of provision in the area.

At the end of July a walk was taken along the length of the Upper Icknield Way [UIW] looking at the fields there. Those numbered 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 had been eliminated by the EA. Number 18 opposite the top of the school was full of corn. To reach it from Wycombe Road or New Road would mean widening the UIW and resurfacing it for several hundred yards, which would be hugely expensive, if permitted. It would also require extensive fencing. An alternative access might be through the school but this would be highly unlikely to be approved. Two fields abutting New Road [numbered 92 and 93] were considered separately.

By August more names of landowners had been acquired and more letters sent. Some of these sites were known to be used for golf and other sports but they all needed to be asked in case there was any possibility of a purchase being possible. Once again some follow-up visits were made at the owner's request. It was learned that one site was leased from the National Trust and also that the Trust had covenants on other fields in the parish. This led to a letter of enquiry to the Trust regarding the possibility of any of these areas in which they held an interest, being suitable for burial purposes.

A cycle ride was made to view some of the sites, one of which was actually for sale. However this site had a serious access problem, which the Estate Agent said was the reason it wasn't selling so this wasn't progressed. A journey was also made to view the home in Queens Road where there was a possibility of an access to the end of the paddocks comprising numbers 1 and 2. It only took one look to realise that this was a no-no.

However a positive response arrived from agents working for the executors of the late owner for field number 5. This was a small paddock in Peters Lane next to the Monks Risborough School but was only about one and a half acres in size. A letter was also received from William Thomas-Davies confirming ownership of a number of the fields and indicating his willingness to try and help. He suggested a meeting.

This took place in September with the chairman and vice-chairman of the Council also in attendance. Of his fields, he felt that he would only be interested in giving up two, one being number 79, a large triangular field just outside the parish on the main road to High Wycombe, and the other being number 98, further along the road, suitably named Amen Corner and containing many young trees, which would provide a ready made screen. Both looked very suitable. He indicated that a swap of land would be more desirable than a straight sale.

The Council owned an area of green belt land of negligible benefit to the community, named the Ragpit, which was situated in Whiteleaf village, and currently on a yearly lease to a resident. The Council had previously made an unsuccessful attempt in 1983 to obtain planning permission for the residential development of this site and had made further enquiries in 1994. [One item of the Local Government Act 1972 Section 126 allows for any land belonging to the Council which is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired to be appropriated by the Council for any other purpose for which the Council are authorised.]

It was suggested that this land might be of interest to him. This resulted in the councillors taking him to view it, and the gentleman who rented it from the Council kindly showing them around. A letter was later received from the landowner offering to enter into negotiation for an exchange of land involving the Ragpit. As he preferred a swap rather than a straight sale the Council decided that the way forward would be to arrange a meeting with a local district councillor to discuss the means of getting planning permission for the Ragpit.

The Burials Committee was reconvened in September with Cllrs Dave Allworth, Gary Hall, Fred Harrold, Don Morris, Barbara Richer, Dawn Smith and Maggie Wooster as members. Because of the work she was doing, Cllr Wooster was elected chairman and Cllr Allworth was elected as vice-chairman. By this time quite a number of fields had been eliminated for a variety of reasons such as high water table levels, access, unsuitable topography and owners unwilling to sell. Further letters were sent as landowners became identified.

Cllr Maggie Wooster

4th chairman of the Burials Committee

At a General Purposes Committee [GPC] later that month it was agreed that discussions should continue with the relative landowners and that the clerk would contact an officer at the District Council to request that he visit the 4 sites where there was a possibility of making progress [5, 66, 79, and 98] to give his advice. Update letters were sent to the owners of these sites advising that the Burials Committee had been reconvened and that a decision had been taken for the clerk to make investigations with the Planning and Highways Departments and a District Council officer regarding the suitability of their fields, and to request that all future correspondence should be through the clerk now that this current search was being discussed at Council level.

A phone call was made to the EA and the officer there indicated that he would prefer the Council to wait until there was just one site chosen before attempting soil tests, as he believed that although they would all probably be satisfactory, the scope of the tests would vary and it would be easier for the EA to determine the exact numbers of pits and depths etc on one small area rather than four general areas.

It was agreed to survey the people of Risborough to find out which of the four possible sites they would prefer the Council to continue investigating. The design and circulation method needed to be arranged and a cost agreed by the Council. A draft was prepared and, after checking with the landowners that the wording regarding their land was acceptable, and that the maps showing the various sites were accurate, photocopies were distributed to the councillors for their approval. The Council agreed to include the survey in a special CROSStalk newsletter, which was to be distributed as soon as possible. Arrangements were made with the local Information Office for survey responses to be left there in a prepared box.

Four weeks later the November edition of CROSStalk was circulated around the parish, and had the Burial Site survey in it, with the 4 sites included for consideration with site maps and comments on each site for people to consider.

On the rear was a form asking people to PLEASE HELP US TO HELP YOU with a brief summary of the history of the search for a suitable burial site and an area for them to express their preference or dislikes and to make other comments if desired. Their help would then guide the actions of the Council.

The officer in charge of Wycombe's cemetery came to view the sites. He was very pleased to hear that the Council were doing a consultation with the residents. He advised there was no need for a special changing room, and that a small shelter would be adequate as there wasn't one in High Wycombe Cemetery. It was learned that the District Council had not helped Stokenchurch, Radnage or Woburn when they were in the process of establishing new burial grounds. The whole project would be up to the Council to achieve – it seemed rather daunting. He went on to advise that there was VAT exemption for the purchase of burial plots and interment costs for customers and that land purchase was also exempt.

At the November meeting of the Estimates Committee, a sum of £10,000 was included in the precept for 1999 - 2000 to cover soil tests, planning fees, legal fees and other expenses.

A meeting took place between a number of councillors and the district councillor in December to investigate the possibility of getting planning permission for a dwelling on the Ragpit, which would then facilitate the acquisition of one of the Wycombe Road sites should they be chosen. He advised that the Ragpit could be used for any agricultural activity but at the present time no new development could take place on it. If the Council were able to sell or swap it they would need to add a covenant that, if it got planning permission in the future, an extra payment would have to be made to the Town Council.

He advised that in order for planning permission to be possible, the Upper Icknield Way would need to be defined as a settlement washed over by the Green Belt and perhaps the Council should make a response to the Local Plan which was being progressed at that time to say that the Upper Icknield Way should be redefined as a settlement washed over by Green Belt.

Local Authorities are required to produce Local Plans that cover their whole area. The policies in these plans are referred to when responding to proposals for development, as planning decisions must be made in accordance with the Plan unless 'material considerations' indicate otherwise. The Plan also ensures that necessary development is catered for, and that adequate provision is made for the needs of the District in terms of housing, employment, shopping and recreational facilities etc.

It seemed a wonderful opportunity to try and initiate a change, which, if successful, would benefit the local community, as Local Plans are only reviewed on a 10 yearly basis. Representation forms were available for the Deposit Draft of the Wycombe District Local Plan from 4th December 1998 to 29th January 1999. During this time the Deposit Draft of the Plan was available for reference at Council offices, libraries and at a series of special exhibitions. The chairman of the Burials Committee decided to make a representation to see if the area could be redefined.

So the year ended with 4 possibilities identified, and with the hope that one of these might be progressed to a successful conclusion.

Chapter 6

Shootacre Lane and the Ragpit

1999 - 2001

1999

The previous year's work had resulted with 4 possible areas proposed for further investigation, and in November a survey had been undertaken with the local community to ascertain which would be most acceptable for the Council to pursue. In January, the results of the survey were given to the Council. Nearly 250 responses had been received and evaluated. These showed that over 97% of respondents were in favour of having a burial ground, with fewer than 3% opposed to the idea.

General comments ranged from observations that burials in High Wycombe were unacceptable and that future generations would rightly criticise the Council if it failed to find a site, to the few who were either concerned with the expense, or felt that the answer lay with the churches, or felt that cremations should be encouraged. A larger site was preferred, easily accessible, well landscaped with trees, with low or flat memorials to give ease of maintenance as well as creating an amenity which would be, in essence, a Garden of Remembrance.

The Shootacre Lane site was a clear leader with over 78% of respondents recognising its potential. Accessible from four directions, it was close to a regular bus service, was large enough to meet the burial requirements of the town for the foreseeable future, and could be made very attractive with a progressive programme of tree planting and low maintenance landscaping so as to create a burial ground within an arboretum or park-like setting.

Amen Corner was the second most popular. Although the site was in a lovely situation, and had a very appropriate name, there were concerns about its distance from the town, the infrequent bus service and dangers of the single-track access from Loosley Row.

The Askett Lane site came third with objectors mainly concerned with difficulties in reaching it, fears of spoiling the open countryside and the increased traffic passing through a conservation area.

The Peters Lane site, although chosen by quite a number of people for its proximity and easy accessibility, received a large number of objections. Nearly 30% of the respondents were concerned about exacerbating the existing traffic problems in Peters Lane at certain times of the day when children were arriving at or departing from the school, and the lack of serenity for mourners during school playtime periods.

The Burials Committee studied the figures and comments and on the basis of the responses, it was agreed to proceed with investigations for the Shootacre Lane site [number 79].

As the owner had indicated that he preferred a swap of land and was interested in acquiring the Ragpit, the clerk had written to the Planning Department to enquire if there had been any change since 1994 in the designation of the area, or to policies relating to the area, where the Ragpit was situated but they had confirmed that the designations had been retained in the recent Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 that was placed on deposit the previous December.

The chairman of the Burials Committee therefore advised the meeting that she intended to send a personal response to the Local Plan regarding the Ragpit land. It was situated in Whiteleaf village and if the Inspector for the Local Plan Enquiry could consider the inclusion of the village as a 'built-up area within the Green Belt' it might then be possible for it to be used to facilitate the acquisition of the Shootacre Lane site.

Following discussions at the Council, the clerk sent a Review of the Local Plan to 2011, which pointed out a number of other issues that concerned the Council. Among these was a request for the District Council to identify potential sites in the North of the District that could be investigated for the provision of a cemetery for that area of the District.

The owner of the Shootacre Lane site had suggested that the Council consider leasing his land as another way forward. At the March Burials Committee, a discussion took place regarding this option. Cllr Alan Kirby, who had experience in land purchase, advised that a lease could be done 'in perpetuity' the equivalent price of a freehold sale being given, followed by a peppercorn rent, which would be a solution.

However the chairman of the Council was unhappy about this, as he felt that the Council would need full control over land used for burials to protect the interests of all involved for the future. With a lease he said there would still be a freeholder who could retain rights or control over the land. It was decided therefore that an outright purchase of the land was preferred, but the possibility of a lease was to be investigated.

After working privately on her submission in response to the Local Plan the chairman of the Burials Committee arranged to meet the gentleman who rented the Ragpit from the Council. She explained that she was submitting a proposal regarding the Local Plan to enable the possible acquisition of a site for a burial ground for the town. He advised that it would be discussed at the Annual General Meeting of the Whiteleaf residents. In the event the residents were very much against the idea, but, because of the urgency of seeking a solution to the burial ground problem, she decided that she would still submit it.

Along with her representation, she explained her reasons for its submission. A plan of the area was enclosed with a red dotted line indicating the boundary lines of the area of Whiteleaf, which she proposed should be redefined. Half of this area would be protected due to an existing classification of being a conservation area. Within the other half there were only a small handful of areas that might benefit from an amendment. One was owned by a charity and under the terms of the charity could not be developed on, thus only a very small change might occur as a result of the area being re-defined. The Ragpit was surrounded by development on three sides already and the rear of it would remain Green Belt under this proposal as the red boundary line intersected the site so that only the front half could be developed.

She also suggested an alternative way forward. The Ragpit, which was used many years ago for the excavation of flint stones, could be classified as a minor redundant economic site within the Green Belt, which might allow it to be developed. Although there were no existing buildings except for an electricity sub station, it may well have had a shed or shelter for the workers in the past and there was certainly evidence of past diggings when the councillors were shown around it.

Unfortunately problems seemed to be accumulating rather than getting resolved as the clerk advised that any disposal of the Ragpit would have to be on an open market basis to comply with the Local Government Act 1972 Section 123 [2]. A report from the District Valuer would be needed to satisfy the auditors that the statutory requirement, of getting the best value, had been complied with.

The clerk wrote to the owner of the Shootacre Lane site, explaining the need for an outright purchase or a very long lease and the need for the Council to comply with the Local Government Act 1972 if a sale of the Ragpit was to take place.

At about this time the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency [an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office] were undertaking an agricultural land classification, to provide the District Council with information about land quality in the district. This would be used to ensure that government policies for the protection of the best and most versatile land were given due weight in the production of the authority's Local Plan.

It appeared for a while that this might have a massive effect on the value of the land at Shootacre Lane and land agents advised the landowner that his terms should be changed to take this into account. The chairman of the Town Council considered that the new terms were rather costly so enquiries were made with the District Council to see if they could help financially with the purchase of the site. Their response was to advise that the responsibility lay with the precepting Council, and suggesting a joint purchase with all or some of the surrounding parishes who might be experiencing similar circumstances to Princes Risborough.

If the representation to redefine the area where the Ragpit was situated was successful, the chairman of the Burials Committee felt that, even if the Shootacre Lane site could not be pursued, the sale of the Ragpit would help finance the purchase of an alternative site and the setting up of a burial ground.

In the March CROSStalk, the chairman of the Town Council had written 'The Town Council requests the District Council recognise the need for a new burial facility in the North of the District to satisfy the need in Princes Risborough and the surrounding parishes and make provision for a suitable site for a cemetery.' However the District Council informed the clerk that they didn't wish to establish their own North of District burial ground for use by Princes Risborough and the surrounding parishes.

At the Annual Town Meeting in May, local residents were updated on the 98 fields that had been included in a systematic procedure of elimination, the survey of the four possibilities that had been identified and the site chosen at Shootacre Lane to progress, and the current investigations, which were revealing huge hurdles to overcome before it could be acquired. They were also advised that there were just 7 grave plots left in St Mary's churchyard.

They were reassured that the Church was very willing for people to continue to use their facilities if they desired, and that they had designated two areas, which could be used for the interment of ashes. An area in the north side of the churchyard was available for those wishing to place a stone memorial to their loved ones and a Sacred Garden project was being progressed for the south side of the churchyard where people would be able to have ashes interred, but without individual memorials.

The owner of the Shootacre Lane site then wrote to advise that a private company had approached him wishing to lease the Shootacre Lane field in order to provide a crematorium and burial ground. The company was able to pay higher rates than the Council was likely to be able to afford. He suggested that if the prospect of a private company running the site was not acceptable to the local community then perhaps the Council should look again at Amen Corner, which would be less expensive. Members of the Burials Committee considered that if the company's proposals were carried through, there would be no need for the Council to put an extra financial burden onto the residents by establishing a cemetery of its own. The clerk responded to his letter asking if members of the Council could meet with representatives of the company, as the Council might then be able to have some positive input to their plans.

At a Burials Committee meeting in June, a letter received from the company interested in acquiring the site was discussed. It was agreed that two councillors would meet their representative and report back. The meeting eventually took place in August and it was agreed that the Council would need to see drawings of the proposals and arrange to display them for public comments.

Also in August some councillors attended a meeting with the Whiteleaf Residents Association regarding the Ragpit. The residents remained opposed to a change in the status of Whiteleaf or the Ragpit, as proposed in the representation concerning the Local Plan, and any sale of the land.

The drawings from the company proposing to site a crematorium on the Shootacre Lane site were received in September. It was unclear which part of the site would be used for burials so the clerk was instructed to write requesting clarification on this point. The committee agreed that the Council would not incur more expenditure on the site until further information was received from the company.

The Burials Committee Report in the October CROSStalk advised the public that they were trying to overcome problems regarding the acquisition of the favoured site at Shootacre Lane, which were substantial and had been complicated by two issues:

\- Speculation regarding land value, which could not be resolved until the Local Plan was finalised the following year.

\- A third party's interest in using the site for a similar purpose.

The company then advised that revised plans for the site were being drawn up and would be ready in November. There had been a delay in progress owing to the fact that they were opening a new crematorium in another part of the country, which had taken up a lot of their time. They suggested a further meeting with the Council in December, before discussions were held with the Planning Department in January on draft plans, prior to the submission of a formal planning application in February. It was hoped that a planning decision would be given in the following April and this would enable work to start on the site in September 2000 and the burial ground and crematorium would open around September 2001.

Although the time spent discussing the problem at Council level was limited, the chairman of the Burials Committee was doing a lot of background investigations regarding sites which hadn't been eliminated, and was trying to think of ways to enable a land swap to take place with the owner of the Shootacre Lane site, should the alternative proposal for a crematorium and burial ground fall through. A visit was made to another local farmer hoping she would consider swapping land with the owner of the Shootacre Lane site and releasing the proposed site that way but she advised that she hadn't any spare land to do this.

2000

When the Council met in January Cllr Ben Benifer advised that the Wycombe District Association of Local Councils had made a submission in response to the Draft Local Plan for the provision of a burial ground in the North of the District,

The Council was, at that time, seriously considering building a new Council office on a site next to the entrance of Wades Park as their meetings were taking place in the cramped little upstairs room of the Market House where there were no facilities. The clerk had a small cupboard for records but otherwise had to use his own home for parish work. Apart from this there were concerns about the access up a steep narrow staircase not being suitable for people with disabilities, and many a meeting was disrupted by noise with the chairman, Dave Allworth, who was an ex-policeman running downstairs to deal with exuberant youngsters underneath. A local architect had been asked to draw up plans for the proposed building and it seemed that funding for this would have to take priority over a new burial ground.

The likely cost of setting up a burial ground, building new offices as well as the possibility of having to maintain the churchyard at St Mary's if it were closed this year all made the need to utilise the potential value of the Ragpit more compelling, in order to prevent the precept rising unduly high.

However the representation to reclassify part of Whiteleaf Village received a negative response in the Inspector's Report in January. This result was disappointing, as the classification of the residential area of Whiteleaf had occurred with no regard for the utility of the Ragpit itself. The Ragpit was given to the Parish for the benefit of local residents. It was originally awarded to the Surveyors of the Highways for the Parish of Monks Risborough. When there was no further need for excavating rag [hard chalk] for the local highways, it was handed over to Monks Risborough Parish Council, and then to Princes Risborough Parish Council [as it then was] when the two Councils became one.

As a result of the classification the Council was unable to get 'best value' out of the land because its remoteness and state compared unfavourably with other local recreational areas and, as such, attracted only a paltry rent. It could not be used for cultivation, such as allotments, because of the poor quality of the soil.

A government produced guide, 'Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans - A Guide to Procedures' states [page 2] that the aim of the town and country planning system is 'to secure the most efficient and effective use of land in the public interest' and 'plans do not have to be rigidly adhered to.'

The chairman of the Burials Committee felt that there was now an opportunity for the situation to be resolved so she subsequently appealed, enlarging on her reasons why the Ragpit should be allowed to be developed if her main representation proposal was not possible.

A letter from the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils had been received and advised that leasing land was not acceptable for use as a burial site, and that borrowing approval was only possible for freehold purchases. [This information apparently contradicted earlier advice received by the clerk in 1995 – see Chapter 4] As a result Cllr Barbara Richer proposed, seconded by Cllr Dave Allworth, that the Council should not pursue enquiries on leasehold sites. This was passed by three votes to two. Due to sickness, revised plans from the potential developer had not yet been received.

In March the Burials Committee learned that the revised plans for the Shootacre Lane site had been received so it was arranged for them to be displayed locally for the public to view. The clerk was asked to write to the Lacey Green Parish Council to advise them that a commercial organisation had drawn up proposals to establish a crematorium and burial ground at Shootacre Lane and that Princes Risborough Town Council had maintained an interest in this possible development as it included an area for a burial ground which was needed for the town.

In the Spring 2000 CROSStalk the public were informed of the situation with the Shootacre Lane site, that an independent company had approached the owner and expressed an interest in establishing a local crematorium and burial ground there and were producing plans. The Council had been asked to ascertain whether local people would support it. It was acknowledged that this would offer a solution to the problem and relieve parishioners of the increased council tax burden caused by setting up and running a burial ground, although, without appropriate screening, it may be unacceptable to many, especially those living close by. The public were therefore encouraged to look carefully at the plans when they became available for inspection at the North of District Office and write to the Town Clerk with their comments. The Council would only support their planning application if a large majority of local residents were in favour.

An agent for the owner of the Shootacre site phoned to enquire about progress. He was told that the Council was waiting for the 3rd party interest in the site to be resolved, and that the draft plans for a crematorium and burial ground were being displayed locally.

The draft plans for the Shootacre Lane site had been exhibited in the library but no comments had been received from members of the public so the clerk wrote to the company to advise them.

In July the company representative wishing to develop the Shootacre Lane site rang to say he had heard the Council were looking elsewhere. He was told that the Council had no option as there were no spaces left in the churchyard, and that they could not proceed with the Shootacre Lane site while his offer was more interesting to the owner than theirs. He said that half of the site was earmarked for graves and that he had sent his plans to the District Council and was going to attempt to get planning permission by getting the burial site first. In the event the Council never received any information about this proposal so the company's informal talks with the planners may have made them reconsider their scheme.

In September the Council gave formal support to the chairman of the Burial Committee's appeal to Wycombe District Council to remove one of the Planning Constraints concerning Whiteleaf.

2001

At the beginning of the year she learnt of the failure of her appeal. The submissions from the Town Council and the Wycombe District Association of Local Councils for the designation of land to be used for a North of District Burial Ground also failed to influence the shaping of the Local Plan.

This was a disappointment. Because of European Union regulations concerning public meeting places that would render it illegal to continue meeting in the Council Chamber, which was above the Market House at that time, Princes Risborough Town Council were facing the situation of having to provide, not just a new burial ground, and most probably the future maintenance of the churchyard, but also a new meeting place.

The local precept, which was already one of the highest in the district, had risen nearly 50% from the previous year and would incur a further substantial increase if these facilities were provided. If the Ragpit could be sold at a developmental value, the increases could be reduced. However it remains an unutilised resource of no real benefit to anyone.

It is hoped that the residents of Whiteleaf who were opposed to this representation and the subsequent appeal may come to understand that they were submitted because the councillor felt she would be failing all the local council taxpayers if she didn't explore every way possible of acquiring a burial ground and reducing the financial impact for the local community.

With the failure of the appeal, and the Council's unwillingness to consider leasing the Shootacre Lane site, it seemed that the Burials Committee were getting nowhere.

These details concerning the Shootacre Lane site, and the attempts to enable its acquisition for a burial ground for the residents of the town, have been separated from other work that was undertaken over roughly the same period of time for clarity. The other work is detailed in the following chapter.

Chapter 7

Continuing Investigations

1999 - 2002

1999

There seemed to be no way of resolving the problem of finding a new site for a burial ground. During the summer a meeting had taken place at St Dunstan's Church with a planning officer from Wycombe District Council [WDC], the Revd Andrew Meynell, and two councillors to discuss a number of issues. Minutes of this meeting record that it would be most unlikely that the church would receive planning permission for burials in their churchyard extension area.

Towards the end of this year it seemed to the chairman of the Burials Committee that not much progress was being made. The November meeting of the committee made her decide that something had to be done regarding the timing of the meetings. At that time the Council only met twice a month, the last Tuesday in the month for the main Town Council meeting and the second Tuesday in the month, for the sub-committee meetings, which alternated bi-monthly.

When the Burials Committee had been reconvened, it had been allocated a spot bi-monthly following another sub-committee meeting. As a result it was always very late when the meeting took place and members were tired and anxious to get home. This particular meeting had started at 10 pm and finished at 25 to 11. On looking back through the year, the Burials Committee had only had the opportunity to meet five times and the total Council time spent on these meetings, and the urgent problem of finding a burial ground to replace the nearly-full churchyard was a paltry 3 hours and 10 minutes which was inadequate. This issue was discussed at a Forward Policy Panel meeting and resulted in the Council allocating the committee more frequent and earlier timed meetings the following year.

At home the chairman continued to try to progress the search. A visit to the owner of fields numbered 1 and 2 gave her hope as, although she hadn't been explicit in any way, she felt the final solution may lay with her.

At the November Estimates Committee £10,000 was put aside for Burials expenses for the year 2000 - 2001 in the hope that progress would be made to resolve the looming problem of no further burial spaces being available in the churchyard.

2000

There were now only three grave plots left in the churchyard.

At the January meeting of the Burials Committee, some further sites were eliminated for various reasons. Of the remaining sites it was agreed that the clerk should contact some more owners and report back to the next meeting.

In March the clerk advised members of the Burials Committee that he had written to a number of site owners who had indicated that they were unwilling to sell. This left a small number of possibilities [listed below] along with a handful where there remained difficulties in locating and contacting the owners.

\- The Askett Lane site [66] was one possibility. Mr Walker had offered to sell but there was no guarantee that the land would be geologically suitable and the chairman of the Council considered this site to be far from ideal in view of the location and the fact that no public transport passed near to the land.

\- The two paddocks situated at the end of Long Hide [1 and 2]. The owner had expressed interest in helping but there were formidable problems associated with progressing this area.

\- Some fields situated adjacent to the Risborough School [18, 92 and 93]. They hadn't been formally eliminated but 2 were known to be used by the school.

\- The two sites at Shootacre Lane [79] and Amen Corner [98]. These had not been eliminated although it was very unlikely the Council would be able to purchase them, and they had vetoed pursuing sites for lease.

At this point Cllr Richer proposed and Cllr Allworth seconded the motion that a positive approach should be made to the owner of sites 1 and 2 who had recently expressed verbally that she would like to help, if possible. This was agreed unanimously and it was decided that a personal approach should be made initially. The Planning Department was to be contacted regarding the suitability of the paddocks for a burial ground. However their subsequent response was discouraging so councillors continued to look at other possibilities.

In April councillors were informed that two owners had phoned and were both interested in helping with the provision of land for a burial ground but would require planning permission for houses on part of their land in return. After discussion, it was agreed that the clerk should write to suggest they contact the Town Council if the circumstances changed. They would be eliminated on the grounds that the Council was unable to meet their requirements.

The clerk was asked to make enquiries with the District Planning Department and Bucks County Council Highways Department regarding the suitability of the Askett Lane site, and also enquire of the owner whether Amen Corner was still available.

Following a suggestion from the planning officer, it was agreed to contact the governors of the Princes Risborough School to see if the school would be interested in exchanging a part of their playing field [field numbers 92 and 93] which was situated next to New Road for the Earle Mitchell Recreation Ground, owned by the Council. A meeting took place in June between Cllr Kirby and Cllr Wooster and two of the school governors.

At that time, the school needed to raise £50,000 in local business sponsorship, to show that the local community was supportive of its bid to become a technical college. They were also having problems with parking and the access via Clifford Road. It was hoped that by talking to them, it might be possible to identify some ideas, which could be taken back to the Council that may be of mutual benefit for the school and for the town. However the governors were not interested in the Earle Mitchell Recreation Ground because of being unable to supervise children going there. They were subsequently asked to consider the possibility of leasing an adjoining field [18], which lay immediately behind the school so as to release part of their sports field for use as a burial ground. They agreed to consult with the other school governors.

A meeting was arranged with agents representing the owners of site 89 on the south side of Kop Hill. They seemed sympathetic to the Council's request and said they would be meeting their tenant who farmed the land the following Monday. However it was later confirmed that for the time being he wished to continue farming the land.

A phone call to one of the school governors elicited the fact that the suggestion regarding a swap of land was 'under consideration' but there was not another governors meeting till September. The governor was given the address of the owner of the field that lay immediately behind the school in case they wished to pursue some enquiries re leasing it. The governors did not respond so it was assumed that they were not interested.

Comments arrived from the planning officer regarding the suitability of site 66 on the south side of the road linking Askett with the Lower Icknield Way. He had no objections in principle. The site would need suitable landscaping and screening and the Council was advised to seek the views of the Highways Authority. However the Council was aware that the geological suitability of the site was still questionable. Cllr Richer felt the site was too remote and that she could not, at this stage, support spending Council funds on soil tests for the site, so it was agreed to wait and see if progress could be made with sites 1 and 2.

The Council was involved in many issues, not just the problem of finding a new burial ground. At a Publicity Sub-committee meeting in August, it was decided that for a forthcoming Community Centre Open Day, where the Council had been requested to display a stand for public interest, that each committee should produce a Fact File giving historical, photographic, and reference data, information sheets etc. This would enable the public to gain insight into the work of each committee. The data should then be subject to regular updating. This was an extra task at the time but proved to be an invaluable aid later.

At the Burials Committee meeting later that month, discussion took place with regard to the various issues concerning each of the remaining sites. The chairman had wished to pursue each to the bitter end in the effort to solve the town's problem in finding a burial ground. However some members thought the problems surrounding the remaining sites to be rather intractable even though they had not been formally eliminated. They felt the committee needed to concentrate their efforts on one site rather than make general progress on all the remaining sites. Cllr Allworth then proposed and Cllr Richer seconded his motion that discussion be adjourned on all these sites except for numbers 1 and 2, and no further action taken on the remainder. The majority of the committee agreed.

In November of 2000, a Press notice from the Environment Sub-committee of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs came to the Council's attention. They had resolved to undertake an enquiry into cemeteries, and two of the subjects they wished to examine were the long term planning for new cemeteries and burial space, and the management and provision of cemetery services. The frustration that this project was causing to the Council made the chairman of the Burials Committee feel that she had to respond and tell them of the Council's long search and problems. This she did using the work included in the recently produced Fact File to show the length and extent of the Council's search. This was to lead to a further exchange with the Select Committee [detailed in Part 2 Chapter 23].

Later that month at the Estimates Committee, £10,000 was allocated out of the following year's precept to cover possible initial costs in the ever-hopeful event that a burial facility could be progressed. The same year £35,000 was agreed towards the cost of a new Council meeting room and clerk's office. This was of concern to the chairman of the Burials Committee as if the latest area being investigated for use as a burial site was able to progress, it would be competing for funding with the proposed new building. However the proposed location of the new building was not acceptable to the community and this idea was later shelved although the Council still needed to find alternative accommodation.

2001

There had been a formal offer to the Council from the owner of fields 1 and 2 at the end of 2000 but as there were some major hurdles associated with the land, councillors were anxious not to burn all their boats. It was important to undertake ground water testing for the Environment Agency to ascertain whether the ground was suitable geologically. However as the autumn and winter were very wet, and the only access was across the owner's lawn, it was decided to wait until the ground was dry enough so as not to cause any damage to her garden. Details concerning this site are enlarged later.

In January, the Burials Committee learned that there had been an offer of land situated in the nearby hamlet of Meadle from Mrs Dorothy Brock but unfortunately it was considered to be too remote from the town to be suitable.

A letter was received from the owner of the Shootacre Lane site offering a further suggestion to the Council that he thought might help to resolve the problem of finding a replacement burial ground. It seemed that the company who had expressed interest in the Shootacre Lane site were unable to progress their development. However a tenancy on an alternative field was expiring later in the year, which he could offer to the Council on a long lease. It was encouraging to know that he still wished to help and he was told that his offer would be discussed at the February Burials Committee meeting. However, following a discussion it was agreed not to proceed with this site as the Council wished to own any burial ground on a freehold basis, to have total control over what took place on the land.

Mr Walker, the owner of site 66 at Askett, had informed the Council that he would be retiring later this year and the committee asked the clerk to ascertain the latest date that an approach could be made for his land if it was required for a burial ground.

The local undertakers advised that there was now only one space left in the churchyard so the chairman of the Burials Committee wrote to update the rector on the progress with the latest site that was being investigated and to ask whether the PCC would reconsider the reuse of the 20 or more unmarked graves in the newer churchyard that were over 50 years of age. It was later confirmed that the PCC had voted again not to allow reburials or interburials to take place within the churchyard.

The local undertakers looked around the churchyard and suggested the removal of part of a pathway. This would provide additional burial spaces, which would extend the life of the churchyard by about 2 years. At the Estimates Committee later in the year, councillors included a grant to help the church's expenses in having this work undertaken. It was later found that some of the unmarked graves were in fact a complete row of unused plots, which had been left with the intention to provide a pathway across that area to Wades Park, should an extension be provided in that area. This discovery helped to extend the life of the churchyard a little longer.

At the Annual Town Meeting, an update was given to the public. The Council had been unable to make progress on the Shootacre Lane site. The Askett Lane site essentially remained as a second choice because of the uncertainty regarding its geological suitability, and its remote location. The possibility of another site becoming available was being explored but because of the uncertainty of the outcome of soil testing, which the Council had so far been unable to undertake, and other major problems, the owner had asked for the location of the site to remain confidential for the time being.

At the November Estimates Committee, a budget of £10,000 was agreed for the Burials Committee in the hope that they could make progress with the fields 1 and 2.

In December, the Council applied to join The Association of Burial Authorities to acquire guidance and further knowledge on cemetery management. This organisation was formed in 1993 by a group of cemetery managers, Friends of Cemeteries, members of the Church of England, memorial masons and landscape architects. Sam Weller was chairman.

2002

At the March Burials Committee meeting, Cllrs Miv Hughes and Ben Benifer reported on the Risk Assessment Seminar they had attended, and advised that there would be potential risk problems with existing gravestones in churchyards.

In June the clerk wrote to Mr Walker, the owner of site 66, to advise that the Council had identified a site and that outline planning permission had been granted to use it as a burial ground. Sincere thanks were conveyed for his willingness to allow the possibility of using his field if the Council's first choice had not proved to be acceptable to the Planning Authority.

The extra burial plots created at the churchyard by the removal of the path had been used fairly quickly and a further section of path was reduced in size to create some more. Cllr Benifer agreed to approach the Revd. Andrew Meynell of St Dunstan's Church to see if his PCC would agree to help by accepting some burials from St Mary's Parish.

At the September meeting of the Burials Committee it was agreed that the clerk should contact the PCC of St Mary's to discuss the taking over of the churchyard once it was closed. A number of members were concerned that the church might overlook Health and Safety considerations and it was essential that these requirements should be satisfied before the Council took over responsibility for the churchyard.

At the November Town Council meeting further mention was made that a meeting should be set up in 2003 with representatives of the church to discuss the implications of St Mary's churchyard when it was closed.

With the possibility of imminent closure, two local contractors were asked to quote on the comparative costs of grass maintenance at St Mary's churchyard. However, to date, there has been no further progress with the formality of closing the churchyard.

A very promising site [fields 1 and 2] was now being investigated. This is enlarged in the following chapter.

Chapter 8

Fields of Hope

1998 - 2002

1998

The first contact with Miss Anne Stratton, the owner of these fields [numbered 1 and 2] was made in 1998 when Cllr Maggie Wooster wrote to her during the elimination process. As a result she was invited to view the paddocks, which at that time had two large horses grazing in them. The paddocks were idyllic, peaceful and overlooked by Whiteleaf Cross. They looked to be the perfect place for a burial ground, but the councillor believed that Miss Stratton would only be able to consider offering the far ends of the paddocks, which had no access and therefore would not be of use, as the bulk of the area was designated in the Local Plan for residential development and therefore not available.

During the visit, the problems encountered by the Council were discussed and, having learnt of the lengthy search already undertaken by previous members of the Council, Miss Stratton asked to be kept informed of any progress. Over the following months a number of follow-up visits were made and during one of them, the councillor conveyed her dream of having a facility that would be park-like in the town, which would evolve into somewhere for people to come and relax in a beautiful garden area, rather than a traditional cemetery with rows of headstones. The town's recreation grounds at that time were mainly catering for the benefit of footballers, children and dog walkers and there wasn't a place to sit and simply enjoy the peace and beauty of one's surroundings, which might be achieved in a memorial garden.

1999

By late 1999, it was learnt that Miss Stratton was against the thought of having houses built in her paddocks and there was a deep feeling in the councillor's heart that the answer to the town's predicament might lay with her.

2000

In the spring of 2000 Miss Stratton expressed her desire to help resolve the problem, asking whether her paddocks might be suitable. Her feelings were conveyed to the Council but hopes were not raised at that time due to the fact that most of the land was scheduled for building which was a huge concern. In early April a letter was sent to the Planning Department making enquiries about the suitability of these paddocks for a burial ground. His response, which arrived in May, was not very encouraging. The report reminded the Council that part of the land was zoned for residential use. There was also a concern regarding the suitability of the access and the Council was advised to contact the County Highways Authority regarding this. The report also envisaged a significant number of objections from neighbouring residents.

At a meeting with Miss Stratton, the rather negative response from the planning officer was discussed. She now indicated that she would be prepared to offer all the land in her paddocks. On that sunny and quiet afternoon both she and the councillor, who was now chairman of the Burials Committee, felt that this was an ideal spot for a burial ground. Miss Stratton wondered whether the churches would approve and whether members of the Burials Committee thought they were suitable. She needed to be assured of their acceptability to everyone locally and to the Planning and Highways Authorities.

Following a meeting with the Revd. Dr Paul Fiske, Rector of St Mary's Church, the councillor was able to inform her that he favoured the site, and then advise the members of the Burials Committee of Miss Stratton's willingness to offer the land for use as a burial ground. This was an extremely generous offer as she could have sold the land for a vast sum to a developer. Councillors were overjoyed with that news and considerable discussion took place concerning the best way forward and the viability of the site. It was agreed that a letter and plan of the location should be sent to the Chairman of the Planning, Environment and Transportation Committee at Wycombe District Council [WDC] requesting a meeting with him and another senior planning official. In the event the Council was advised that it would be better to approach the Director of Planning.

The councillor was invited to meet him to discuss the planning problems in relation to the paddocks. She went armed with a paper listing the potential benefits of using this site and responses to the concerns previously raised by the planning officer about the site being zoned for residential use, the living having more need than the dead, objections from local house-holders etc.

At this meeting the Director indicated that the main issues would be any objections from the Highways Authority and from surrounding residents, and if the Council could get their support then the application would have a better chance although the issue of the land being allocated for housing would have to be discussed and the merits of the community's need for a burial site weighed against this.

In August the councillor produced a paper which addressed all the possible concerns that might be considered an impediment by the Highways Authority to the development of sites 1 and 2 [general concerns and difficulties with traffic on the A4010 Aylesbury Road, Queens Road, and Long Hide] and gave it to Cllr Dave Allworth who was having an informal meeting with them to elicit their concerns. The clerk had also obtained some traffic figures for him from the County Engineer at Aylesbury.

Following the meeting, Cllr Allworth reported that there would be no objections from the Highways Authority provided 18 car parking spaces were provided on site. However, he had discovered that the narrow strip of land separating the paddocks from the roadway was a ransom strip, owned by developers, and could be very expensive to purchase, so it was agreed that a letter be sent to the developers to enquire about the cost, letting them know that the owner did not wish to see houses being built there. Tracking down the identity of the developers was not particularly easy. The Council followed several leads before the clerk finally resorted to the Land Registry several months later.

In September, having received encouraging informal reports regarding planning and highways issues, the clerk formally wrote to Miss Stratton asking if she would be willing to sell her paddocks so that the Council could use them to develop a new burial ground. She responded soon after, saying that she was fully aware of the hours spent over the years looking for a suitable burial site and for this reason and the thought of local people having to be buried out of the area, and the difficulty of elderly relations visiting the graves, she was offering her land for this purpose. She wrote to say she was prepared to consider donating the land, but would have to be certain that it would be used for the stated purpose, be well screened from the neighbours and most importantly would be well maintained. She thought the idea to create a memorial park excellent, and if well landscaped thought it could be an asset to the local community.

It seemed as if this was preordained. It was unbelievable, after all the difficulties the Council had experienced with unwilling sellers and objectors, that here was a lady who was not only content to have a burial facility next to her home, but was willing to donate the land for the purpose, and land that was not just green fields, but a large proportion of which was highly valuable, being prime development land. What an altruistic action! However she wisely stipulated that the Council would have to resolve a number of problems before she would donate it. There would be no point in passing it to the town if it was geologically unsuitable, or if the Council couldn't get planning permission or an access into it.

The first investigation therefore was to ascertain if the Environment Agency would approve of burials being performed there. Previous enquiries had revealed that the ground would probably be suitable as, even though it overlaid the Lower Chalk, a major aquifer, the ground level was 120 metres and the ground water level was 100 metres, which meant there was an unsaturated zone of 20 metres available, which was adequate to provide degradation of burials and not contaminate the groundwater.

However the agency would require a number of trial pits to be dug to provide confirmation. With chalk rock underlying the site this would require a heavy JCB digger and the only access to the site was through Miss Stratton's private garden over her lovely lawn. Since her generous offer had been received, the country was experiencing its wettest autumn for many years and the continuous rain had saturated the ground. She was concerned that the passage of the heavy equipment would damage her lawn so it was decided to delay soil tests on the site until the ground was drier. The clerk liaised with the company who were to undertake the groundwork for the tests a number of times over the next few months but, as the rain kept coming and the autumn and winter season turned out to be the wettest on record, they advised that it would be prudent to delay any soil testing until the land had dried further.

2001

Arrangements were made to take an officer from WDC to meet Miss Stratton and view the site. He had seen the other four possible sites nearly two years ago and said this one was easily the most suitable. He had made enquiries regarding the procedure for a Compulsory Purchase Order [CPO] should it be required for the ransom strip, and passed over the details. The Council was advised that it should try and negotiate with the owners first. Parishes have no direct CPO powers and have to formally request the procedure to be undertaken by the District Council, which is quite lengthy, and give an undertaking that they will be responsible for the legal and administrative costs, which could be quite substantial.

In the Burials Committee report for the March 2001 CROSStalk, parishioners were updated on the encouraging offer of help and that the Council had made initial investigations on a possible site, which it considered would be very suitable. The Council asked for patience as it had been asked to maintain confidentiality regarding its location for the time being.

The rain continued and, despite enquiries as to whether the work could be done in the spring, the soil testing had to be deferred. By July the Council learned that the soil tests would be undertaken in August and the clerk had finally acquired the name and address of the current owners of the ransom strip.

At a Forward Policy Panel in August, Cllr Wooster was hopeful that the committee could now be expanded to include lay members such as undertakers, clergy, representatives from Long Hide and someone with horticultural knowledge if soil tests were favourable. However this idea didn't appeal to others and wasn't taken up.

There was further delay with the commencement of the water table tests and contact was made with a representative of the company to enquire the reason and, following this, to a member of the Scientific Support Team at the Environment Agency. He advised that 1m of unsaturated soil was required below the base of the deepest grave and that it was normal to do tests in the spring when the water table would be at its highest. To measure the depth at this time of the year the Council needed to allow extra depth of another metre. When he was reminded that the preliminary assessment was that the water table was 20m below ground level, he advised contacting the British Geological Survey [BGS] and querying whether it was actually necessary to do tests.

After speaking with their representative a letter was written to BGS to enquire if they could help by providing written confirmation regarding the levels of the ground and underlying water table in case it might be possible to avoid intrusive soil testing. This they did and their response was passed to the contractors engaged to undertake the tests, and included in their report, although, in the event, the tests still had to be performed.

They were finally undertaken in September. The contractors sent a report giving details of the excavation of 9 trial pits. A geo-technical engineer had collected samples and the investigations confirmed the expected geology provided by the British Geological Survey, the underlying geology being Lower Chalk of the Cenomanian sub-division of the Upper Cretaceous Period. The report concluded with the statement that groundwater was not encountered in any of the trial pits during excavation. Because the tests were being executed in the summer season, the depths of the excavations had been set at 4.00m instead of 3.00m to take into account any seasonal variations in the depth of the ground water level.

At a General Purpose Committee meeting later that month, where the results of the soil tests were discussed, members of the Council agreed that the next step was to approach Miss Stratton to get her agreement for the Council to apply for outline planning permission to develop a burial site in her paddocks. At this stage it was felt necessary to advise her that the Council would need to inform the press and Long Hide residents of their intentions as a number of residents had witnessed the soil testing and were wondering what was afoot. Other members of the Council wished to meet Miss Stratton in order to express their gratitude and to view the paddocks so this was arranged.

Shortly afterwards a welcome letter arrived from Miss Stratton, giving the Council permission to proceed to apply for planning permission, and its contents were related to the members of the Burials Committee. Cllr John Coombs, who was the current chairman of the Town Council, stressed that it was essential to hold a public meeting first to advise all the electorate and get their support. It was decided that there would be photographic displays, draft plans and illustrations of a cemetery, and to make a video of a local memorial garden for the public to view. The clerk was to notify the press and all the residents living near to the site.

In the November CROSStalk of that year, a progress report was given, but readers were warned that the Council was not yet out of the woods, as there remained two serious hurdles to overcome. The Council still needed to negotiate with the developers owning the ransom strip and acquire it, so as to gain access to the site, and also needed to obtain full planning permission. It was advised that there would be a public meeting to give people the opportunity to raise any concerns or to make suggestions regarding the design so that the committee would be able to proceed in accordance with the wishes of the majority.

At the November Estimates Committee it was agreed that if the forecast expenditure to 31st March next was not spent then this could be carried forward to 2002 - 2003 and a budget of £10,000 was agreed to cover acquisition and set up costs of a new burial ground and memorial garden.

A local architect was engaged who arranged for a land survey to be completed for the site and, following this, the clerk and Cllr Coombs discussed with him what to include in the draft plans.

2002

January saw a lot of preparation for the public meeting. The Council was going to require a Public Address system, poster boards with lots of details of various design ideas, a video player, an overhead screen and a projector, and would need to issue press releases etc. Cllr Wooster and Cllr Miv Hughes, who was the vice chairman of the Burials Committee at that time, produced a questionnaire survey. This was to be circulated at the meeting to elicit the community's preferences regarding the type of burial facility and features they would wish to see included.

Longwick Parish Council expected to be represented at the public meeting and had advised that they had been accumulating funds as a contribution to any new burial facility in Princes Risborough.

The meeting took place on the 17th January. The architect had prepared drawings showing a draft design for display. Cllr Wooster, as chairman of the Burials Committee, gave a long speech to accompany various acetates that were projected on to the screen for all to see, along with a history of the search, details of the proposed site, and a brief overview of the various possibilities, advising the audience of the many disadvantages of traditional cemeteries, and a video was shown presenting various aspects of a memorial garden.

There were questions raised and concerns aired from some of the audience. One of the concerns was that Queens Road, the road through which the site would be accessed, was always congested with parked cars. The chairman of the Council advised that the Council would look into this and offered to invite two representatives from Queens Road and Long Hide, which were both close to the proposed facility, to join discussions on the proposals. Lastly a show of hands indicated an overwhelming majority supported the Council's proposal.

As the chairman of the Burials Committee was going abroad and would miss the following Town Council meeting, she left a letter with the clerk, requesting that the reported congestion in Queens Road be monitored between the times of 10 am and 4 pm on Monday to Friday, which were the times when funerals would be taking place, with a view to helping the residents resolve this problem should it be troublesome.

At the meeting at the end of the month Cllr Hughes proposed, and Cllr Gary Hall seconded the motion that the Town Council proceed to apply for planning permission for a 'Change of Use' on the paddocks at the rear of Aylesbury Road and Long Hide. All agreed. The clerk was instructed to request the architect undertake the submission of the relative application. The clerk also distributed a letter to all the councillors requesting they make at least one visit per week to check the numbers of cars parked in Queens Road. His letter included an area at the bottom for councillors to note the times and dates and their observations. The observations would help the Council to verify whether the claims, that cars connected with the Paddocks Hospital were frequently blocking Queens Road, were correct.

Shortly afterwards a letter was received from Mr Ian Roe and Mr Steve Wynn who had been nominated to represent the people living in Queens Road and Long Hide. This gave further details of the problems envisaged with the access to the site and asked whether the Council would implement their offer of consultation at this stage.

On the 20th February the architect applied for 'change of use' planning permission on behalf of the Council. At the February Town Council meeting the chairman of the Council reported that a meeting had taken place with Mr Roe and Mr Wynn and it had been agreed that a working group of local residents and councillors, with an independent chairman, would be set up if planning permission for the land was given.

In March the Burials Committee met again and organised for the questionnaires to be circulated in CROSStalk. The clerk reported that he had received letters from two residents who wished to purchase small parcels of land from the proposed site. In view of the concerns expressed by residents at the public meeting and in their representatives' letter investigations were to be undertaken to see if an alternative access to the entrance through Long Hide could be established.

Councillors had monitored the 'congestion' in Queens Road and there didn't appear to be any. Where there had been cars parked on the road it appeared that they were related to the residents rather than the Paddocks. Simultaneous checks had revealed empty spaces in the Paddocks car park. Most cars appeared to be parked in the far end of Queens Road beyond the Long Hide intersection, thus not being a problem for corteges. Cllr Wally Woolf had taken a considerable number of photos of the parking situation in the access roads and other councillors had also carried out spot checks on a random basis to support the parking survey. These would be forwarded to the architect to use with the planning application if required.

Committees had been instructed to draw up a list of Aims and Objectives to assist the committee in focusing on what its main job was. It was therefore agreed that the aims of the Burials Committee were to conduct a search for suitable land for a burial ground/memorial garden to replace the facility in St Mary's once this was closed; to be responsible for all the steps needed to obtain permission for the use of suitable land and, once planning permission has been obtained, to conduct all the procedures required to establish the facility.

In response to residents' concerns regarding extra traffic, enquiries were also made with the Rector of St Mary's who was able to give estimates of the extra traffic generated on the occasion of a funeral. He advised that most funerals had 50 or fewer people in attendance, plus one hearse and one or two limousines. For burials following a church service, only about half of the congregation would attend the actual burial afterwards - it was usually just the family and close friends. It was very rare, about once in 5 years he estimated, when a big service occurred, such as when a young person had died on a motorbike. He concluded that regarding the number of cars - he estimated 20 at a maximum but more likely 6.

At the Burials Committee meeting in May, members were told that the evaluation of the questionnaire survey was almost completed. There was a report of an encouraging meeting made by the Development Committee to the proposed site but they still required more information before the planning application could be considered. A resident had made further contact with the clerk wishing to purchase part of the site.

Finally in June came the exciting news that 'Change of Use' planning permission had been granted by the Development Control Committee of the District Council. It was now possible to make plans for consultation meetings regarding the design. These are detailed in Chapter 10. However there was still the problem of access to the paddocks to overcome. Investigations had started, looking for possible alternative accesses, and enquiries had elicited the name of the development company owning the ransom strip and dialogue was hopefully to commence soon. The securing of an access to the site is detailed next in Chapter 9.

Princes Risborough

Location of Sites 1 and 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data copyright

Crown Copyright and database right [2011]

Chapter 9

The Ransom Strip

2000 - 2003

2000

After the encouraging news in 2000 that Miss Stratton had indicated her willingness for her paddocks to be considered for use as a burial ground, the inevitable spanner got thrown in the works.

In August, Cllr Dave Allworth, who was chairman of the Town Council at that time, reported on an informal meeting he'd had with the County Highways Department. This had revealed that they would have no objection to this site being used for a burial ground provided 18 car parking spaces were provided on site, but he had discovered that there was a small strip of land retained by developers called a ransom strip that would prevent access to the site from Long Hide.

The clerk wrote to some developers who were reported to be the owners of this strip with the intention of purchasing it. However by November they hadn't responded. He was therefore instructed to write to Wycombe District Council [WDC] Legal Department asking if they could act to compulsory purchase it. Nothing further is recorded in the minutes for this year regarding any contact.

2001

By March 2001 an officer from WDC, who came to view the site, brought details of the Compulsory Purchase Order [CPO] procedure, and advised that the Council should try and negotiate with the owner of the ransom strip first. He advised that parishes have no direct powers to undertake a compulsory purchase and would have to formally request the District Council to undertake the procedure on their behalf. This is quite lengthy, and the Parish Council has to give an undertaking that they will be responsible for the legal and administrative costs, which could be quite substantial.

In May, as there had still been no response, it was queried whether the ransom strip had been sold to another developer. The clerk was asked to institute a search at the Land Registry to see if it was possible to establish the identity of the current owners. However a change of ownership had not been registered so the Council were no further forward.

2002

With no progress being made by March 2002, the Burials Committee decided to see if an alternative access to the entrance through Long Hide could be established as, if the developer could witness that the site was definitely a council-owned burial ground, then perhaps the Council would be able to purchase the ransom strip for a reasonable price. The clerk was asked to write to some residents in Queens Road and Aylesbury Road whose properties were known to abut the site, to enquire whether it would be possible to access the site through their property. They were contacted over the next few weeks. Some residents in the Aylesbury Road were willing to allow access through their front garden in return for acquiring part of the site but progress using this route was found to be fraught with problems. An informal report from the Highways engineer indicated that the width of their access would be inadequate and it would be difficult to achieve an adequate visibility splay on one side. Also, as the Council were not owners of the land that the residents wished to acquire, there was no possibility of agreeing to their proposition, which would have had to meet the donor's approval in any case. Furthermore the chairman of the Council didn't wish to pursue alternatives, preferring to wait until the Council had heard from the developers.

In June the clerk had written to a second development company whose name had been put forward by a resident and in August sent them a copy of the outline planning permission, which had recently been obtained.

The District Valuer had been requested to provide a valuation of the ransom strip so that the Council would have an idea of how much to offer the company. He had valued it at £10,000, based on the fact that the land beyond would be used for burials rather than a housing development, a price that was not unreasonable, even though the strip of land itself was small. This figure was passed to the Council's solicitor and following a meeting at the end of the year between him, the chairman of the Council and the clerk, the solicitor advised that he would write to the developers making an offer of £10,000 for the strip on behalf of the Council.

2003

He sent the offer in January. However it was difficult to see any resolution as the developers were not likely to be interested in this offer and the Council would be unable to offer more without a public works loan being available which apparently wouldn't be possible for an expense involving land that wasn't owned by the Council. The Council appeared to be in a catch-22 position with no chance of owning the land until they could get access and no chance of owning the ransom strip until the developers were absolutely certain they wouldn't be able to develop the land themselves. That would only be possible once the land was an established burial ground.

Cllr Ben Benifer reported that, at an informal meeting with a resident, the names of three residents had been put forward as the likely owners of strips of land behind the garage area, through which access might be possible, although it was felt they were unlikely to agree to help. This area hadn't been investigated previously as it had been assumed that the development company owned the land. This resulted in two councillors visiting the resident with a large-scale plan of the garage area to request help to ascertain which areas belonged to whom. A draft letter was then prepared to send to the three households owning land near to the ransom strip, with copies to be sent to all other residents who might be affected by any resulting decision. The residents' representatives, Mr Wynn and Mr Roe, were approached to ensure that this course of action would be acceptable to the householders whose properties looked out to the garage area.

At that time there seemed little likelihood of getting temporary access through the garage area and, even if temporary access were allowed, the development would need to take place via an alternative route to avoid the contractors' heavy vehicles damaging the drains under the entrance to it. A request had been made to a local farmer in the hope that he might provide a temporary access for contractors through his farmland on the north side of the site, should the Council reach the goal of being able to develop the facility.

He wasn't keen for vehicles to go across his field but suggested that if the vehicles came through the neighbouring football field it would then be possible for them to pass through the rear end of his field along by the hedge without damaging his crops. A walk was then made through the football field to check whether this was physically possible. This led to a request to the National Trust, the owners of the football field, asking whether it was possible to use it for temporary access to the site.

The residents of Princes Risborough were updated with the situation in a report in the March CROSStalk:

The chairman of the Burials Committee, who was in regular contact with Miss Stratton, was getting concerned that a long time had passed since a letter had first been sent to the developers and was worried that the donor and local community would consider that the Council was not seriously trying to resolve the issue. She felt there would soon be criticism from upset bereaved families.

With the shortage of grave plots becoming critical in St Mary's, the Team Vicar of St Dunstan's Church in Monks Risborough was asked if his PCC would agree to a proposal for Princes Risborough residents to use their graveyard for a year until the new Memorial Garden was up and running. They generously agreed, but later discovered that they could not do so, for legal reasons. The vicar explained that they could only agree to individuals from outside the parish boundaries being buried in St Dunstan's if they had some connection with the parish.

There had still been no response from the developers and, as it was considered there was only a small chance of a resident providing a temporary route and that an actual sale would be even more remote, a General Purposes Committee [GPC] meeting took place in March to discuss various possible courses of action including the possibility of a CPO on the ransom strip. The worrying problem with this course of action was that it would be very lengthy and costly and, even if it should go in its favour, the Council would be bound to purchase the ransom strip at whatever price the Lands Tribunal decided was adequate compensation for the developers, which might be much more than it could afford. After considerable discussion it was agreed that contact should be made with the owners of the ransom strip to see if a meeting could be arranged to discuss a sale. It was also agreed that the clerk would contact the District Solicitor to obtain confirmation that WDC would act for the Council in CPO proceedings and provide an estimate of the costs involved.

Hopes were raised when a welcome letter arrived from one of the residents owning land abutting the proposed burial ground in the garage area at the end of Long Hide saying he was in favour of the proposed development and had no objection to allowing temporary access over the entrance to his garage as long as he could still use it, and shortly afterwards another resident responded to advise that he would be pleased to meet for a discussion.

Two councillors met some residents with Mr Wynn and Mr Roe in attendance in March to discuss getting access by using the garage area. The residents were understandably concerned about parking as, if visitors left their cars in or outside the garage area, they would not be able to get in and out with their own vehicles. Long Hide was full of parked cars that morning, it being a Saturday. However the residents indicated that they were happy with a proposed entrance diverting round the ransom strip so long as it was landscaped and no one inconvenienced. However none of them owned any of the vital strips of land abutting the ransom strip. Later a phone call was made to one of the strip owners, which yielded the news that she was moving and wished to leave any decision to her buyers. As she owned the middle strip that might be required, it prevented the opportunity to approach the residents on the far side of her strip until the new resident moved in, leaving only the possibility of getting help from the owners of the nearest strip.

The chairman of the Burials Committee arranged to meet Eva and Terry Lloyd who owned the strip of land adjacent to the ransom strip. She was anxious not to put them under any pressure and the initial meeting was very cordial, conversation centring on several common links they shared. At that time it didn't look as if their strip of land by itself would provide an access that would be wide enough but the chairman explained the Council's problem to them and how they might be in a position to help the people of Princes Risborough. They seemed keen to help but she left them to take time to consider carefully before making any decision.

They remained keen to help, but before getting hopes raised it was imperative to ascertain whether the proposed access was wide enough and acceptable to the Highways and Planning Departments, and whether there was anything preventing the Council from accessing it over the area used by all the other garage owners. With their agreement a letter was sent to the Leicester Land Registry asking for the exact width of their boundary strip and to find out if there were any restrictive covenants preventing its sale for access.

The ransom strip had changed hands twice and the Council's solicitor was having difficulties getting a response from the developers and having to send chasing letters to them. Eventually they made contact and indicated that they had acquired the access strip in the knowledge that the land was zoned for residential development and that they were looking for £100,000 for the access. The solicitor felt that there seemed little prospect of a satisfactory negotiation on price with the developers but a meeting was arranged for representatives from the Council to meet them in April.

Prior to this meeting with the developers who owned the ransom strip strategy was discussed with Alan Kirby, a retired councillor who was experienced in handling land deals, and a meeting was secured with the District Council's Legal representative and planners. A number of questions were put to them and their opinions were sought regarding some suggestions that could be placed before the developers, how much to offer, the possible costs of CPO, whether the Council needed to own the paddocks before the District Solicitor would undertake this action, and whether using a small strip next to the ransom strip would be acceptable if it became available. The officer from the Planning Department advised that the District Council could not change the current Local Plan to reclassify the land but would certainly make amendments in the new Plan the following year. However, if a CPO was done before then, the Lands Tribunal may base their price of the ransom strip on the current Local Plan, which would be considerably higher than £10,000.

The meeting with two representatives of the developers took place in the afternoon and a number of points were discussed. They were not interested in selling the strip for £10,000. Following this meeting the Burials Committee agreed for a letter to be sent to the company requesting details of options that they may wish to put forward that would enable the Council to acquire the ransom strip to provide a means of access.

Returning to other possible routes of access to the site, two councillors had recently met with officers from the National Trust, the owners of the football field, and had discussed with them the need to avoid inconveniencing the residents of Long Hide with contractors' vehicles. They asked if it was possible to use a temporary access to the site through the football field, as suggested by the farmer.

The officers were very sympathetic and advised that they would have to make enquiries. However one of them subsequently wrote to advise that they felt unable to help, adding that the National Trust would like to offer support but was constrained by the terms of the lease currently agreed with the football club. They felt that a temporary access across the adjoining field belonging to the farmer would not be harmful to the terms of the covenant and advised that the creation of a memorial garden and burial ground would secure the long term open character of the land to the benefit of the community and surrounding rural aspect which would benefit the Trust in their protection of distant views to the Whiteleaf Cross.

The farmer was thanked for his suggestion [regarding using the football field and the far end of his field] and advised of the outcome of the discussions with the National Trust. In the hope that he might agree, the officer's suggestion was put to him that a temporary access across his adjoining field would not be harmful to the terms of the covenant, along with a suggestion that, if the Council were in agreement, it might be possible to supply hard core along the entrance to his field in return for temporary access across it. However he later rang to advise that his farm manager was concerned that heavy vehicles would damage the track and he also felt that WDC would object to contractors' vehicles bringing mud out on to Mill Lane, and therefore he would not be able to help. That avenue of investigation therefore came to a disappointing end. [The possibility of placing a portable roadway across the track had been investigated but the cost of placing it for 230 metres at so much per metre per week was rather prohibitive].

At the end of April the Council received a very encouraging letter from Eva and Terry Lloyd indicating that they wished to help by making their boundary over to the Council for use as an access into the proposed burial ground. After the main Town Council meeting, once the press had left, councillors were advised of their written offer to sell their strip of land for a nominal sum for use as an access. There was unanimous agreement to go ahead and purchase it, so the following day a visit was made to obtain details of their solicitor and the Council's architect measured the area outside the garages. He felt the Council needed to purchase an extra small area containing a small hedge next to the path to allow the road to be widened so that hearses could negotiate the bend.

Permission was obtained to approach Mr and Mrs Lloyd about this extra piece and a visit was made to the residents who lived opposite the garage area to ensure they had no objections to an access being constructed there. Mr and Mrs Lloyd were happy to include the extra small area in the sale so the clerk then wrote to the Council's solicitor to commence the purchase and the architect set about producing an amendment to the plans he was working on to include access via the small strip of land next to the ransom strip.

By the end of May he had produced detailed plans of the alternative site entry. However the plans would not be submitted to the District Council until the access to the site was resolved. The Council's solicitor had written to get assurance that the Council would meet Mr and Mrs Lloyd's costs with regard to a sale.

With a major concern being that the developers would hear of the intended sale and thwart it somehow, the Burials Committee asked the clerk to instruct the solicitors to go ahead immediately with the purchase of the two pieces of land from Mr and Mrs Lloyd, having had assurances from the architect that the Highways Department and WDC Planning Department had confirmed that there would be no problems with using this area for access. At a GPC meeting it was proposed that a cheque be sent to the Council's solicitors so that a prompt completion could take place. This was duly undertaken by the clerk and the Council's solicitor wrote to the vendors' solicitor to inform him that the Council would meet the costs and that he had received a cheque for the vendors and was awaiting the arrival of the contract papers.

A few weeks later when the chairman of the Burials Committee contacted Mr and Mrs Lloyd to find out what progress had been made, they said they had been told that they would have to wait 3 months before they would receive the payment. For some reason their solicitor was under the impression that the completion of the sale would not take place until after the Council had received planning permission. The chairman phoned the clerk and asked him to clarify the situation with the solicitor.

In June the Council's solicitor forwarded a draft produced by the vendors' solicitor for detailed checking, and minor adjustments were made to ensure right of passage over the areas of land not being acquired. This entailed a further visit to Mr and Mrs Lloyd to explain why some words on the draft needed to be changed. The letter included further queries. The vendors' solicitor then went on holiday.

In the meantime a second meeting took place with a representative from the developers owning the ransom strip. He showed a plan of houses on the site with a small area set aside for burials at the far end in the Green Belt area, and advised that the Council could have access if they could build houses there. During this meeting there was anxiety in case a slip in the conversation would reveal that the Council was also negotiating an alternative.

At an informal meeting after the main Town Council meeting at the end of the month, where the wording of the draft contract was discussed, a councillor asked about the meeting that had taken place with the developers' representative. As soon as the offer to provide a small area for burials if the developers could build houses on the site was mentioned, several others seized it as an ideal solution as it would save the Council spending a lot of money on the development. The chairman of the Burials Committee was horrified and advised that she believed that Miss Stratton would not approve and would most likely retract her offer if she knew the Council were dealing with the developers behind her back to get houses on her land in exchange for an area for burials. However some wished to have a formal discussion and a vote on this idea.

Utterly convinced that any talk about entertaining the developer's offer would immediately scupper the whole project, the chairman contacted a number of the councillors and explained to them the risk that would be taken if the Council decided to formally discuss it at a main Town Council meeting as the press would be present. She also was concerned that the developers might submit an alternative plan for the site and get permission. An officer in the planning department had advised that this was possible but the developers would have to inform the donor and would have to ask permission from her to build if it got passed.

Mr Lloyd rang one day to say that he and his wife had filled all their forms in and sent them back to their solicitor. He had also phoned their solicitor and discovered that he was still under the impression that the Council had to get planning permission before proceeding with the sale. This was frustrating, as their solicitor had acknowledged the fact that the Council wished to proceed before getting planning permission in a letter to the clerk earlier. On the 7th July Mr Lloyd phoned again to advise that he'd contacted his solicitor again and had been told that he was changing two paragraphs but that the Council still had to get planning permission before the sale could take place. The poor clerk to the Council must have felt he was being harassed as he was pestered so many times to badger the solicitors to progress the sale a bit faster. However 10 days later the clerk had seen the solicitor and was hopeful that the wording and the plan were now satisfactory. Three weeks later Mr and Mrs Lloyd had still heard nothing.
Thankfully shortly after this Mrs Lloyd rang to advise that she had received a contract document from her solicitor, and the following week the Council were able to agree to the contract at an Extraordinary Meeting. However this was not before a councillor had requested that the Council debate the written proposals from the developers as he considered that the proposals might bring a financial benefit to the town with the cost of establishing the burial facility. He was warned that if this happened the Council would be shooting themselves in the foot. After discussion it was agreed that the clerk should seek guidance from the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils as to how this matter should be handled.

This he did and the County Secretary replied to say that initially she leaned towards the Council debating the new offer but then had second thoughts. She believed that these tactics by the ransom strip owner would almost certainly undermine the whole project with the result that the landowner might withdraw her offer. She added that the Council was under no obligation to debate every offer put to it, especially one received so late in the day.

To save boring the reader this narrative omits many of the numerous phone calls and discussions that took place concerning the transfer of the land from Mr and Mrs Lloyd to the Council. Suffice to say that one councillor was ready to tear her hair out before it was finalised.

Owing to further holiday breaks in the solicitor's office the exchange of contracts was delayed but in September, everything was finalised and Mr and Mrs Lloyd received payment and the chairman of the Burials Committee breathed a huge sigh of relief.

It was arranged for the editor of CROSStalk to visit Mr and Mrs Lloyd to take their photograph, which was printed in the September issue along with the Council's heartfelt thanks for their generous and patient cooperation during the protracted negotiations which had allowed the Council to purchase two small strips of their land for a nominal sum, thus securing an access to the site. The report added that their help had been a crucial factor for the viability of the project.

Terry and Eva Lloyd

Photo courtesy of Peter Dixon

At the next Burials Committee meeting, it was agreed to wait until the site had been transferred into Council ownership before contacting the developers to see if they wished to dispose of their ransom strip. Cllr Gary Hall proposed that the committee would not consider any proposal now or in the future from any developers regarding the burial site. All agreed.

As this new access would entail widening the end of Long Hide and strengthening the surface of the garage area the committee discussed the possibility of obtaining a grant from WDC for these works. An enquiry to the Highways Department of Bucks County Council to see if they would be able to do the works within their budget had not been successful. It was agreed that a district councillor would be approached to see if he could get support. It was many weeks before the Council finally received an answer, which was one of regret that they were unable to help.

In November, with the expectation that progress would now be made, the Burials Committee submitted a budget request for 2004 - 2005 to the Estimates Committee. The architect had submitted estimates of development costs for phase 1 that totalled £100,000. A source of funding for the anticipated development was to be investigated. Any loan would have to be sanctioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM] but the money could be borrowed from anywhere – the interest rates could be compared with those offered by the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB]. Enquiries were subsequently made with the Cooperative Bank and a number of local financial institutions but the PWLB seemed the best bet. Their current rate of interest was then 4.8% or 4.9% depending on the length of the loan.

The presence of the ransom strip had posed an obstruction that had appeared to be an intransigent barrier to progress but, by the grace of God, the Council had overcome it, and in doing so had rendered the value of it worthless. If the developers had not been so greedy they could have sold it for £10,000.

It seemed that the biggest problem had been solved and that the Council could now make progress with the smaller ones. That assumption proved to be a big mistake.

Chapter 10

Developing the Design

2001 - 2003

2001

The chairman of the Burials Committee, Cllr Maggie Wooster, wished to see something more inspiring than the cemeteries that are found in most towns, and was keen to oversee the construction of a burial facility that would be attractive and acceptable to the people living nearby, as well as providing a park-like facility that others would enjoy visiting for its own sake, not just through bereavement. She conveyed her thoughts to Miss Stratton who had similar feelings.

Traditional cemeteries and churchyards seen locally were, on the whole, well maintained but had many undesirable features including grave plots where the memorials were either leaning or had fallen where settlement of the ground had occurred in subsequent years. Most integral flower vases had dented or missing tops, or they were pushed up with weeds growing through, or contained faded artificial flowers or a few dead stalks.

With no preconceived design, a public cemetery might end up just consisting of rows of headstones, not particularly appealing and costly to maintain, as it is time-consuming to cut grass using a small mower between memorials, and subsequent strimming of long grass around the memorials leaves cuttings on the grave stones which have to be removed. Visits were therefore made to a number of local cemeteries to gather ideas. One of the first was to the Four Ashes Cemetery at Hughenden to get an idea of how the more modern cemeteries were laid out.

The following month, whilst acting as roadie for her sister Joyce, who was making a solo sponsored cycle ride from Lands End to John O' Groats, the chairman stopped off in Bristol to look around the cemetery at Arnos Vale. Once it must have been very beautiful but then, the majority of it was very neglected, although there was a small area where a voluntary group were trying to restore it to a better state.

Further north she visited Carlisle City Cemetery and met Ken West MBE, author of A Guide to Natural Burial, who was then superintendent. He showed her around and of interest were rows of graves that were situated back to back so that the memorials were 'double' and were within a flower border where there were heathers and other plants between them. This left all the area where the grave plots were situated uncluttered, easier to level and thus more attractive, and in addition made grass maintenance much easier to achieve. This idea was later used in the design of Area D. [a photo illustrating Area D is in Chapter 21] He also showed her the woodland area, which he had introduced, which was one of the first of this type in the country.

A number of articles appeared in the local press that year concerning problems at the Four Ashes Cemetery at Hughenden. Apparently a number of the bereaved were cluttering the grass, by placing flowers and other items on it, and then becoming upset when Council employees removed them during maintenance of the lawns. This further indicated the need for areas close to the grave plots where items could be placed without being a nuisance. It would also be vital to ensure that rules were given to the bereaved and adhered to right from the beginning so as not to allow any precedents to be set that would be hard to put right.

In November, a visit was made to the Stoke Poges Gardens of Remembrance. Edward White, a leading landscape architect, had designed these gardens in the 1930s. They are unique and are of outstanding beauty, having been extensively refurbished, and are well worth a visit. The gardens covered over 20 acres and gave a wonderful impression of being a peaceful oasis, which might be possible to recreate in Risborough.

2002

The Town Council was preparing for a Public Meeting in January to inform the residents of the proposed site, and to seek public support before applying for 'change of use' planning permission. As Cllr John Coombs, the chairman of the Town Council, felt it was important that the public should have some idea of what the proposed facility would look like, a local architect was asked to do some drawings. The clerk and Cllr Coombs subsequently discussed with him what to include in his plans, as he needed some concrete guidelines.

The chairman of the Burials Committee was keen for the residents of the town to be involved in the design and, with her vice-chairman, Cllr Miv Hughes, prepared a questionnaire to encourage community input. This was circulated at the public meeting in January and was also enclosed in the March CROSStalk. Those wishing to give further input were invited to leave their contact details on the response sheet.

Cllr Ian Walker representing Longwick Parish Council attended, as they were still interested in joining in financially with the project. They advised that they had been accumulating funds as a contribution to any new burial facility, which would enable the residents of Longwick to use it.

The public meeting was well attended and the audience was able to examine various views of the proposed site, its situation and the architect's draft plan. Also displayed were four large boards showing photographs of attractive memorial gardens, photographs of cemeteries where only flush memorials were used, photographs of cemeteries where upright memorials were used [showing the problems related to them] and various photos giving 'food for thought'. A video was also shown of Stoke Poges Memorial Garden. Cllr Wally Woolf had produced this with input from other members of the Burials Committee. The address to the public included references to acetates that were projected on to the screen, giving details of problems that it was wished to avoid in the new burial ground.

Afterwards, whilst visiting her family in South Australia, Cllr Wooster visited the Enfield Memorial Park situated in a North Adelaide suburb. There were a number of differently laid out areas giving the bereaved a wide choice of situation for their loved one's grave, according to their desires and requirements. In fact the whole facility had many interesting features which were much more attractive than the average cemetery and her camera was working overtime.

In her spare time after returning to England, she gathered various snippets of information and design ideas, visiting a number of cemeteries and churchyards. By May 2002, as well as those already mentioned, these included Basingstoke Crematorium [to view various designs for small memorial plaques], Chiltern Crematorium, Burnham Churchyard [to view a water feature], Wolvercote Cemetery [which had won a national award], Parkside Cemetery, Hedgerley [laid out with flush memorials and having a woodland burial area], Holtspur Cemetery, Kings Worthy Cemetery, Hants [which had won a national award], St Just in Roseland [very pretty], Hamilton Road Cemetery, High Wycombe, Saddleworth Cemetery, Manchester [national award winning cemetery], Aylesbury Cemetery, Jordans Cemetery, Seer Green Cemetery, a new cemetery extension at West Wycombe and Stokenchurch Cemetery, as well as making regular visits to St Mary's and St Dunstan's churchyards locally. Cllr Wally Woolf visited Horden Cemetery, Peterlee [Cemetery of the Year 2000] and returned with further photographs and information.

A friend had met up with Colonel Mike Dewar representing the Memorial Awareness Board, which co-sponsors and organises the Cemetery of the Year Awards and runs a Freedom of Choice campaign among other activities. At the Burials Committee meeting that month it was suggested that it would be useful for an expert such as him to meet with the Council architect before the final drawings were completed.

The results of the questionnaire survey had been collated. There were 234 responses from members of the public and of these 172 [73.5%] wished for cremation, 54 [23%] for burial and 8 didn't state their preference.

Of those stating that they preferred burial most wished to have a memorial on their grave, but a large number indicated that an entry into a Book of Remembrance would be adequate, or were happy to have a memorial elsewhere, for example along a footpath, and a smaller number said no memorial was necessary.

Of those wishing for cremation, the majority said either that no memorial was necessary or that they wished for an entry into a Book of Remembrance. A sizable proportion stated that a plaque or small stone memorial in a garden or shrub border would be preferred. A small percentage wished for a separate plot with a small memorial, and a smaller percentage still preferred a plaque on a wall.

With regard to the layout of the proposed Memorial Garden and Burial Site, a large number of respondents wished to see cremations placed in the borders of a garden area and a smaller percentage preferred for cremations to be situated in an area with individual plots. However a clear majority wanted choice to be available for both.

An overwhelming majority wished to see a garden facility with less obtrusive memorials and plenty of ornamental trees and shrubs, whilst a smaller group wanted rows of graves with memorials. Most respondents didn't mind if some of the bereaved wished to maintain a small garden area.

A large percentage preferred grassed areas to contain flush memorials only, so as to reduce maintenance costs. 80% of respondents were concerned with having a sustainable environment and 25% indicated they would be happy to have no memorial over their grave. [This would facilitate future re-use of graves should Home Office consultations of 2004 result in this possibility being implemented by legislation.]

Of those wishing to have a memorial 49% were happy to have a flat stone set flush into the grass, 13% wished for a raised wedge-shaped memorial, 15% wished for a short upright memorial, and 18% would choose something else such as sponsoring a shrub, rose bush, tree, bench etc. It was obvious that there should be opportunity for the bereaved to have choice.

In June, following the successful application for 'Change of Use' planning permission, preparations were made for further consultation with the residents. The idea was to produce more display boards showing different ideas, exhibit them in the Council offices and invite the public to come to view them and indicate their preferences and dislikes on a response sheet. A number of consultation meetings were also to be arranged for those who wished to give further input so they could view the design put forward by the architect and discuss its merits or drawbacks, as it was important to ensure that no gaffes were made on the final design. They would also be invited to submit a design of their own for consideration if they desired.

A visit was also made to some Aylesbury Road residents to listen to their concerns in order to try and ensure that these were addressed when the design of the facility was considered.

In preparation for the consultations, drafts of invitation letters to send to interested residents, posters to advertise the photographic display and consultation meetings, appropriate response sheets, and photocopies of the architect's design and empty site plans, which people could use to produce an alternative design, were produced in readiness. Posters were placed around the town inviting the public to visit the Council Offices to view photographic display boards showing different design options for the proposed Memorial Garden and Burial Site, and to complete a written response sheet indicating their likes and dislikes. Details were also given about the consultation meetings and of the opening times of the Council Office.

Over a number of weeks, interested residents visited the exhibition at Henderson House and six consultation meetings took place between the end of July and September. The meetings were organised to pursue the favourite options expressed by residents who responded to the questionnaire and would help in the production of a draft design of the proposed Memorial Garden with guidance from the architect and, hopefully, a cemetery design expert.

There were 4 display boards with 40 numbered photographs categorised into design options for burials and cremations, other design aspects, and other landscaping features that might be desired in the facility. Response sheets would elicit which ideas the public preferred, there being boxes for 'like' and 'dislike' with an invitation to tick as many boxes as they wished. Then there was a chance to look at the draft design drawn up by the architect and give positive or negative feedback on it, and an opportunity to try sketching an alternative. Lastly notes were made of any comments, ideas or concerns that were expressed.

Sam Weller of the Association of Burial Authorities, who was writing a book on Cemetery Design, and Colonel Mike Dewar of the Cemetery of the Year Scheme, were contacted for quotations for assistance with the design of the site in the hope that the Council would agree to their expert input. At the Burials Committee meeting, their quotations were considered but the majority preferred to wait and see whether such assistance was needed, and it was anticipated that the committee would purchase a copy of Mr Weller's book on Cemetery Design when it was published. Several weeks later he was contacted to enquire whether his book was ready but his apologetic response was that it was only partially completed and that he was still working on it. In the event the committee relied on the help and advice from a superintendent of an award winning cemetery and an officer at the District Council Planning Department.

In the meantime the chairman of the Burials Committee produced various sketches incorporating all the ideas and preferences expressed by various people using feedback from the consultation meetings. She was concerned that residents living close to the proposed site had not given any input regarding the design of the facility so a letter was sent to invite some to attend the last consultation meeting in September.

By the end of the consultation process a number of features included in the architect's draft plan had been queried and there was a list of likes and wants and a list of dislikes. There were a variety of responses that clearly indicated the need for people to be able to choose from different options, and a general desire for a garden type facility with plenty of trees and shrubs.

Feedback from these meetings elicited the need for the initial development to take place on the south end of the site with burials commencing at a distance from neighbouring properties, and this enabled the production of a sketched plan, which was presented to the Burials Committee for discussion. It allowed for a phased development of the ground and gave the possibility of an alternate use for the undeveloped area in the second paddock until it was required for burials. Suitable screening was included. The plan showed different areas that would cater for different burial options.

The owner of a neighbouring property had submitted an alternative and this was tabled for members to study. After perusal of both it was agreed that the superintendent from Wolvercote Cemetery would be requested to examine the chairman's sketched design and provide expert advice. Following discussion it was proposed by Cllr Wally Woolf and seconded by Cllr Miv Hughes that this design should be recommended to the main Town Council for approval.

A resident had written to the Council expressing his concerns about the likely costs of setting up the facility. Councillors kept this in mind and, at a Forward Policy Panel meeting in August, it was suggested that only the essential features such as entrance, car park, roadway, fencing and services be installed initially.

It was decided that, in order to be prudent, the chosen architect would only be involved in drawing exactly what the Council required. The consultation meetings had elicited the respondents' requirements, and plans and cost details of an attractive Remembrance Garden at Wolvercote Cemetery had been obtained so that the architect could incorporate something similar into the plans.

At the September meeting of the main Town Council, the sketched plan that had been approved by the Burials Committee was submitted, along with a page of notes for each councillor giving reasons for developing the south part of the site rather than the whole, explaining the inclusion of the garden area and some of the components. It had been shown to Miss Stratton and some residents who lived close to the site and had met approval with them. Councillors were informed that it might need slight modifications to satisfy the District Council Planning Department once advice had been received from the superintendent of Wolvercote Cemetery but that it was something to work from.

It included the essential requirements [car park, roads, paths etc]. It provided for easy maintenance. It allowed time to establish screening around nearby properties and for neighbouring residents to come to terms with the change of use. By omitting details in the second paddock it allowed for future generations to choose to continue or modify the layout there, according to prevalent trends. It provided for choice, thus addressing everyone's requirements.

It was agreed that councillors should take time to inspect it at the Council office during the next week before any decision was taken.

At an Extraordinary Meeting of the Town Council in October, councillors considered the sketched plan, which they had had the opportunity of inspecting during the past two weeks. After some discussion, Cllr John Coombs stated that he was very happy to propose that it be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. This was confirmed by the meeting and the clerk was instructed to write to the architect requesting that he complete the submission to the Planning Authority.

Following a visit to see the planning officer at Wycombe District Council [WDC], and the superintendent of the Wolvercote Cemetery, for them to inspect the sketched plan, and, upon receiving advice from a District Landscape Officer, it was necessary to slightly amend it to show all the proposed trees and planting and define areas where gentle banking was planned. The revised plan was circulated and agreed by the committee.

David Lidington, the local MP, was invited to see the plan and wrote to advise that in his personal view it looked reasonable, and he advised that the Council should publicise the proposals as widely as possible before the formal planning application was submitted.

At this point the chairman of the Finance Committee, Cllr Reg Orsler, gave a timely reminder that, in view of the charges that were likely to be incurred, quotes from 3 architects would be necessary.

In November a number of architects and landscape designers were invited to view the site and the sketch plan, and to submit costs for progressing the scheme. The architect who had drawn up the original sketches appeared to be the most suitable and provided what appeared to be the most reasonable quote as an hourly fee. He was subsequently chosen to progress the work.

At the Estimates Committee, the chairman of the Finance Committee had the unenviable task of ensuring that the final budget for the following financial year did not cause a public outcry, especially after the huge increase of the previous year. At that time there was a general agreement within the Council to try and replace as many as possible of the substandard street lights in the hope that Wycombe District Council would take over the responsibility for their upkeep as occurred with most other parishes. Many years previously a former Council had taken responsibility for them and as a result Princes Risborough residents were not only paying for the upkeep of the town's lighting system, but also a proportion of the lighting costs of other parishes, which is the main reason why the Risborough precept is one of the highest in the district.

Some figures had been agreed at the previous Burials Committee meeting to cover professional fees and to provide preparatory work to be done to provide access into and maintenance of the site. It was not an easy task. To keep the costs as low as possible it was agreed to postpone some of the planned development of the burial ground, namely the proposed building, which meant that design costs could be reduced accordingly.

At the December Burials Committee meeting, details regarding plot sizes, storage of skips, topsoil, materials, the numbering of graves, situation of services, screening, and specifications for various surfaces and areas were agreed. It was also decided that, subject to Town Council approval, the architect be asked to progress the project through planning, and to give an estimate of the cost of getting the site up and running.

Just before Christmas, at a General Purposes Committee meeting, the Town Council confirmed the architect's appointment to progress the project through planning and to establish as accurately as possible the costs for the project. The meeting was advised that in order to reduce costs the Burials Committee had proposed that only outline drawings of buildings should be included in the plan. His proposed work only entailed approximately 1/3rd of the paddocks with sections in the remainder outlined to provide a holistic plan.

2003

It was important that the Council had public support for the likely financial outlay. At a public meeting in January 2003 a breakdown of the estimated costs was given and also a calculation of what a loan of £100,000 might cost the average band D council tax property. This was estimated to be £3.80 a year and could be favourably compared with the cost of making one annual visit to Amersham Crematorium, which from Princes Risborough was a round trip of 26 miles. At 40p per mile that worked out at £10.40p. It would also be cheaper in the long run than paying double the going rate to use High Wycombe Cemetery if this facility could not be provided. This would have amounted to £860 that year.

Two more display boards had been prepared, one showing the agreed sketch plan of phase 1 with photos showing the different burial options. Outlines of other areas in the remainder of the site showed the holistic nature of the design, which the architect was to use when drawing up the plans for the submission to the Planning Department. There were financial details on the other board.

Subsequently members of the Burials Committee met with the architect to discuss the details required. He was asked to produce a detailed plan of the proposed layout in phase 1 based on the approved sketch, and to indicate all grave spaces in that area and number them, and to put outlines of future areas as specified on the sketch, leaving the majority of the area blank except for details of screening on sensitive boundaries. The meeting agreed a maximum charge of £3,250 for this work. The details required included the entrance, the car parking area, the loop road, paths in the formal garden and burials areas, all services [electricity, water and drainage], and outlines of future buildings, storage area, boundary fencing and general landscaping.

The planning officer was requested to clarify the amount of detail required for the shrub beds and whether trees would have to be planted immediately. His response was that they would need to know the size, species and density of any planting and, if the exact nature of the planting was not yet known, then a list of example species to be used would be acceptable, but the proposed sizes and densities would still be required. He recommended that an experienced landscape architect be appointed to develop the overall layout and to identify the strategic planting which should be undertaken as a first phase of the development of the burial ground together with general planting details which could be used as the site developed.

Cllr Ian Walker of Longwick Parish Council started to regularly attend the Burials Committee meetings. His Council had precepted for a burial ground and had £5,000 held on reserve although they hadn't yet decided whether to participate with Princes Risborough Town Council.

Due to the need to make further amendments to the formal garden area to allow for space for the burial of children and to check other details with the planning officer, it was April before the Council ratified the final draft. It was at this meeting when the news of the offer by Eva and Terry Lloyd to provide an alternative access was imparted, and this would mean a further change in the plan to show the new access area.

In May the architect carefully measured the alternative area proposed for the access. Residents living opposite the garage area were visited to ensure they had no objections to a new access there. Some copies of the amended plans were left with Steve Wynn, one of the residents' representatives. Following checks with the planning officer and a highways officer, the architect drew detailed plans of the alternative site entry. He deferred the rest of the detailed work, saying he was waiting for the acquisition of the land for the alternative access to take place. He also requested a Management Plan so he could ensure that all requirements were included in the plans.

The costs of providing a burial facility were always at the back of councillors' minds. In March the chairman of the Burials Committee had been asked to prepare an estimation of annual income and expenditure, which she had endeavoured to produce as accurately as possible. In the past she had acquired details from another Burial Authority of their running costs and the previous November she had requested two local contractors to quote on the comparative costs of grass maintenance at St Mary's churchyard and a similar sized area without upright memorials. Their quotations were useful, although there would be many unknowns.

At the Annual Town Meeting in May a resident proposed that the Council inform the electorate what the annual cost would be for the Memorial Garden, and also the building or purchasing or renting of Council Offices over the next 25 years before proceeding further. So at a special meeting the chairman of the Finance Committee undertook to prepare financial predictions for both the burial ground and the proposed Town Council Offices for a 25-year period based on the current rate of interest. It was stressed that the figures could only be an estimate as there could be many unknown factors occurring during that time to amend the figures produced.

Following the advice given by the planning officer, local Horticultural Societies were contacted to see if they had anyone qualified to give advice on the planting scheme. There was general agreement that it would be good to have community involvement if possible. However they were unable to help. Cllr Wally Woolf undertook to search the web for possible horticultural colleges who may be able to help with design and layout suggestions.

Once the land for the alternative access had been acquired in September the architect was asked to progress the planning application but he was busy and the plans were finally completed in November. Satisfied that there would be no hitches, apart from obtaining a detailed planting design they were duly submitted to WDC Planning Department.

Chapter 11

Addressing Concerns

2003 - 2004

2003

It was really thought that the Council's problems were over towards the end of this year. They had finally found a site that seemed perfect, with not just an owner willing to sell, but an extremely generous lady who wished to donate her land to the town for use as a burial ground. The ground water tests had satisfied the Environment Agency, another huge problem for any potential site in the area as the town overlaid several aquifers, which had been instrumental in rendering most of the available land unsuitable for the purpose of burials.

The Council had obtained 'Change of Use' planning permission and had carried out a consultation process to ensure that the design of the facility was acceptable to all, to the extent of every household in the town having had the opportunity to give input. They had tried to ensure that it would be attractive to look at as there were several houses overlooking the site. They had also been mindful that they were establishing a facility that would need to serve many future generations, as it was very unlikely the town would ever acquire another burial site seeing as this one took so long to find.

Because of this, the facility had been designed so that reuse of graves could be achieved if required. On a practical and legal basis it had been ensured that individual grave plots would be easily located and identified. Lastly the Council had tried to ensure that the maintenance of the site would not hit the public purse too hard. The plans had been shown to the donor, the local clergy, the local undertakers and to the superintendent of an award winning cemetery to check for any problems and it seemed that everyone accepted the final design which was a good compromise taking into account all the varied input.

A very major problem had recently been overcome. An alternative site access had been found and acquired with the kind cooperation of Eva and Terry Lloyd, thus removing the likelihood of a long and expensive compulsory purchase action against the owners of the ransom strip.

So the Council was not expecting any further problems with the submission of the application for planning permission, which was to give details of the final design and alternative access. When the architect had completed his work in November a copy of the plans had been left with the residents' representative in Long Hide for residents to inspect before submission. Apart from a few queries there was no mention of any objections from anyone. Once they had been returned, there was an unfortunate delay before residents in Aylesbury Road were able to view them. This was caused by the fact that their telephone number recorded in the telephone directory was attached to a fax machine. This meant a personal visit had to be undertaken to arrange a meeting, which subsequently was unfortunately cancelled due to illness. Although the plans were picked up and taken to Aylesbury Road, the residents' responses were not ascertained for several days. The architect, not being aware of this delay, had submitted the plans to Wycombe District Council 3 days earlier.

It then became known that two residents, whose property closely abutted the site, were unhappy with the plans. As they had been sent a copy of the plans when the 'Change of Use' application had been submitted, and hadn't objected, and as one of them had previously been extremely cooperative in offering an alternative access through their property, and had taken part in the consultation process, the depth of their concerns was not realised and they were advised to write to the planners with details.

Early in December these objectors approached the Council offering a large sum of money to purchase some of the land within the memorial garden site. This was subsequently confirmed in writing. It was learnt that they had also approached the planning officer at Wycombe who had subsequently visited their home.

During December they organised a petition and encouraged other residents to sign it. Copies were sent to the Wycombe District Council and to the donor who was understandably upset. They also informed her that they had offered to buy part of the land.

At this point a friend passed to the chairman of the Burials Committee the contact details of a solicitor who specialised in burial law who subsequently proved to be a godsend. It was as if the Lord was keeping watch over the situation and providing the help the Council needed. His timing was perfect on this occasion. This very kind gentleman, Graham Reddie, offered his services free of charge and over the coming months and years gave many hours of his time for the benefit of the community. He was involved with cemeteries through his job on the War Graves Commission, and also as a member of the Government's Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group, the latter having given him even more contacts and if he couldn't help with something he probably knew a man who could. From his knowledge and outside perspective of the situation he was able to give advice that helped the Council to cope with the ensuing challenges.

Graham Reddie

2004

A letter had arrived detailing the objectors' concerns. Following several personal approaches made to individual members of the Council by these residents where differing perspectives were evident, it was agreed that it would be more appropriate for them to contact the Council through their solicitor.

At a special meeting of the Council it was agreed that the planning application should be withdrawn in order to address the concerns that had been expressed. The architect was asked to make some amendments to the plans. These involved fine details of the area where the second and third phases were situated that he hadn't been asked to include in the plans, but had done as he wished to present a holistic design to the planners. The intention had been to leave the second paddock undeveloped except for the loop road and wait and see which options for burial proved the most popular. The amendments would hopefully address the concerns that had been expressed. This included a 50-foot copse in order to provide a substantial screen, and other changes made. This reduced the number of grave plots from the original 1343 to 1283, but was felt to be justified in view of their concerns regarding privacy.

Ian Roe, one of the residents' representatives, then contacted the Council to advise that a number of residents had met and complained that the design of the second and third phases was looking more like a war grave cemetery and that they wanted the plans to show more gardens. People are entitled to make objections to a planning application and the Council has no problem with them voicing their concerns. Objections to the planners enable them to direct applicants to make changes should they feel that proposed works might be detrimental to neighbouring properties. However the residents of Long Hide and Queens Road had been given an opportunity to inspect the plans previous to their submission and it was a pity they hadn't spoken up before the plans had been submitted.

On a historical basis, it was possible for this site to contain 1000 grave plots per acre. An officer from the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management calculated that, with roads, paths and trees included, it was possible to accommodate 750 - 880 grave plots per acre and an officer from the Association of Burial Authorities calculated it could hold 500 - 600 per acre. At just under 4 acres it was therefore possible for the Council to allow for at least 2000 plots or more if it had wished. However there had been a desire to make the facility as attractive as possible. With the inclusion of extra gardens and shrub areas, it had started off with 1343 plots, which was considerably fewer so it seemed a little unfair to have this sort of criticism. However it was important that as many people as possible should be given the opportunity to be heard and have their wishes taken into account. This rather late input from the residents was remedied by inviting the representative to visit the architect and discuss their concerns with him. This led to the inclusion of some more trees and shrubs in those areas. This further revision reduced the number of graves to 1242.

It was later learnt that a questionnaire had been circulated by some objectors to all the residents of Long Hide and Queens Road, asking them to recall what was said at the public meeting 2 years previously, seeking support for assertions expressed in the petition. In response the Council circulated a letter to the residents explaining that the Council had been particularly careful to carry out wide public consultations over this issue, especially with those residents neighbouring the site, and had in fact altered the original plans as a direct result of these consultations, adding that the latest version of the plan reflected the views expressed both by residents and the Wycombe Planners, and was available for inspection by members of the public by appointment at Henderson House, New Road. Any residents still having any cause for query or concern whatsoever were requested to contact the Clerk of the Council who would be pleased to help. The clerk's telephone number was included.

These objections had triggered unrest amongst other residents and the objectors were now seeking legal help and actively campaigning to prevent the development of the memorial garden and burial ground. The clerk received a letter from their solicitor and also the petition, copies of which were circulated to all the councillors. The petition stated that the undersigned objected to the application on the following grounds: -

\- The Council misled the public at the January 2002 public meeting by saying that if there were any objections to a cemetery, the land would become a housing estate.

\- They objected to the difference between the original plan and the new one

\- The new plan was dated 6/1/2002, which meant it existed at the time of the original one.

\- The Council should not gain advantage from this conduct.

As the petition letter contained a number of remarks that were considered to be inaccurate and of concern to the councillors, it was agreed that the letter should be passed to the Council's Legal Adviser for his recommendations.

The offer to purchase the land posed a dilemma for the Council. It might appear to be an opportunity to make money but could not be regarded as a legitimate one. Whilst it could be appreciated that the objectors wished to acquire additional land, it was felt that it was not possible for the Council to sell it. Firstly it would diminish the value of the donor's intended gift to the town, and that would be seen as a betrayal of her generosity and most certainly compromise the Council's reputation. If the land had been surplus to the Council's requirements, then it should not be included in the gift. The land in any event had not been ceded to the Council at that time so the Council was simply not in a position to sell it anyway. To sell it after acquisition would also be a breach of the terms on which it was anticipated it would be made available to the Council.

The Burials Committee invited Graham to attend their meeting and the offer was carefully considered but after a long discussion it was agreed unanimously to recommend to the main Town Council that it be rejected. The main Town Council later ratified this decision.

Graham was introduced to Anne Stratton, the owner of the land, and was able to reassure her that he would try and help to resolve the situation. The chairman of the Burials Committee also kept in regular contact with her to give her updates on the Council's progress.

A Tree Preservation Order had recently been placed on the row of trees that ran between the two paddocks on the site and the planning officer had requested an Arboricultural Consultant to make a report on the trees. Therefore the architect approached two local consultants to provide quotations to progress this.

At the Burials Committee in February members agreed to recommend the amendments made to the plans to the full Town Council and, using the CVs and quotations supplied by the architect, an Arboricultural Consultant was also selected to make a report on the trees situated between the two paddocks.

He was a very experienced man. Not only was he a Registered Consultant of the Arboricultural Association, he had been appointed an OBE for his services to arboriculture and the environment, was a past Chairman of the Arboricultural Association and a holder of the Arboricultural Association Award. He was also an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Foresters and a Member of the Academy of Experts. Furthermore he had been involved in various research projects, and had acted as a Consultant on a Government Research Committee, and was a representative on the British Standards Committee for BS 5837:1991 'Trees in relation to Construction' plus many other posts. As well as all this he acted for the Department of the Environment as an Inspecting Officer for Tree Preservation Order appeals by written submission and had written numerous books on trees. It was thought that no one would argue with his opinions.

At the end of the month the main Town Council ratified the amended plans. Shortly afterwards Cllr Wally Woolf, who was now vice-chairman of the Burials Committee, and Cllr Maggie Wooster attended a meeting of the residents in order to show them the altered plans and some photographs showing examples of what the different sections might look like, and to allay their fears that what they had heard about the proposal being for a mass cemetery wasn't accurate. However a number of them had concerns regarding the future security of the site, the fencing and the outline siting of what they described as a 'toilet block' [a reception and office area with toilet facilities]. Although they were assured that it wasn't likely to be developed in the foreseeable future and would require a separate planning application, they were not totally convinced. A promise was given to them that their concerns would be taken back to the Council.

As a result the clerk organised an Extraordinary Meeting of the Council the following week for the Council to listen to the residents' concerns that had been put into a letter by their representatives. However, after some discussion, the Council was in agreement that the plans were satisfactory as they were and there should not be any further changes.

In March the Council received the 'Arboricultural Appraisal of the Proposed New Cemetery'. Whilst it necessitated further amendments to the plans, the report was good news for the Council as the consultant recommended the removal of two trees, one being smaller and the other weaker, so that the circular loop road could be accommodated without damaging any of the remaining trees.

At the end of April the architect had finished making the amendments to the plans and they were re-submitted. The amendments included the proposed new site entrance avoiding the ransom strip, the location of two trees to be felled, details of works required to the other trees, the inclusion of a full planting scheme for the whole site, and stating that only the works to phase 1, and the major structural planting and boundary hedging to the remaining areas would be included in the first stage of the works. Additional drawings were included to show how the memorials in each area would look and to indicate the layout without the grave plots marked, which would give a clearer picture of the actual appearance of the ground when the works were completed, and the burial ground in use. Individual graves would have small plaques on or adjacent to them, but no other large-scale definition of individual plots would be allowed. The dominant appearance of the site would be of grass lawns with paths and planting. The revised number of grave plots was now 1246.

At the Annual Town Meeting held at the end of May, the plans were displayed and there were no objections from the public. It seemed that the Council had finally got them adapted to everyone's satisfaction. Unfortunately a district councillor who had attended the meeting informed councillors afterwards that objections had been lodged with the Planning Department. It was believed that these might have resulted from residents not fully understanding the proposals or becoming confused by other information that seemed to be circulating. Feelings were certainly running high, as one family had arranged for a solicitor to send a thick wad of paperwork to the donor with a letter urging her to withdraw her offer to the town.

In June the chairman of the Burials Committee studied the objections and reported back to the architect and to the Council. The objections included:

\- Lack of security of the site

\- The car park was considered to be inadequate

\- The narrow and potentially hazardous entrance was considered to be inadequate

\- There was restricted access into and along Queens Road and Long Hide

\- Access was through a residential area where children played

\- The inclusion of the outline of an unnecessary toilet/administration block

\- Tree preservation concerns

\- Contamination of a garden pond

\- The proximity of graves to an adjacent property

\- The devaluation of an adjacent property

\- Surface reinforcement works for the entrance adjacent to residents' garages would be required

\- Concerns that there would be illegal parking in residents' private parking areas

\- Restriction on residents' access to their garages and right of way

\- Contractors' working hours in the building phase

\- Contractors' working hours during maintenance/grave digging

\- Noise pollution from grave digging

\- The Council had understated estimates for the projected use of the site

\- Failure by the Council to investigate seriously the option for a larger and far more suitable site which was available for purchase and could be managed by a consortium as a commercial enterprise on behalf of Princes Risborough Town Council

\- The imposition of activity in and out of the site on the existing cul de sac

\- The site was too small

\- Concerns regarding the financing of the project, especially future maintenance.

However the planning application for the Memorial Garden and Burial Site had started its progress through the planning system and came to the Planning Committee in Princes Risborough who had to advise Wycombe District Council that they had an interest in this matter so could not make observations.

After a while the architect was contacted to get an update of the progress of the planning application, to discuss the next steps, to agree a time schedule for the remaining work and to obtain an estimate for it to enable the Burials Committee to work out a budget. However, following a meeting with the planning officer, the architect said that the planners had raised some issues as a result of the objections of residents living in a property abutting the site. An archaeological assessment had been requested but was deemed to be unnecessary as nothing had been unearthed during previous excavations. Among their objections was the proposed layout of the area beyond the 50-foot copse as they would still be able to view the memorial garden from a bedroom window. The planning officer suggested changing this, the furthest area of the second paddock, to a green burials area.

Green burials are associated with the planting of a tree on each grave plot, which would eventually block any outlook from their home completely. The architect was reluctant to change the plans once more as it would also detract from the holistic design but nevertheless, with the Council's agreement, amended them to incorporate green burials in the far corner. However there were larger problems looming. These are detailed in the following chapters.

Plan of the Stratton Memorial Garden

Area A - Natural area for interment of ashes

Area B - Burials area with small stone plaques placed in the shrub border

Area Ba - For interment of ashes as for Area B

Area C - Area for Children's burials

Area D - Burials area with double rows of wedge shaped memorials and small planting area

Area E - Evergreen natural area for Burials

Area F - Burial area with flush memorials

Area G - Future burial area with memorials in nearby gardens

Area K - Kerbing area for small plaques

Chapter 12

The Alternative Site

2004

In early April, the chairman of the Burials Committee received a phone call from a lady who explained that she had found another much more suitable site. She said the site was large, within walking distance from the town, would last for 1,000 years, and could be run as a business as she'd got some investors. It could have a large woodland area in it and many people from London and elsewhere could be buried there. She wouldn't disclose the location of the site. The lady was told that all the other fields in the parish had already been eliminated. In response she advised that the owners had now changed their minds and that the site was acceptable to the Environment Agency [EA] and to the planners at the District Council. She was advised to write to the Council and give them details.

On receiving this news the chairman of the Council, Cllr Gary Hall, observed that the investigation stage had been passed. The preliminary work had been done and the plans were now undergoing final amendment to address concerns that had been raised before being resubmitted to the Planning Department. Graham, who had generously offered his legal advice, also observed that he thought the Council had completed the preliminary investigations and noted that it seemed odd to propose a site much bigger than the one under consideration, when one of the arguments made with an offer to purchase some of the proposed site in Long Hide, which was far smaller, was that it was too big.

When details arrived about this suggested site, it turned out to be a large field along the Aylesbury Road that had previously been eliminated on account of the owner only being willing to sell if the Council agreed to allow some houses to be built there. As this had not been possible the Council had not been able to pursue it. However, the owner was now willing to sell it, some 23.60 acres of agricultural land, at £10,000 per acre, a total of £236,000.

In her letter the lady proposed the Council setting up a business and said she knew some investors who would be willing to invest in it. She suggested that two properties abutting the site could be offered some land to give some immediate funding of between £50,000 to £80,000. She proposed a conventional gravesite within a woodland burial ground and stated that London would be a good catchment for customers. At 16 shares at £14,750 she had 8 prospective shares allocated to private investors [£118,000], the Town Council could purchase 3 [£44,250], which would leave 5 more to sell [£73,750]. She suggested that the three churches would be interested in one share each to donate or purchase. In all with the addition of any grants available, the site could be up and running in no time. She wrote that it was, of course, a business plan owned in shares, and there was always the Arbory Trust whereas the Council could borrow the money totally and repay it through the Arbory Trust Administration over so many years. [Her reference to the Arbory Trust wasn't clarified in her letter but she included some literature from the Trust along with a leaflet from a woodland burial park.]

An enclosed fax from the EA stated that the site lay on the Lower Chalk [aquifer] and groundwater lay from 4m to 10m below the ground level. They had commented that the main risk would be to springs on the north side of Aylesbury Road about 50m to 100m away, and added that the groundwater was fairly close to the surface in the NE corner of the field, which may restrict deeper graves in that part of the field. They observed that they couldn't see any groundwater quality reason that would automatically exclude it but that further site investigation and risk assessment may be needed if a planning application was received.

This barrage of information gave rise to many hours of careful study and research by the chairman of the Burials Committee. Notes from the Association of Burial Authorities regarding the pros and cons of woodland burial sites were studied along with a feasibility study conducted by Ken West MBE. Enquiries were emailed to the administrators of the woodland burial park facility whose leaflet she had enclosed, and the suggested site itself was revisited, looking at it from all angles, and recording details. A local estate agent was asked to give an estimate of the value of this piece of agricultural land.

The literature provided by the Arbory Trust was studied in great detail. It was apparently a non-profit making Christian Woodland Burial Charity seeking to provide woodland burial grounds. It aimed to do this by entering into partnership arrangements with dioceses, providing expertise etc, with the diocese providing a local Management Group. However the literature advised that The Trust was not able to help with financing the establishment of sites. Quite the contrary, the diocese would need to finance the acquisition and setting up of a site, although income generated from the site would help to repay the loan. The freehold of the site would have to be owned by the Trust straight away even though they had not paid for it. The Trust would then consecrate the land and oversee the management of the site.

Once all the investigations had been completed the chairman made a list of reasons why she would propose that the proposition should not be investigated further, which was then circulated to the rest of the Council. These are detailed below: -

1. To do any investigations on an alternative site would offend Anne Stratton. Therefore the chairman would not be getting herself involved.

2. To do so would negate 5 years of efforts.

3. There were problems with the site. It was too large, and overpriced at £10,000 per acre as the local Estate Agents advised that agricultural land was currently valued at between £2,500 and £3,500 per acre. It had been eliminated in the past [site number 65] because the owner would only consider helping if the Council got planning permission for 5 houses on it. It was too exposed to the A4010 with large gaps in the outer hedging and no security. There were likely to be objections from householders living in homes overlooking the site. The field itself had two lengths of overhead electricity power lines crossing it. One in particular would become more noticeable as a large parting as it wouldn't be possible to place trees under it, or graves. The site had a cereal crop in it so the Council would be starting from a ploughed field. It was within walking distance but not for the elderly or disabled.

4. If the Council wished to provide a woodland site, there would be many far more suitable sites locally as it needn't be close to the town. This suggested field would need several years of preparation, as no one in their right mind would pay the woodland burial park rates [£1,500 - £3,000] for a plot in an empty field. A feasibility study by Ken West MBE, who was responsible for helping to establish the first woodland burial site in England, advised that there may be hostility from funeral directors as the informality of green burials and the lack of memorialisation reduces their input, control and profits, and that customers expect to find a woodland site looking like woodland, not a bare field. He had also been told that the 'old' are not interested and that its appeal is for those born in the 60s, most of who will not die till 2030 onwards. The Association of Burial Authorities advised that the concept of a 'green' burial was not practically viable. Long-term care could become a problem, as the land would be expected to emerge as a nature reserve in perpetuity. The green burial movement, as it was currently emerging, was not providing space that was 'sustainable'. Fewer grave plots were available, as it wasn't possible to excavate near tree roots. All sorts of unwanted grave markers, such as pots, artificial flowers, greeting cards etc would appear and reduce the rural idyll that people envisage.

5. With regard to the 'Business' aspect, the chairman had her doubts as to whether there was anyone on the Council who would be genuinely interested in getting the Council financially involved in such a big project. It was more likely to be a District Council project, not a Town Council one. There had been no names of investors, no guarantees, and no mention of how long they'd be willing to invest their money for. The proposer was expecting the Council to buy 3 shares [£44.250] and find 5 other investors to invest £73.750. She assumed that residents in 2 adjacent homes would be falling over themselves to find £50,000 - £80,000 to buy expensive agricultural land, and that the churches would wish and be able to afford to invest in it. Lastly the Arbory Trust was not in a position to finance the establishment of a new site.

Councillors were, however, invited to make up their own minds as the chairman of the Burials Committee had no wish to be blamed for putting them off this site and causing a possible court action, but she declared that she was not prepared to devote any more of her time investigating it.

Graham advised that the Council might not have the power to enter into such a commercial project. The proposer's idea was not a fully worked up case and the three churches may also not be able to enter into such a proposition either. The Council needed to be quite clear on whether it wished to alter fundamentally its present position and whether it wished to pursue a commercial venture.

Councillors agreed to continue with the current project but to keep this alternative proposal on the back burner. The availability of a more suitable site had been amongst the objections raised following the submission of the planning application. It was felt that this had been adequately addressed. Nevertheless, the Council did investigate the size, location and suitability of the alternative site suggested. However, another of the objections, the possible pollution of a garden pond, would take more time to resolve. This is detailed further in the next chapter.

Chapter 13

The Pond

2004

Following the re-submission of the plans a number of objections were raised. One in particular was from two residents who were concerned that their self-filling garden pond might become polluted as a result of any burials. They had asked the Environment Agency [EA] to intervene and an officer had subsequently visited their property. He did not know why their pond was self-filling, and advised that it was possible there may be some form of perched water table in that area which could be produced by a clay rich horizon within the chalk intercepting the downward filtration of water although there was no evidence for this from the trial pitting exercise undertaken by the Council.

The residents said that the ground by their home was always damp even though the main spring line where groundwater appeared from the Lower Chalk aquifer occurred at a lower level some distance away. A councillor was later able to ascertain from the previous occupants of their home that they had experienced no dampness problems and during a visit to Miss Stratton she also confirmed that her paddocks had suffered no wet areas for over 40 years so it appeared that the dampness could be related to possible drainage problems relating to their property.

The possibility that a former field drain intercepted their property had been put forward but this was considered to be unlikely, as it would dry up in the summer. As the EA couldn't rule out that the pond was fed directly or indirectly from drainage or the mains water system from the house, the residents were recommended to drain the pond to see if inlets or outlets could be identified. The pond was subsequently drained by making a hole in its concrete-lined base and remained empty despite intermittent rain.

Because of this claim, that their small pond was being refilled naturally, and the fact that the Council's current submission for planning permission was a new application, it was suggested that the Council should obtain, by the sinking of boreholes, the groundwater levels under the site [including any perched groundwater] and demonstrate that groundwater passing under the burial site would not impact off site receptors such as this pond. Unfortunately the report from the contractors, who had conducted the trial pits for the proposed site in 2001, did not contain sufficient environmental information to make definitive conclusions regarding the Lower Chalk having marl/clay rich bands, which have been shown in other parts of the area to produce perched water tables.

There was also the possibility that the unestablished source of water to the self-filling pond could be from the soakaways from their house, or broken surface water drains, damaged or leaking water mains, or outflow from a septic tank if the house was not on main drainage.

The architect suggested that, if there was a perched water table in that area, a possible solution would be to dig a 2m trench around the site boundary next to the property and backfill it with chalk lumps without clay, excavated from other areas of the site during the ground works to form a cut off for any perched water entering the property from the cemetery site.

However there was no progress with the planning application due to uncertainty between the EA and Wycombe District Council [WDC] as to the action to take. It was frustrating that the EA and WDC did not seem to be making progress, but no doubt both felt the need to be cautious. Apparently both had received a number of communications from solicitors acting for two residents.

The architect believed that the Town Council should tell WDC that they did not believe there was a case to answer and that they were not going to spend ratepayers' money unnecessarily as the owners of the pond had no facts to substantiate their claim. The pond had remained empty after the concrete base had been perforated, despite a number of thunderstorms that occurred. However Graham advised that there was no reason for the EA to stick its neck out and that the Council had very little choice but to follow the EA's guidance as the Planning Authority would be greatly influenced by the EA and would want to follow its lead.

The EA Booklet on 'Assessing Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments' was studied in order to get an understanding of what would be entailed should boreholes be required, and a list of queries was sent to the architect. It was noted that the original soil tests had been undertaken in consultation with the EA in Autumn 2001 and these new guidelines had not been published until several months later in March 2002, so the Council had complied with the requirements at that time. Even though the original planning application took place in June 2002 after the new guidelines had been published, the EA had seen no reason to change their requirements. It was only since concerns had been raised about this pond that the EA had reviewed the situation, and at present they were equivocating, as they could not definitely rule out the residents' comments although they had seen no evidence to support them either.

In August the planning officer informed the Council's architect that, since the proposed site had already been approved for burials in 2002 when 'Change of Use' was granted and the agency had been perfectly satisfied with the results of the soil tests then, all he needed was a written confirmation of their original stance that the site was suitable for burials so that he could put the Council's application forward for approval by the Development Control Committee.

It would be a public speaking event and, if approval were given, it would be likely that it would be subjected to a Judicial Review, as it was unlikely that the objectors would accept the result. Graham sent details of what a Judicial Review entailed. It was simply an application to the court for a review of an administrative procedure. In the context of planning it really only applied to a review of an appeal. For instance a developer who was refused planning consent would appeal and then seek a Judicial Review if that appeal was unsuccessful. He thought it was difficult to see how the Council could end up in that situation as a 3rd party objector cannot appeal against the grant of planning consent. However he thought that, without the support of the EA, WDC would be reluctant to grant planning consent.

The architect suggested that it might be possible to reverse the design of the Memorial Garden so that the garden and parking areas would replace the burials area nearer to the objectors' property. This would exclude any burials from the vicinity of the pond and perhaps avoid the need for further tests. However it didn't seem to be a very good idea as it would be an immediate intrusion for them whereas the present plan left the area adjacent to their property untouched for many years.

The chairman of the Burials Committee spoke with an officer from the EA. He was concerned that, if there were a Judicial Review, the EA would be put in an awkward position of having to defend their original decision that could be picked to pieces by lawyers, as the original investigations would be considered inadequate in the light of their guidelines. This being the case he said he would have to advise WDC that, in light of the new site-specific information and the fact that this was a new planning application, the applicant should obtain, by the sinking of boreholes, groundwater levels under the site, including any perched ground water. Using this information they should demonstrate that groundwater passing under the graveyard would not impact off site receptors such as the pond.

If the case went to a Judicial Review he couldn't stand up and defend the EA's original decision. Apparently there is a problem with lower chalk in that there is clay in it, which can lead to temporary or permanent differences in water levels. From a scientific point of view he recommended that the Council did not follow the architect's advice. His gut feeling was that the water table was deep and that there was no problem but this could not stand up to a cross-examination. He concluded that developments went ahead if people didn't object. If they did object the applicant had to build up a bigger case and that he knew of one cemetery application that had been delayed 10 years so far because of objectors.

An email from the architect confirmed the EA's belief that a 15m deep borehole down to the aquifer, bored, not driven, and the core extracted for analysis, would verify their present knowledge, and a second borehole, bored to 5m deep would show any seasonal flows of water underground that might possibly occur. These should be located upstream from the pond. A second shallow bore should be located by the boundary of the cemetery site close to the pond. He added that he had been advised that a budget figure of £2,500 should be sufficient to cover the costs of drilling and installing the boreholes and that the cost of soil analysis and monitoring would be additional.

This news wasn't very welcome to the Council but it was felt that no progress would be made with the planning application until this information was supplied. The Council therefore took the decision to commission the drilling of 3 boreholes, one at 20m depth and two at 5m depth, to obtain groundwater levels under the site [including any perched groundwater], to monitor the ground water on completion of the boreholes and 3 monthly over the winter period, and to demonstrate that groundwater passing under the burial site would not impact off site receptors such as the pond. Some councillors felt that reimbursement should be sought from those who created the problem should the bore results show that the work was unnecessary. However on advice this idea wasn't taken up as it was pointed out that there is nothing unlawful in making representations to the WDC or EA or in seeking to persuade other residents to do the same.

The architect was asked to proceed with organising the drilling of the boreholes to obtain scientific evidence to allay the neighbours' concerns that the groundwater passing from the memorial garden might pollute their pond. He was asked to check with the EA the method the contractors should use so as to avoid any problems if the case went to a Judicial Review. The EA however did not wish to be overly prescriptive, preferring to say that the consultant paid to undertake the work had the liability to meet the required objectives. This wasn't particularly reassuring.

The architect then approached three firms that specialised in this work to submit quotations. Under the circumstances one was reluctant to consider taking the work on. However he received quotations from 2 others. One was for £7,000 but the other, submitted from the contractors who had performed the original tests, was more reasonable at £3,357 with an assurance that they could undertake the work fairly soon. The Finance Committee approved this quotation.

It was now 4 years since the donor had offered the land to the Council for use as a burial ground and the chairman of the Burials Committee was concerned that Miss Stratton might think they lacked commitment. It was agreed to ask the clerk to write to the planning officer to see if he could submit the application to the Development Committee and recommend it go ahead subject to no groundwork taking place until the results were known from the tests. This would at least enable the Council to make further progress whilst waiting for the monitoring to take place. However on Graham's advice the committee later decided to wait until all the required information was available to the planners.

The September CROSStalk report advised the public that the present delay was a result of water table queries and that the Council couldn't make any further progress until they were resolved. The Council hoped it would not be too long as St Mary's churchyard now had only four grave plots remaining, and was hoping to develop the Memorial Garden in time to meet the needs of those parishioners who preferred their loved ones to be buried in the parish.

As the contractors were making preparations to commence the boreholes it was learnt that other contractors were being employed in a home adjacent to the site for the Memorial Garden and it looked as if they were drilling boreholes there. Perhaps the owners were seeking to show that there was a perched water table in the vicinity of their pond?

The boreholes for the burial site were commenced in early November but the 20m one had to be abandoned at a depth of 5 - 6m. The cable percussion drill being used by the contractors was unable to penetrate rock and it would not be possible to complete the work unless other equipment was brought in. This caused another delay.

The thought that the Council would have to pay for more expensive drilling machinery to complete the boreholes was of great concern. It was a question of whether to continue with the investigations or not. The number of sleepless nights caused by these problems seemed endless. However this proved not to be necessary as some good news was received a few days later from the contractors undertaking the boreholes. They sent a fax proposing that they would absorb the extra costs but that the Council would have to pay for the first monitoring. The architect suspected that the additional costs were being absorbed because he had suggested that they should quote for a rotary rig in the first place due to the hard chalk layer.

The completion of a 4th borehole was undertaken at the beginning of December. A rotary drilling rig was used and a report arrived from the contractors at the end of the month. Groundwater had been encountered at 16.10m below ground level. This was good news but the Council still had to have proof that there was no possibility of a perched water table existing in the vicinity of the neighbouring pond. If that claim was discredited then there was a further problem to overcome. This is detailed in the next chapter.

During this year St Dunstan's Church had commenced a planning application for Change of Use of land to form an extension to their burial ground. If there had been a burial in the new extension within a period of five years of the land being given they believed that a planning application could have been avoided, but over twenty years had elapsed and it was now necessary. By October the Environment Agency, using their fundamental requirements for Risk Assessment, and following the excavation of trial pits, had approved the use of the land, which was very close to the water table, for this purpose. The church was advised and agreed informally that burials might take place on the higher ground, where the water table was lower, and only interment of ashes on the lower ground.

However there was a different problem for the church. An archaeological expert had been present when the trial pits were being dug. Although they received planning permission there was a condition requiring an archaeological dig of the whole site rather than just the sample pits, which was estimated to cost £20,000, which they could not afford and could not recoup from anywhere. The planners said, informally, that it was unlikely that there was a Roman villa or any remains on the actual site, as it was so far from the road, but they had to put in the condition just in case. The fact that there was a high water table there also suggested to those involved that there never had been a building on the marshy ground. Therefore they could not proceed to use the ground.

Chapter 14

The 'Wells'

2004 - 2005

2004

The detailed plans that had been submitted for planning approval at the end of 2003 had been withdrawn in January 2004 and were resubmitted following some amendments in May. The year was spent with the Council addressing the issue of a suggested alternative site put forward by one of the residents, and waiting for a decision to be reached by Wycombe District Council [WDC] and the Environment Agency [EA] as to whether further testing was to be undertaken with regard to concerns raised about the possible pollution of a garden pond in a neighbouring property. It ended with the completion of 4 boreholes on the proposed burial site and the news of a further obstacle to overcome, the installation of 2 boreholes in a neighbouring property where the residents were now drawing up the groundwater for domestic use.

Whilst the drilling of the boreholes was taking place on the proposed burial site, the neighbouring residents had sent a letter to the EA and the Environmental Health Officer at WDC to inform them that they had reinstated their wells and had a connection going into their home for drinking water. They wished to know the position regarding the cemetery and whether they would have a 50m buffer zone around their property as stated in the EA's directive to Parliament. This letter was passed to the Council. The architect commented that, if the residents had been concerned about the possible underground water contamination of their pond by a potential cemetery, had they considered the wider picture with the fertilizers, dung and other chemical products that farmers would spread on the huge fields near their home and where most of their water would come from. The chairman of the Burials Committee felt that all the work put in so far was about to be in vain and wished she had never taken on the task.

As far as the EA had been able to ascertain, there were no local wells still used for drawing drinking water down stream from the proposed burial site. Apparently the deeds of the property where the pond was located had been found and recorded the position of two old wells. These had been long abandoned and filled and the previous owners hadn't been aware of their existence. The British Geological Survey had no record of their existence either.

The Environmental Health Officer at WDC said it was very unusual for people to reinstate a private water supply after many years of disuse, and that he was seeking written confirmation whether the residents had been cut off from the mains supply. He noted that a 50m buffer zone around a well was a recommendation by the EA but not a statutory requirement. The key issue, he said, was the actual health risk that the burial ground posed which could only be assessed after a targeted and thorough hydro-geological survey of the area had revealed possible contaminant pathways.

He advised that he had taken the view that the proposed burial ground was relatively low risk but the problem was the EA guidance. He said that planners could and did ignore EA advice. For example if a road was planned and objectors argued that there were badgers there, that might not be fatal to the application. It would depend on whether the planners considered the wells [boreholes] to be a material consideration. If they felt that these residents were justified in using a potable supply of water then they would have to advise a 250m, rather than 50m, buffer zone. In order for people to use a potable supply, the water should be tested by the Local Authority Environmental Health Department to ensure it doesn't contain E.coli.

A 250m buffer zone would be catastrophic for the proposed burial facility, as it would prevent the consideration of any part of the site for burials. Graham advised that if the boreholes did cause a difficulty the Council could make a public request for them to be filled in order to enable the project to proceed for the benefit of the community.

2005

Early this year, in the hope that this would give support to the Town Council's planning application, Canon Andrew Meynell, Rector of St Dunstan's, wrote to WDC to advise the planners that the cost of the archaeological dig was preventing the church from extending their cemetery and that they were no longer in a position to offer help to Risborough residents who required a local burial. The local undertakers also wrote to the planners expressing both concern about the lack of burial spaces and their support.

In St Mary's Viewpoint Magazine it was reported that the last burial space had been taken in the churchyard and that it was now effectively closed. However the legal designation of closure would be delayed until the Church Project building work was completed.

Following the installation of the boreholes in the proposed Memorial Garden the contractors undertook the monitoring of the groundwater. The 3 shallower boreholes were dry and the depth of water in the 4th was 14.05m below ground level. It had been struck at a depth of 16.10m when drilling took place and there had been a significant rise due to release of hydrostatic pressure and the heavy rainfall since. It was still well below the depths envisaged to be excavated in any future burials. The thin clayey area within a section of the core was considered not to be substantial enough to support a perched water table. The testing levels of contaminants were all well below threshold levels.

The Council had been under the impression that the application would then be determined at the end of February that year and hadn't anticipated there would be a further delay. The EA wrote to the planners stating that they were quite happy regarding the ground water levels and that the pond was not in danger of being polluted, but they just required one further monitoring in late spring, after the winter rains, to be absolutely certain, as these would record the highest water levels, before giving their formal opinion to WDC Planning Department.

The second monitoring took place in spring. The water samples that had been taken showed some minor changes, containing levels of cadmium and ammonia, which exceeded the given threshold levels in Water Supply Regulations. It was queried with the planning officer whether the Development Committee could now proceed with the determination of the planning application.

[For interest cadmium is an impurity found in zinc. It was identified as a poison more than a century ago and stays in the soil for decades.]

Following the spring monitoring the EA reported that the results indicated no evidence of a high level perched water table and concluded that they satisfactorily indicated that the pond was not groundwater supported and therefore not controlled waters. As their remit was only for pollution of controlled waters, there was no objection to the development proceeding with respect to the pond.

The Control of Pollution Unit at WDC was also involved in the consultation process. All agreed that when the Town Council's planning application was first considered for 'Change of Use' in 2002, there was no problem as the nearest private water supply was over 1km away. The programme of groundwater monitoring that had been agreed by the Council and the EA had demonstrated that there was no evidence of a perched water table and that groundwater only existed at depth [14m -16m] within the chalk bedrock. The geology revealed by this monitoring programme confirmed that there was no high level stratum capable of holding groundwater above the chalk, only a thin layer of clayey topsoil. It was clear that there was no perched water table in this area and that there was no spring feeding the concrete-lined garden pond. The objection of the residents was not supported by objective evidence.

The action of drawing water from the underground chalk aquifer instead of using mains water seemed a very strange step to take given the obvious benefits of using treated drinking water and, given its timing and the advice given in the guidance document, inevitably some people questioned the reasons behind it. It was not known whether the creation of a private water supply following the planning application was a material consideration in planning terms and this would have to be decided. If it were, then the application would have to be refused. If not, then there was no reason for refusal. It was noted that the residents had not based their initial objections to the proposed burial site on this issue.

The chairman of the Burials Committee was concerned about the lack of burial spaces in the town, and for the feelings of the donor, Miss Stratton, who was exercising a good deal of patience considering it seemed that nothing was happening. A district councillor, when asked when the planning application was going to be considered, commented that it was 'on the back boiler'. The local MP, David Lidington, was asked to intervene and investigate the delay.

He made enquiries to the planning officer and asked for a decision to be made. He subsequently told the Council that the planning officer was seeking legal advice on how to handle the case. It was necessary to find out if the new borehole/well was a material consideration that could justify the refusal of permission. The MP also wrote to the Chief Executive of the EA.

At the Annual Town Meeting in May the chairman of the Burials Committee informed members of the community that unfortunately in the last year the Council had had to do a lot of extra work to keep the project of a new Memorial Garden on track. She reminded them that the Council had successfully applied for 'Change of Use' in 2002 and, after consulting with the public and acquiring an access into the proposed Memorial Garden, had submitted a detailed planning application in November 2003. This had been withdrawn because of a number of objections. Some changes to an area of the layout had been made to address concerns regarding privacy and the application had then been resubmitted in May the following year [2004].

She continued, explaining that subsequently further issues had been raised, which the planners were obliged to address. A concern had been that a small garden pond might become contaminated if there were burials in the Memorial Garden. Further testing, involving making deeper boreholes and monitoring the ground water, had been done in order to check whether these concerns were valid and the results had confirmed that there was no possibility of the garden pond being affected. Objectors were quite entitled to make objections, so that the planners could then ensure that, if necessary, changes were made to avoid a detrimental effect on neighbouring properties.

However two wells had been recreated and the water was being used, which created a further obstacle to overcome in the planning application for the Memorial Garden. The audience were reminded that trying to provide a new burial ground for the community had involved many years of voluntary work by many councillors for the benefit of the local people, and of the extremely generous offer to donate the land by a local benefactor. The proposed Memorial Garden had been designed, after much consultation, to evolve into a lovely garden for wider public relaxation over the years, with hundreds of trees, shrubs and other plants to make it a place to be proud of.

If the objections prevailed, then thousands of families, now and in the future, would be deprived of the comfort of having their loved ones buried close by, and of a public facility which would enhance the town. She concluded saying it would be nice to think that the objectors might be prepared to put the needs of others first and withdraw, so that the Memorial Garden could proceed for the benefit of the whole community, and that if they were not prepared to withdraw, she hoped that Wycombe District Council would put the needs of the town first and let the Council proceed with the much needed Memorial Garden.

The plans and other items of information were on display for all to see. She was promptly accused by a member of the public of demonising the objectors. However it was a very difficult situation and the public had a right to know why there was such a long delay in the determination of a planning application that had already been passed in principle three years earlier. Councillors were getting really fed up with not being able to make progress, but being afraid to speak their minds publicly.

In June the Council learned that there were discussions taking place with the WDC Legal Department to ascertain the weight that should be given to the matter of the wells, having regard to the fact that the borehole supply was only opened up following the original permission and after the current application had been submitted. It was apparent that a Committee report on the application would be closely scrutinised.

A petition and many letters of support, together with all the requested documentation and test results had been received at the Planning Department but the planning officer was reluctant to confirm or commit himself to a date. Members of the Burials Committee agreed that this was unacceptable and the clerk was requested to send a letter to the Head of Planning WDC concerning the application.

David Lidington forwarded a copy of a letter he had received from the EA. It explained that the EA would normally advise the Planning Authority of the need to ensure a proposed cemetery is at least 250m away from any existing water supply. However the situation in Princes Risborough differed from normal. Their approach in this instance had been to seek guidance from WDC on whether the private water supply from the well was a material planning consideration. It was understood the Council was seeking legal advice on this matter. The public health issues associated with the water supply from the well were principally a matter for WDC. If they decided that the well was a material planning consideration then the EA would advise that a cemetery development should not be built within 250m of the well. However if the Council decided that the well was not a material planning consideration then they would advise that the application was acceptable to them in all respects.

Intervention by a district councillor led to the date for the determination of the application being set for 13th July. Then the Council learned that there had been a challenge by the developers who owned the ransom strip. They had not previously been in contact at all regarding the planning application and were now claiming that a number of elements relating to the entrance and car parking area were substandard and contrary to policy, and that they too would be seeking a Judicial Review if the plans were passed.

On speaking to the planning officer, the chairman of the Burials Committee learnt that the Highways Department were also seeking legal advice concerning their decision regarding the access and that WDC had received further communications from some solicitors on the same subject. As the planning application for the Memorial Garden and Burial Ground was so old, it would probably be first on the agenda but he couldn't now promise it would be heard in July. The next Development Control Committee meeting would be in August. The planners would have to deal with the challenges regarding the highways issues before the application could be heard.

A phone call to a district councillor elicited the fact that he was confident that all would be well despite the delay. Both WDC and the Highways Department were reviewing their recommendations to ensure that they were in order before the planning application was brought to the Development Control Committee. A further contact with another district councillor brought the news that, in his view, there was unlikely to be any problem with the access. The width was satisfactory; Government Document DB32 allowed for a single-track width for up to 15m and the Highways Department subsequently confirmed they had no objection to the proposals.

However the objectors had now turned to the Environmental Health Department regarding the possible contamination of their drinking water from their well. The chairman of the Burials Committee contacted an officer in the Control of Pollution Unit to seek information about any outstanding issues and the likely date of consideration of the planning application. In response he told her that he didn't think there was anything further that the Council could do concerning the application. The department was satisfied that groundwater pollution was not an issue and the Planning Department just needed to have a legal opinion on the validity of the introduction of a new private water supply. Once this was known a final decision could be made. However the planning officer in charge of the case was now away for a 4-week break, which meant the application, would not be considered until September at the earliest.

On his return the planning officer still had outstanding work to complete and advised that he wouldn't expect the Development Committee to make a decision until October at the earliest. In the meantime he required some more information on burial figures, which were duly sent to him.

An enquiry with an officer in the Legal Department revealed that they considered the well to be a material consideration as it was the only source of water for the residents but that it had to be balanced with the fact that new guidelines from the EA were published after the last planning permission was given and that the well was opened knowing that permission had been given.

On phoning the planning officer some time later, he advised that the Legal Department had asked him to re-contact the EA and the Environmental Services Department regarding the well issue to find out 'how much weight' should be applied to the well when deciding how relevant it was. He added that the residents' solicitors were still raising further questions and challenges and that there was a mass of correspondence from them. Copies of the correspondence were sent to the EA, the Town Council and the Environmental Services Department.

It was argued that the tests had only considered the effect of any burials on the pond, not the wells. They were calling for a full risk assessment. It was now October and the architect decided to arrange a meeting with representatives from the Planning Department, the Legal Department, the Environmental Services and the Environment Agency to try to unravel things and clarify exactly what might be required in order to get the application progressed.

Following his meeting with the officers the architect passed a report to the Council that contained the following observations: -

Neighbouring residents had presented a site plan of the proposed cemetery with a broad stripe marked across it leading to their property, suggesting that a field or French drain had been laid across which would naturally drain towards their land. This was unlikely to be so as land drains were usually only found in clay ground where there was a need to drain the surface water to allow the fields to be used for crops or pasture. The land on Lower Chalk is free draining.

The officers of WDC were likely to recommend refusal even if the Council produced a Tier 2 or even a Tier 3 Risk Assessment but if the Council could show they had carried out ALL the relevant assessments the Development Control Committee might overrule the officers.

The EA were very unhappy at the use of their guidance as a means of blocking new works by drilling a borehole as it was devised to protect existing borehole users from new development. They were concerned that someone digging a borehole to extract water for their domestic use could block any other proposed cemetery site in Princes Risborough or anywhere in the UK.

The EA had never required a Tier 2 Assessment, as there were no receptors [boreholes or wells] that were abstracting water. However WDC would now want a Tier 2 risk assessment before they could present the application to the Development Control Committee, even though this would show that the proposal no longer complied with the current EA guidelines.

The officers were fairly certain that the objectors would then challenge the decision through the High Court and the outcome was uncertain. If the application was referred to the High Court then the past correspondence with the objectors could be introduced to show that they had no objections when they thought that it might be a route to them obtaining more land.

He concluded suggesting that the Council should decide whether it wished to continue with the application. If it did, then the Council would be required to carry out more tests on the ground water levels and undertake analysis of the water contents as before and carry out a Tier 2 Assessment assuming that the objector's borehole did not exist, to check that all the other criteria were met.

[It was interesting to learn more about possible pollution from a land drain at a later date. For the leaching of potential contaminants to occur from a grave, water would have to come in contact with the cadaver. If the drain lay above the depth of a burial, clean rainwater would be intercepted before it could be contaminated. If the drain lay below the depth of burial the water may become contaminated and the drain would provide a more rapid pathway to locations remote from the burial location. If no drain was present rainwater would pass the cadaver and leaching would occur but as the rainwater sunk further into the unsaturated zone below the grave some of the contaminants would be absorbed back into the soils.]

The full Tier 2 Assessment was largely a desk study but might require the drilling of another borehole down to the aquifer and would require professional input from a geochemist. However this would prevent any legal challenge on the basis that the EA Guidance wasn't followed in full.

The Burials Committee agreed to recommend to the Town Council that the Council complete a Tier 2 Assessment, and, once done, that WDC should be pressurised into making a decision. The main Town Council ratified both resolutions at the end of the month. About 15 members of the public attended the meeting to show their concern over the delays, asking when the application would be considered. As the press were present and it was unwise to say too much, they were told to contact WDC and request the information they sought from them.

The contractors who had undertaken the previous water table tests sent a quotation for the work for £2,150, plus advice to allow extra for additional water tests and possible shallow boreholes with testing which could well be in the region of £4,000 - £5,000. Following the Council's agreement, the architect asked the contractors to proceed to do an assessment based on site conditions as they were before the wells were put there, and to add an annex showing an assessment of the possible drawdown effect on the groundwater, and the area likely to be affected by the new borehole in the neighbouring garden that had been opened since the application was made. He added details of the expected water usage. He also arranged for further monitoring of the water from the deepest borehole to be performed in March and June 2006.

A district councillor, having spoken with the planning officer, informed the Council that they had agreed that the planning officer should bring the application to the Development Control Committee, probably in February, for a decision to be determined. Because of all the objections the planning officer would have to recommend refusal but if the Development Control Committee accepted his recommendation this would leave the Town Council in a position to appeal. If they did not accept his recommendation and accepted the application, this would leave the objectors in a position where they were likely to seek a Judicial Review. He felt that by bringing the situation to a head the Council would know where it stood but if the Council allowed the situation to remain as it was, the objectors might find yet another avenue to object on which would lead to further delays.

However it was felt to be important for the Council to produce all the information that was required before asking for the planning application to be determined. It was believed also that it was very important to show WDC that there was widespread support for the project within the town. The architect agreed, saying that it would be better to wait for this new information.

Just before Christmas, councillors met up with the planning officer. He was given a paper detailing all the concerns of the Council, one being concern for the donor who was herself concerned that nobody cared whether the facility went ahead or not. A history of all the Council's actions was listed. A questionnaire survey had shown that there was a need and desire for a replacement facility in the town. An elimination survey had showed that there was no other site available in the parish. Public meetings, a further questionnaire survey and a number of consultation meetings had taken place. The residents of Long Hide and Queens Road had had their interests represented, and numerous visits had been made to residents, including the objectors. The councillors felt they had done everything by the book and asked if there was anything more they could do to ensure the success of this project.

In response he explained the position that WDC were in and advised that he would try and arrange for the application to be considered on 29th March 2006 when the only outstanding item of the Tier 2 Assessment would be the final monitoring in June. The architect was therefore contacted to ask him to request the contractors to complete the rest of the Tier 2 investigations by February, and for the March monitoring to be undertaken in the first week of March so that the planning officer had time to ensure that the EA were satisfied with the results. So the year ended with the hope that the planning application would be determined early in 2006. However there was to be a long wait and a lot more work undertaken before it was finally considered.

Chapter 15

The Long Wait

2006 - 2007

2006

2005 had closed with the planning officer undertaking to try and get the planning application ready for determination by late March. There were further monitoring tests required, the final one in June being a formality. The Environmental Engineer who came to do the testing commented that he'd be more worried about the nitrates coming from the field rather than possible pollution from burials. A geochemist was working on the Tier 2 Risk Assessment, which had been necessitated due to a legal challenge to the planning application.

There was much concern that the final result would be a refusal and that all the Council's efforts would be in vain, although the chairman of the Burials Committee, despite feeling frustrated over all the problems and delays, had complete faith that all would turn out right in the end. She trusted that the Development Control Committee members would make a decision that would be what she felt to be the correct one, as she was in total agreement with Jeremy Bentham, the English philosopher and legal and social reformer, whose 'greatest happiness principle' held that one must always act so as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people [Lewis 1952 page 8].

The officer from the Control of Pollution Unit informed her that the water being drawn for domestic use had been tested and was apparently fit for consumption in terms of the parameters tested which included ammonia. He wasn't sure whether the water had been treated prior to being tested but advised that cadmium was not routinely tested for, although there was a pass/fail value associated with it. Elevated levels of cadmium and ammonia had been found in one sample tested from the borehole on the proposed burial ground.

The CROSStalk report in March informed the public of the current situation, that the Council had instigated a Tier 2 assessment of the proposed site for the Memorial Garden following a belated request from Wycombe District Council [WDC] and the Environment Agency [EA]. This was despite the fact that both agencies had already given approval for the site to be used for burials, and that the Town Council had already commissioned further borehole investigations over a year ago to address and refute claims that a neighbouring garden pond was fed by groundwater and could therefore have become polluted.

The report concluded with a request to all those who were concerned about the lack of burial spaces in Risborough, or who preferred cremations but desired to have a beautiful Memorial Garden in which to place the ashes, to write to the planning officer to express their support, and gave his contact details.

The geochemist required information regarding likely burial rates which the chairman of the Burials Committee supplied [see Chapter 20 for her method of calculating these]. In returning these figures she asked the geochemist whether there were elevated levels of cadmium and ammonia in this area, in the hope that a positive response might lead to the closure of the problematic boreholes in the neighbouring property. However he advised that this was not clear and would require further monitoring to build up a larger database. He added that tests were undertaken for a range of common pesticides and herbicides together with nitrates, which were present in arable fertilizers, but these appeared to be satisfactory. Based on the analytical information the EA currently had, the bore water would appear to be satisfactory from a (chemical) potability standpoint, although no microbiological testing had been done, which should really be done on water which was being consumed He suggested it would be worth getting the water tested from a microbiological standpoint, given the usage of the land nearby for farming purposes.

A further event appeared to be heaven sent. Anne Stratton, who had generously undertaken to donate the land, had a relative, Chris Stratton, who happened to be a Planning Consultant. Cllr Gary Hall, the Mayor, and Cllr Wooster were introduced to him and a long discussion took place concerning the difficulties getting the planning application progressed. He was concerned that there could be lots of problems if it went to a Judicial Review as the land was still scheduled for housing in the Local Plan and, unless it could be justified using the site and shown that there was a lot of local support for the proposed facility, a judge might accept the objector's arguments that it was the wrong use as it went against the Local Plan. He wished to submit a Planning Representation on behalf of the Council. The councillors were very pleased to agree.

A number of strategies were discussed including the geochemist's suggestion. It was decided that the Council would ask if the borehole water could be compared with mains water and whether it could be tested for the presence of microbes. If the water quality was poorer then there could be health implications for any visitors to the objectors' premises. It was also decided to encourage the public to support the project by signing a petition or writing direct to WDC. Chris asked for all the information that might help. The Burial Facts File, along with piles of other documents, was passed to him for his perusal.

The clerk was asked to arrange for the microbiological testing of the bore water and a comparison of mains and bore water. Arrangements were made to collect signatures for a petition in support of the facility and an email was sent to interested parties giving details of where to write to express support for the project. A press report also gave details of the delays with the determination of the planning application and contact details of the planning officer for those who wished to write with their concerns.

Word came from the architect that the expected report for the Tier 2 Assessment would not be available in time for the March Development Committee meeting and that it would be April before it could be considered. In response he was informed of the offer of a Planning Representation from Mr Stratton and the Council's request for extra tests on the water samples. He advised that he had heard of a Water and Wells Act, which might be usefully quoted.

A draft report of the Tier 2 Assessment finally arrived. The EA suggested further work, which was then added before it was sent to WDC. Meanwhile over eleven hundred people signed a petition to support the project, which was helpful. A letter then arrived from some objectors criticising the methods used to collect supportive signatures, alleging that the majority of people clearly had no knowledge or interest. This was unfair, as everyone had been given regular updates of the situation for the last 8 years in the CROSStalk newsletter that was circulated to every home in the parish.

A phone call to the planning officer elicited the fact that the application was likely to be heard in April or May. He was told of the forthcoming Planning Representation and said he would wait for it. He had received a large number of letters of support and three objections. It was noted that many of the supportive letters had been received from members of St Mary's and other churches, expressing their concern regarding the delays facing the application and the need for the project to go ahead as the churchyard was now full.

Enquiries were instigated to try and find details of the Water and Wells Act mentioned by the architect. Graham, who had generously offered his legal advice, wasn't able to trace details of it but advised that the EA and Local Authority had a duty to ensure that water used for domestic purposes was of good quality. Staff in the House of Commons Library were also involved but couldn't trace it, most older Acts having been repealed. An officer at the British Geological Survey felt the regulation concerned was the Burials Act of 1855, which prohibited water wells to be sunk within 100 yards of a cemetery. The Cemeteries Act was then brought in to ensure all burials were away from urban areas. He sent an interesting paper 'Burial Sites and their Impact on groundwater' [Trick et al 2005] for Cllr Wooster's perusal. The article included a list of references, which included Pridgin Teale T [1881] 'Dangers to Health: A Pictorial Guide to Domestic and Sanitary Defects.'

The chairman of the Burials Committee was intrigued by the possibility that the answer to the Council's problems somehow laid buried in the structure of the objectors' property, which was built in the 1800s, and that somewhere there would be some information that could be used to overcome the problem of the borehole. She spent many hours at the Aylesbury Reference Library investigating various Burial Acts, Cemeteries Acts, Public Health Act 1936, Water Industry Act 1991, Water Resources Act 1991, Building Act 1984, and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the Halsbury's Statutes. The Statutes indicated that borehole construction normally required Planning Permission and Building Regulations control and that where there was contaminated groundwater the District Council should enforce closure.

She also brought home interesting historical books describing the filth in early towns and how Chadwick gradually helped to get sewage and mains water initiated. Another book 'Water Law, Principles and Practice' by Richard Macrory MA, Barrister and Lecturer in Environmental Law and Policy [1985] proved to be very useful. A number of useful snippets were uncovered including items found in T. Pridgin Teale's 'Dangers to Health: A Pictorial Guide to Sanitary Defects' which demonstrated the many ways well or borehole water can become polluted. Some of this information was obtained from works kept in the British Library at Boston Spa, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS2 37BQ, which keeps a copy of everything ever published. [The relevant passages have been placed in Appendix 2 to avoid wandering away from the theme of this chapter.]

The planning officer was approached with details of the research but no action was forthcoming. He basically said that he couldn't see any public interest in refusing a retrospective application for the wells or any real grounds, in the public interest, for taking enforcement action against their re-opening/re-drilling. On that basis he really didn't want to have to take a decision on the unauthorised development at this time, since it would be seen as highly political.

There was further disappointment, on contacting the Building Regulations Department at WDC, to learn that there was apparently no requirement for building regulations in connection with wells and boreholes. One would have thought there would be a requirement to ensure that they were not placed anywhere near an old cesspit for example. And as it was also possible for children to fall into wells and drown, or for waste oil or other pollutants to be poured into them and contaminate the groundwater, there should have been some sort of control.

A further monitoring of the borehole took place and the subsequent report confirmed that a microbiological analysis had revealed that there were some significant nasty toxins, E. coli and other harmful bacteria, in the groundwater sample, which raised doubts about the purity of the water being drawn from the neighbouring borehole. E. Coli is a pathogen like streptococci and both the European Directive and UK 1989 Water Regulations say zero E. Coli should be present in drinking water. The architect, on discussing these results, said that he had been informed that the most likely, and common source would be a broken foul water drain, leaking cesspit or septic tank. He added that the nearest property to the borehole used to take the samples was the objectors' property and it was known from their previous correspondence that they had had long-term underground water problems, including settlement, so it would seem that they could be the source of the bacteria in the groundwater that they were now drinking. He also wondered what water was filling their pond.

In response to a further objection regarding the unpleasantness of having to live near a cemetery, and the possible devaluation of one's home, the chairman of the Burials Committee and her twin sister Joyce undertook a survey of residents whose properties overlooked the Hamilton Road cemetery in High Wycombe. Their attitudes towards their outlook were either very positive, or of a complete lack of concern. Many people were grateful for the peace and permanence of their views. Enquiries were also made with three Estate Agents in High Wycombe who confirmed that there was no problem selling houses next to the Hamilton Road cemetery and that house prices were based on the house, not the cemetery. They concluded that houses overlooking the cemetery would sell at same price as identical ones on the opposite side of the road. Having said that, the survey had revealed that most of the residents had been there many years, so houses didn't come up for sale very often.

The first draft of the Planning Representation was now ready and it was checked for accuracy, as inevitably any submission would be carefully scrutinised by the legal team acting for the residents of a neighbouring property. They were regularly in contact with the planning officer with queries or further challenges relating to the planning application and the procedure, thus ensuring that all their clients' concerns, which appeared to be increasing, were fully addressed.

Cllr Wally Woolf discovered that another Council required their residents to obtain permission from the Health Department before sinking boreholes on their property and that permission would only be granted on the following conditions: - The storage pump, tank etc are subject to approval by the Town Electrical Engineer, and the Council reserved the right to withdraw its consent at any time without compensation to the owner if the Council should establish that the borehole water was polluted and / or posed a health hazard. The public were also asked to note that borehole water could be polluted, particularly in areas previously served by septic tanks.

It seemed important to obtain written confirmation, on whether there was a requirement for the borehole to be constructed in accordance with legislation, from some higher authority. Richard Macrory's statement that planning permission was normally required for boreholes, since it constituted an 'engineering' or 'other' operation under the definition of 'development' in Town and Country Planning Act 1971, seemed to be substantiated but the planning officer had not acted when informed about it. Although the Act was repealed, the subsequent Act echoed the same meaning of 'development'. The Building Act 1984 Part 1 also appeared to make the sinking of a borehole subject to the Building Regulations as if it is piped to the home it would constitute a service.

Enquiries to the Legal Executive of the National Association of Local Councils revealed that they suspected that some form of planning permission should have been sought prior to digging the borehole but they were unable to confirm this one way or the other.

David Lidington, the local MP, was asked if he could confirm if there was any relevant legislation. He agreed to make enquiries regarding the research findings with the Department for Communities and Local Government in London. He wrote several weeks later enclosing a response from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State who advised:

'The sinking of a borehole would normally require planning permission from the relevant local planning authority. However, Part 22 of the Town and Country Planning [General Permitted Development] Order 1995 states that – "Development on any land during a period not exceeding 28 consecutive days consisting of the drilling of boreholes...for the purposes of mineral exploration"... is permitted development, ie planning permission is not required. However, Part 22 also identifies a number of circumstances where this permitted development would not be applicable, i.e. if it was proposed to be carried out within 50 metres of a residential building.'

She wrote that these matters were far from simple. However from her letter it appeared that if a borehole was to be carried out within 50 metres of a residential building then it would not be included under permitted development, which was interesting news. [It is the author's belief that this could have been stipulated in order to prevent any possibility of contaminating the underground aquifer by drilling through ground possibly contaminated by leaking foul drainage pipes or cesspits.]

In May the chairman of the Burials Committee sent her own representation to the planning officer. With it she sent the results of the survey of the Hamilton Road residents and explained that she believed that some objectors had inaccurate perceptions of what the Memorial Garden and Burial Ground would look like when finished.

Writing in response to the complaint made about the methods used to collect signatures for the petition, she said that she was present at both venues with other councillors ascertaining whether people wished to support the petition in favour of the burial ground. The majority of people who she spoke to were very well aware of what they were signing; making comments in relation to the problems they'd read recently in the local press and in the Council's CROSStalk newsletter, which was delivered to every household in the town. As with any petition there had been a small minority who didn't wish to sign for various reasons. Some cited they didn't wish to see good land 'wasted' on the dead or felt that cremations were 'greener', apparently unaware that these involve the use of diminishing fossil fuels and with possible toxic emissions. However the overwhelming response had been of positive support for the new burial ground.

In response to the assertion by an objector that there was an alternative more suitable site, she gave all the details that she had put to the Town Council [see Chapter 12] which she felt completely justified the Council's ultimate decision to not pursue it.

In response to the concerns that had been expressed regarding the permanent dampness of the ground and the 'self-filling' property of a pond in a neighbouring property, she agreed that she too would have concerns if this were happening around her house. However she wrote to say that she believed that the cause would be more likely to have been due to defective plumbing and drainage relating to the property rather than to any spring. The property concerned had been built in the mid 19th century and many buildings of that age would originally have had a well in their garden as the benefits of mains water and sewerage had not arrived at that time. Any plumbing to remove wastewater and sewerage would be likely to have been of low quality and possibly defective, as there were no building regulations or much guidance for builders concerning this at that time. She gave details of Pridgin Teale's book 'Dangers to Health: A Pictorial Guide to Sanitary Defects'. The author, writing in the late 19th century, had demonstrated with diagrams all the consequences of plumbing defects being found in homes built years after the property concerned was thought to be built. It included diagrams showing how people ended up drinking sewage in their well water due to cesspits leaking into wells. It also showed how additions to houses constructed over forgotten drains resulted in permanent leakages and smells, pipe joints leaking because of the use of putty or clay instead of cement, pipe joints giving way because of subsidence [the objectors had stated that their property had suffered subsidence] causing leaking into nearby areas and many other defects caused by lack of knowledge or low quality building work. There were likely to be no drains shown on any plans of the property concerned, as these would have been added after it was built. She noted that there was evidence of old sanitary works [colloquially known as a stink-pipe] at the end of their drive and wondered what arrangements were in situ before that was installed. She queried if the owners were aware of the location of any old cesspit, cesspool or soakaway in their garden.

Concerning the new borehole she wrote to say that, under the circumstances, if she was the owner of this neighbouring property she would be most concerned about possible drainage pathways from soakaways passing through an old cesspit, filtering down the outside of the newly installed bore hole and contaminating the water table. She would also be very reluctant to visit a home using well water in case there were any microbes in the water such as acanthamoeba, which could lead to blindness in contact lens wearers. She believed that the water supply from this borehole should be disconnected from the house and kept for garden use only or preferably closed up completely to ensure that no future owners of the property or visitors were inadvertently put at risk. The former mains supply remained available and must clearly be a preferable source of water.

She concluded saying that the proposed burial and memorial facility was the result of many years of voluntary work by many councillors in an effort to replace the now full churchyard and to provide a vital piece of infrastructure for their town. The consultation process had been far more comprehensive than any undertaken previously and that at least one of the current objectors was a willing participant to the extent of providing her own design for the cemetery initially. She sincerely hoped that the Planning Committee would look on the application with favour and enable the Council to complete the facility, which had already been given consent in principle.

As there was still no positive action from WDC concerning the possibility of legislation being usefully employed to help progress the determination of the planning application, Graham was invited to a Burials Committee meeting to help the committee decide its next action. Enquiries had revealed that a planning lawyer had quoted £700 - £750 to confirm or otherwise the legality of a borehole. Graham suggested the Council should not be trying to prove anything to WDC or the EA, as the Council was perfectly entitled to ask them to investigate the position and ensure that all was in order. The Council should advise that creating a well or borehole appeared to be a development for which planning consent was needed and ask them to show that consent was obtained or why consent was not necessary, either under the General Development Order or in some other way. In parallel the Council should invite WDC to fulfil its public health duties by verifying that the water was fit for human consumption.

In June the architect sent a long representation to WDC detailing public support, commenting that between January 2005 and May 2006 five different residents had opposed the proposals and eighty-seven had supported it. With regard to the tests they seemed to confirm the earlier thoughts of the EA that the ground wetness within the objectors' garden [hence all their moss] was most likely to be caused by a broken drain or overflowing soakaway. E. Coli was always of animal origin. It would seem likely that the new borehole would be drawing foul water from their leaking drainage system for use in their drinking water supply, and also discharging the foul water into the underground aquifer, there being no other obvious animal source for the E. coli. His representation included much more besides.

An enquiry to the planning officer, about the date the application would be determined, proved to be futile as he wouldn't commit himself to any of the next three meetings in August and September. This was a concern to the Burials Committee as, if the delays continued over 5 years, the Change of Use planning permission obtained in 2002 would be invalidated. This concern was also raised at the Main Town Council meeting at which the Press were present. The clerk undertook to contact the local MP and a local district councillor concerning this. The district councillor responded, having spoken with the planning officer, to say that the officer was awaiting the final views from the Environment Agency and then he would put together a report that would need to be checked by the Legal Department before it could go to the Development Control Committee for consideration.

The formal response from the EA to WDC indicated that if the borehole were not considered there would seem to be no problem. The planning officer then wrote to the Council's Environmental Services Division for their formal comments. A further phone call revealed that the planning officer was now hoping to get the application determined by October.

The officer in the Environmental Services Division had three large files of details to work through before he could produce his report. It was eventually submitted and recommended the refusal of the Council's application because of the presence of the borehole in the neighbouring property. This was in spite of the fact that he had been given information that the neighbouring borehole was installed without planning permission or building regulation control and that microbiological tests had indicated that the groundwater was already contaminated with bacteria.

Councillors were very disappointed that the officer failed to take the opportunity to recommend closure of the borehole on health grounds. They also hadn't received a written response to a letter sent to the planning officer advising of the regulations regarding borehole construction. Councillors conferred with their district councillors and with Graham, who had offered legal advice. This resulted in details being shared with the district councillors of all the relevant statutes and the microbiological report showing the contamination of the ground water, and letters being sent to the Chief Executive, Head of Planning and the Planning Enforcement Department in WDC.

Discussions also took place as to whether it would be expedient to send in a further application for a variation relating to the 2002 permission. Mr Stratton had recommended that, even though the Council had been given a date for the application to be considered, they should still proceed with the variation application. If WDC hesitated to approve the variation, it would certainly suggest they were dragging their heels. He felt also that it would make the Development Control Committee's decision easier.

At a local meeting on another issue a district councillor informed the architect and some councillors that if the Council wished to pursue the original 2002 application they would have to withdraw the current 2004 one, and added that WDC were determined to refuse the application. It was evident that if the Council withdrew the 2004 application and got nowhere with the other they'd be back to square one and would let the town down. The situation needed to be clarified.

The architect therefore arranged to meet the planning officer to discuss the matter, and clarify the best way forward. The planning officer was relieved to consider the submission of a separate application linked with the 2002 application to change the entrance only, as the County Highways engineers had already technically approved all the issues regarding that. He went to see his Legal Department and, as a result, the Council approved the new submission to be progressed. If it was successful it would give the Council access to the land and the architect could then withdraw the 2004 application, and make a secondary application for the revised layout of the land. Also the objectors could not pursue a Judicial Review if it was approved.

Cllr Hall, the Mayor, felt that if the result didn't go in the Council's favour, then the next step should be the national newspapers, as this would have implications for every future burial application in the country.

In early November the architect submitted a request to WDC Planning for the construction of an access from Long Hide, as an alternative to that permitted under 02/05430/FUL [Use of land as burial ground and memorial garden for which permission was granted in 2002] and variation of Conditions 3 [gates and fencing], 4 [turning area] and 5 [access] imposed on 02/05430/FUL. It was an Application for removal or variation of a condition. WDC responded saying the application had been allocated reference number 06/07707/FUL and the Council was informed that it would be presented to the Development Control Committee in February 2007.

The Planning Department immediately received a thick wad of objections from a firm of solicitors plus a further petition and a number of letters from other objectors. There was a query about the legal validity of the latest (06/07707/FUL) application but the architect was able to confirm that it was made in accordance with clause 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, not clause 72. He was applying not for a change of use, but for an amendment of the specified conditions in the application 02/05430/FUL. There had been a request by the objectors for an extension of time to respond to the latest application (06/07707/FUL), but the architect felt that they had introduced more than enough delays to dealing with the current application (04/6138/FUL) which had been awaiting a decision since 2004, and was still to be determined, without dragging this latest variation application out any longer. He hoped that the planning officer would not agree to extend the statutory consultation period.

Responses to the Council's letters concerning the borehole arrived from the Environmental Services Department and the Planning Enforcement Department. The former advised that they had no authority to close the borehole. There were no bacteria present due to on site treatment of the water at the objectors' home. They added that even if the tests did reveal the presence of an elevated contaminant they did not have the authority to enforce its closure under current legislation. It was a private dwelling and as such its private water supply was carried out at its own risk – at this time there was no risk to public health. The situation could change in the future should the house become tenanted or should a food supply business open at the premises.

The Planning Enforcement officer wrote giving his reasoning for why he believed a borehole was permitted development saying that the aim of a borehole was to provide water for the dwelling and in his opinion this would be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, adding that a borehole was nothing more than an enclosure, given its location within the curtilage of the dwelling and size, and he concluded that it was permitted development. Readers can look at the relevant legislation, which is reprinted in Appendix 3, and draw their own conclusions.

Although the situation was generally looking very unpromising, at the Estimates Committee meeting in November £21,490 was agreed for 2007 - 2008 to progress the facility should planning permission be obtained.

In December a district councillor advised that he had seen the planning officer that morning and that the application [06/07707/FUL] was going to the Development Control Committee on the 7th February 2007 with a recommendation for approval. However it was known that a top barrister would be speaking against the application at the meeting.

2007

There were a number of objections lodged against this most recent application regarding the access to the site by the beginning of January.

On the Council's web site, for those residents of the town who were interested in following the saga, details were given of the new application, which had been submitted for the construction of an alternative access to that permitted under the original application of 2002, along with variations of the original conditions relating to fencing, gates and the turning area in the car park.

The architect made a submission in response to the issues raised by the lawyers representing some residents who objected to the proposed Memorial Garden and Burial Ground. Many of their objections had been repeated from those raised against the 2004 application and were not relevant to the recent one which was essentially a variation or amendment to the original 2002 Change of Use application which had already been granted planning permission.

However the lawyers had raised their concerns about the legal validity of the recent submission, which the Legal Department at WDC felt might be justified. With this in mind it was decided that the 2004 application would be presented to the Development Control Committee instead.

This caused renewed concern for the Council as they had been assured that the 2006 application would be recommended for approval but suspected that the 2004 one, with all its associated problems, would be recommended for refusal as it was known that the Environmental Services Division had recommended refusal, and that the EA's Guidance Document would lead them to object on account of the nearby potable supply of water. However despite these, when the planning report was published on the website, there was a recommendation for approval.

On the day, the hall was packed with both objectors and supporters of the application. A barrister had been employed to represent the objectors and gave a very full account of the objections in the limited time at his disposal. This was followed by Cllr Gary Hall, the Mayor of Princes Risborough giving details of the long history of finding a suitable site, the current lack of new grave plots in the town, and urging the committee members, on behalf of a large majority of residents in Princes Risborough, to follow the recommendation of the planning officer and grant approval for the planning application.

Following the members making observations and discussing various issues relating to the application, there was a unanimous decision by the Development Control Committee to approve the application. Whilst for the Town Council and their supporters this was wonderful news, there was an appreciation that this was not good news for those who had objected, and that the construction and maintenance of the burial facility should be undertaken with consideration for their feelings as far as possible. However it was felt that when they actually saw the completed development, it would assuage their initial concerns.

Chapter 16

Formalities

2007 - 2008

2007

In February the Burials Committee had finally achieved the most elusive of their objectives, acquiring full planning permission for the burial facility. There was a short period of elation before members came down to earth to deal with a few more issues. These included requesting the architect to deal with any planning conditions, to produce detailed plans and documents for tender purposes, and obtain some quotations for the Council to consider. This would enable the final costs to be clarified. The Council would need to appoint a contractor, arrange for the transfer of the land into public ownership and arrange the financing of the facility. It would take another year before the work could actually begin.

A planning condition stipulated that no part of the development could begin until the new access had been sited and laid out in accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the County Council's guide note 'Commercial Vehicular Access Within Highway Limits' 2001. It further said that the Council would have to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to comply with the requirements of this condition. A minimum period of 8 weeks was required to draw up the agreement following receipt by the Highway Authority of a completed Section 278 application form.

This was an expense that the Burials Committee hadn't budgeted for. The Council had to undertake to pay the legal costs for Bucks County Council [BCC] as well as its own, plus a bond of £5,000 was required. The architect had made enquiries to progress this before the approval was actually given in order to try and minimise any delay in getting started with the actual construction.

He advised committee members that it would take four weeks for him to prepare the specifications for the works. To avoid unnecessary expenditure these had not been done previously, as there had been no certainty that the Council would receive planning permission. He explained that he had to make some minor modifications on the plans to meet the planning conditions and needed to confirm certain items with Wycombe District Council [WDC].

At the March Finance Committee it was proposed that the Council make a new application for borrowing from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM] for funds to develop the Memorial Garden and the Town Council later ratified this. However the Finance Committee later required further information on the actual amount needed so the architect was contacted again but he advised that he was unable to supply a definitive figure until he received tenders for the works.

It was queried with the planning officer whether some enabling works could be undertaken whilst waiting for the Section 278 agreement to be completed but he advised against this. The architect contacted the Health and Safety Executive [HSE] to ascertain whether the Construction [Design and Management] Regulations 1994 [the CDM Regulations] applied to the project.

As it was an offence under Section 151 of the Highways Act 1980 for vehicles to carry mud on to the public highway, there needed to be provisions for the contractors and their employees to clean the wheels of their vehicles before leaving the site. With the landowner Anne Stratton's agreement, some works would be required to enable this facility to be available. There was already a water supply to the site from her house and she agreed for the Council to place a meter on it as a temporary measure until a permanent independent supply was established.

A chance meeting with Harry Henley, a very public spirited local plumbing engineer, resulted with his offering to undertake some work in her garden, enabling the existing water supply to a trough in the paddock to be metered so that there was a supply of water available for the contractors. At the same time he installed a tap in her rear garden to replace the function of the one that was situated on the land she was donating. It was really gratifying to know that others were willing to volunteer their services and help to progress the project. This required several days of heavy voluntary labour on his part digging deep through roots to locate and expose piping and make relevant connections. Rob Wooster also gave some valuable help with the digging.

At one stage it was thought that local contractors would be used for smaller works such as fencing and tree felling but in the end it seemed more practical and cheaper for one contractor to undertake all the hard landscaping along with the necessary tree felling, and another to be responsible for the fencing and soft landscaping.

At an informal Burials Committee meeting in March the chairman, while waiting for progress to be made by the architect, proposed progressing some of the smaller aspects of the scheme, so that these could be ready to implement as soon as the main construction was completed. She was also aware that there needed to be a fairly accurate forecast of sundry costs in order to calculate the financial requirements for the project and produce estimates for the budget for the next financial year.

Requirements, such as various signs and notice boards, waste bins, composting container, spiked flower containers, watering cans and rack, gardener's tools, hosepipes, locks and keys, would need to be identified, a suitable choice made and prices obtained in readiness for later purchase. Sundry works would lead to additional costs. These included the installation of notice boards and signs, painting numbers on kerb edges to mark grave plot limits, and the preparation and placement of guides to enable ashes to be placed within a grid system in the grassy areas by the trees so that their location could be accurately identified. Estimated costs would be required and suitable contractors located in readiness. A tracking system for unmarked interments also needed to be investigated and a company invited to demonstrate it.

It wasn't planned to purchase any seats as it was felt that members of the public would be keen to do this. However the chairman, who had regularly made checks on the Council's seating stock as a member of the Town and Lighting Committee, was anxious to ensure that any seats purchased for the Memorial Garden would be of a type that would not require constant painting, repairs or cleaning as she considered there was nothing worse than seeing a seat which was too dirty to sit on, or one which had been placed in someone's memory but really needed to be dumped. She wished to see the use of recycled plastic or metal seats and there were a number of manufacturers providing these. Following a suggestion from the committee an album of suitable choices was created for use by relatives wishing to sponsor a seat.

The architect needed some further points clarifying and attended the April Burials Committee meeting, which was also attended by the consultant who was going to oversee the soft landscaping. Both she and the architect advised that they would have tender documents covering works over the whole site ready to send out as soon as the Section 278 agreement had been finalised. It had been agreed by all that, to avoid disruption in the future, all the roads and paths would be laid at the same time. A borehole system was included to provide for the watering requirements of the site with a number of water points positioned throughout the gardens. At this meeting the architect was formally designated as Planning Coordinator.

The clerk was asked to contact the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils [BALC] to enquire whether there were any standard terms of contract available for the landscaping consultant. She also dealt with queries from the solicitor concerning the Section 278 agreement and advised the Council's insurers of the forthcoming works.

The architect advised that when the site was handed over to the contractors, it became their responsibility for all insurance, Health and Safety, and welfare requirements, and that councillors would have no right to enter the site without the contractor's permission during the construction period. He also gave an update of the tortuous processes involved with the progress of acquiring the Section 278 agreement. Apparently the legal issues were now completed but not the constructional ones. These were to take many more weeks.

The local funeral directors were contacted to enquire whether their gravedigger provided his own safety covers for open graves and whether the Council would be expected to provide any other items for their use.

At the June Burials Committee meeting the architect issued draft copies of the Contract Preliminaries for the hard landscaping and guided the councillors through the decisions that needed to be made, offering advice when requested. He voiced his concerns about the lack of visitor covered accommodation and toilet facilities and the clerk was requested to place this issue on the Town Council agenda for the full Council to discuss. [However at their next meeting, mindful of the extra costs and not wishing to place too heavy a burden on the local council taxpayers, councillors agreed to stand by their earlier decision and defer these until a later date.] A time scale for progress was discussed and it was agreed that the tender documents for the hard landscaping would be completed and ready to send out by the second week in July. The deadline for their return would be 14th August and the architect would evaluate them and advise the Council at a meeting to be held on the 21st August 2007.

It had been agreed that the clerk should obtain quotations for loan repayments on £200,000 and £150,000 over 30 and 40 years, but at an Extraordinary Town Council [ETC] meeting in July a councillor proposed that discussion on the terms of borrowing for a loan should be deferred until a firm Business Plan had been agreed and that the Council should approach a professional company with expertise in producing one. The Clerk was requested to urgently obtain three tenders for this project. At this meeting councillors also discussed and made decisions on a number of items raised by the Burials Committee regarding the Contract Preliminaries Document and other issues.

The chairman of the Finance Committee had suggested that the Council look at external funding options, saying that it might be possible to obtain a grant. The chairman of the Burials Committee had responded to this by sending details of all the approaches she had made to grant giving organisations during the years 2003 - 2005 [detailed in Chapter 19] and advised that she didn't think the project would qualify for a grant anywhere although she'd be very pleased to be proved wrong.

In mid July came the news that the Section 278 agreement had finally been completed and the architect then sent tenders to four companies. Two responses were received by the required date but were, unfortunately, rather high, at £330,000 and £386,000. The soft landscaping costs, administrative costs and sundries would be extra.

A further ETC meeting was convened in August to discuss the quotations. All agreed they were too high to consider. At a meeting between two members of the Burials Committee and the architect, he proposed some changes to the specifications to help reduce the costs. Omitting the roadway extension into phase 2 and the paths in that area could result in further savings.

After all the problems that had beset the project in earlier years, this concern regarding the cost didn't seem to be insurmountable. The main thing was to get the project started so that the residents of the town could avoid having to use the facilities of distant cemeteries. The knowledge that the congregation of St Mary's Parish Church had managed to raise a considerably larger sum for their extension helped to put things into perspective.

At a further ETC meeting in early September, councillors considered a number of options to reduce the costs for the hard landscaping. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed to reissue the tenders reducing some of the specifications, omitting some special kerbing for placing cremation plaques and phase 2 of the project, and separating the work into two contracts [external access and internal works] which might enable the Council to employ local contractors for the internal work. The timescales suggested would allow the Town Council to make a decision at the meeting scheduled for the 23rd October.

The architect proceeded to amend the specifications, and separate the work into two tender documents, one for the access that had to be constructed to Highway standards, and the other for the internal hard landscaping, and to reissue tender documents.

By September, an accountant had been chosen to progress the Business Plan. Although the Council had agreed that a Business Plan was required, there was not enough information available at the time as set up costs of the project were still not all known. The future income would be largely based on projected burials and cremation figures but, without knowing the size of the loan required and therefore the loan repayments, it would be difficult to set fees for services in order to estimate an income.

In the absence of any other offerings, the accountant was looking to use the figures gathered in 2005 by the chairman of the Burials Committee. He advised he would be charging £600 plus £250 for each review. He couldn't be specific over his final fee as final costs for the completion and operation of the burial ground were not available at that time and therefore further meetings resulting in revisions to the plan would be necessary. In addition fees for the services offered by the facility had yet to be agreed.

The Onyx Business Plan [referred to later in Chapter 19] was resurrected and updated with as many of the costs that were possible to ascertain at this stage, including guesstimates where the actual costs were yet unknown. The set up costs included the architect's fees, the horticultural consultant's fees, solicitors' fees for the Section 278 Agreement and the land transfer, the hard landscaping contract, soft landscaping contract, gates and their erection, other sundry works and a list of large and small sundry items for the facility and office. Ongoing costs would be estimated loan repayments, maintenance costs, administration costs etc. At a subsequent meeting the figures were passed to the accountant.

Some weeks later, upon the receipt of the tenders, they were opened by the architect in the presence of Cllrs John Coombs and Maggie Wooster, the chairman of the Burials Committee, and circulated to other councillors for inspection. Two contractors had quoted for both internal and external works at £183,669 and £219,580 and a third had quoted for the external works only at £18,540. These represented a potential cost reduction of over £140,000 that would hopefully be more acceptable to the Council.

The architect wished to discuss his fees and advised that works following a planning approval are normally charged on a percentage of the construction costs. Earlier in the year he had sought and received tenders for all the works to both phases 1 and 2. When the Council had considered these to be too high, he had been instructed to reduce the tender to cover phase 1 only and to split the tender for the works to BCC Highways standards for outside and amended specifications for inside.

He advised that he wished to charge 5% on the tenders, 70% of the aborted one, and 100% of the present one, which would total around £20,000. He advised it would cost just as much if he charged an hourly rate as he had previously been doing. In response to a query from Cllr Coombs, he advised that the Royal Institute of British Architects fee guidance on its lowest category for new works would be 5.75% on the first tender sum and 6.15% on the site works tender sum. The entrance access as a 'small works' contract would be approx 8.5% and the CDM Co-ordinator's fee would add 0.5% to each of the above contracts.

This was rather more than expected but the Council were consoled by the fact that the lowest tender received against the 1st instruction was £330,574 whereas the lowest tender received against the 2nd instruction totalled £146,905 less at £183,669. As his fees exceeded the budget of the Burials Committee the Council agreed that his invoices should be paid from the reserves.

In October, the Burials Committee agreed that the soft landscaping budget should be limited to £50,000. This would include tree work, hedge work, screening, some planting, and fencing, and consultancy fees. The consultant would be asked to quote for the planting areas A, B, C and N, [covering most of the first half of Phase 1 and all the hedging] and, upon receipt of the quotation, the committee would then be able to ascertain whether additional funds were available from the agreed budget of £50,000 in order to add any further planting areas to her remit. The landscaping consultant's Terms of Engagement were agreed for recommendation to the main Town Council. At that time it was also learnt that the Council's solicitors had finalised the transfer of the land from the donor.

At the October Town Council meeting it was agreed to apply for approval for borrowing up to £400,000 and to employ a clerical assistant for 10 hours weekly to help with the increase in work, partly from the local District Council and partly in anticipation of the extra duties in connection with the Memorial Garden.

Also, after due consideration, councillors agreed on the contractor to be appointed for both the access and site work. The Clerk was requested to write to the architect to advise of this decision and to add that the contract would be confirmed when the Council had received a public works loan.

The Council also sanctioned a request for an immediate payment to be made to EDF Energy. This was another unbudgeted expense of approximately £2,500 regarding a proposed electrical connection to the site. The architect advised that it was essential, if the Council decided to proceed with this work, that the full sum was paid as soon as possible, as the service provider would not place the quoted works on to their works programme until the money was received, and the Council would not be able to agree programme dates with them so that the work could be co-ordinated with the work on the access, which would reduce the disruption to the local residents.

The architect requested some last minute input from the Council to tidy up a few queries, and two members of the Burials Committee went along to see him.

The contractors would have some preparatory work to undertake before the project could be entered into their works programme. It looked likely that the hard landscaping work would be able to commence in January 2008 and hopefully be completed by Easter.

The end of the year was approaching and the annual budgeting for the Estimates Committee was due. It was known that the first year's loan repayments would definitely need to be paid from the precept because there would be a period, from when the loan was raised until after the construction of the site was completed and the site formally opened, when the Council would be unable to receive income. There were also other concerns for the chairman of the Burials Committee. She had a number of proposals to be placed on the committee's agenda, which would clarify the soft landscaping consultant's remit which had been altered a number of times. However as the annual estimates required a lot of attention there would not be a Burials Committee to consider these until January.

In November the Burials Committee agreed a budget for 2008 - 2009 after the architect had confirmed his charges. Further to their discussions and recommendation, an ETC meeting took place in December where a figure of £250,000 over 20 years for the loan was recommended to cover the costs of the hard landscaping, soft landscaping, signage etc. All present agreed.

Shortly afterwards the clerk was able to confirm that the Secretary of State had given the Town Council approval to borrow an amount not exceeding £400,000 and that she would apply for the agreed loan of £250,000, repayable over 20 years, which would enable the contract for the hard landscaping work to be confirmed and progressed.

2008

The clerk advised the chairman of the Burials Committee that Longwick Parish Council wished to know what contribution would required from them in respect of the new Memorial Garden as they were considering their budget for 2008 - 2009 the following week. This wasn't a simple request. To provide a figure, the chairman needed to know whether they wished to pay to allow all the people of Longwick to use the Memorial Garden or whether they just wished to pay for those in the part of their parish who didn't have access to the Ilmer churchyard.

The numbers involved would be required, and then could be used against the total number of people in Princes Risborough, Monks Risborough and Longwick combined, so that a proportion of the costs could be calculated. If they decided to only pay for those people living in the part of their parish who didn't have access to the Ilmer churchyard, the Council would need to know the actual roads involved and the number of people living there, and these would have to be revised when any new growth occurred in Longwick in that area.

The actual costs to Longwick if they decided to join in financially were also debatable. They could include any or all of the following: -

\- A proportion of the yearly costs of servicing the loan

\- A proportion of the yearly costs of the ground maintenance

\- A proportion of the yearly costs of administration

\- A proportion of all the past expenditure on investigating the site

The chairman was willing to work out the sums involved for each scenario if figures could be provided for her to use. The clerk responded to advise that she would contact Longwick Parish Council and try and see what their thoughts were.

The reduction to the specifications for the hard landscaping had resulted in the removal of special kerbing for memorial plaques for cremations from the remit of the contractors. Enquiries were therefore made concerning suitable kerbing that could be placed next to some of the planting areas, so enabling the bereaved to have a focal area to visit and place flowers. The resulting choice would also enable measurements of appropriate plaques to be detailed in the regulations.

At the first meeting of the Burials Committee in January, the agenda contained a number of items concerning the soft landscaping requirements that needed to be clarified. Cllr John Coombs proposed that it was recommended to the Town Council that a 'Project Team' be set up to oversee the actual running of the project, outside of the Burials Committee.

The Team would be responsible for the production of a Gantt chart detailing all the proposed works, their approximate timescales and budget, the day-to-day contact with the Contractors and Architect, along with problem solving, should any need arise. The minutiae of detail would be agreed through regular meetings with the various contractors and the Team would report back on a regular basis to the Town Council by written reports, detailing progress and compliance to timescales and requirements. In this way it was assumed that the Town Council, through this Team, would keep good overall control of the Project, and not meet with any unexpected additions to work and thus an increase in costs.

He further proposed that all remaining business on the Burials agenda except for one item be postponed until after the Town Council meeting. After a long discussion a vote was taken and all present agreed, the chairman rather reluctantly.

A letter from the architect to the Council, which was imparted to the committee, related to the duties of the CDM Co-ordinator, the role he was to undertake on behalf of the Town Council, as requested by the members. There still needed to be a clarification as to who would sign the contracts, as the Town Council would be the 'Employer' and also the 'Responsible Client Member' under the CDM regulations. After a short discussion it was proposed that the town clerk, as the authority's Legal Officer, be appointed the signatory on the contract and also sign as the client member under the CDM regulations. All present agreed.

The remaining item was to clarify the amount that Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council might be expected to contribute towards the costs and maintenance of the Memorial Garden. They had expressed an interest in joining in with the project for approximately 15 years and more recently had been represented on the Burials Committee by one of their councillors, Cllr Ian Walker. Since the date of their first expression of interest they had earmarked an amount every year in their reserves as a contribution towards the costs involved in exchange for a right for their residents to use the new Memorial Garden.

After discussion, it was considered by all the members that it would be unnecessarily complicated to calculate the percentage of the costs to date, future costs and maintenance costs. It was proposed that the Burials Committee recommend to the Town Council that Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish residents pay the 'out of area' rates and that no contribution would be expected from the Longwick-cum-Ilmer Parish Council.

The Chairman of the Burials Committee was disappointed about the lack of decision regarding the soft landscaping consultant's remit. Over time various changes had been made with relation to fencing, the extent of planting required, tree work [some now being included in the hard landscaping contract], mounding, edging [which should now be included in her remit]. It would not be fair to expect the consultant to mind-read what the Council wished her to do, or seek quotations for something and then add extras, omit bits or generally change the requirements. Unless she was actually given some definite instructions she might well assume that the Council wished her to do everything according to the original landscaping plans.

The chairman had put many hours of her time into the project and her name was heavily linked to the project through her regular updates in the CROSStalk newsletter. She felt that any omissions would reflect on her input and would have preferred for all the relevant decisions to have been made and passed to the consultant as she would be abroad until the beginning of March, when the construction would be well on its way to completion.

The landscaping consultant would need to be approaching contractors before then and getting quotations in for the work, in order to ensure that work on the soft landscaping started as soon as the hard landscaping work was completed.

The loan of £250,000 was finalised on the 15th January with a slightly lower rate of interest at 4.58% repayable by two half yearly payments of £9,610.08 over 20 years.

Due to her absence the chairman of the Burials Committee missed the January Town Council meeting. At this meeting the Town Council agreed to the proposal to form a Project Team, outside of the Burials Committee, to oversee the actual running of the project, and Cllrs John Coombs, Reg Orsler and Pamela Williams put their names forward to be members. Cllr Orsler was elected chairman.

The construction of the long-awaited burial facility was finally due to commence on 18th February, a date that appropriately coincided with the donor, Anne Stratton's birthday. Councillors therefore arranged for her to receive some flowers. It would hopefully be a period of deep satisfaction to all those who had put in so much of their time into the scheme over the last 17 years.

Chapter 17

Construction and Earlier Work

2002 - 2008

The actual construction period did not take six years but a large amount of preparatory work had taken place beforehand due to the constant expectation that full planning permission would soon be granted. This earlier work is included for completeness.

2002

Following the granting of outline planning approval in February, the year was spent consulting with members of the community to produce a design plan for the layout of the site, and obtaining agreement from the Council for the architect to base his work on this plan.

2003

The members of the Burials Committee subsequently met with the architect to discuss and agree on specifications, including the entrance, car parking area, a loop road, paths, areas designated for different burial options in phase 1, with grave plots sized 9 x 4 and a half feet, a formal garden area, service connection points, outlines of proposed buildings, a storage area, boundary fencing and general landscaping requirements. His point of contact was agreed to be the chairman of the Burials Committee who would liaise as necessary. Some input would be required from a landscape designer and the budget allowed £500 for that purpose.

A check was made with Wycombe District Council [WDC] to clarify the amount of detail required for the shrub beds. In response it was learnt that they would need to know the size, species and density of any planting. Where boundary hedgerow planting was required, it was to be planted as soon as possible so that it would have time to establish and provide a useful screen before the area near to it needed to be utilised. Subsequently enquiries were made with the local Horticultural Societies to see if they knew anyone who would be willing to give some input regarding a planting scheme.

An enquiry also went to the Association of Burial Authorities [ABA] to learn whether fixed reference markers were required to be included in the plan details to enable accurate location of individual grave plots. Path edges are useful for this purpose and it was learnt that it was possible to mark plots with computer chips to be read by hand held tools and even satellite navigation.

The architect requested a Management Plan so he could ensure that everything was included on the plans. The chairman produced a draft and following a committee meeting, where the members discussed it, and a few changes were made, it was passed to him.

The resolution of the access problem had been dealt with this year but concerns expressed by residents put the brakes on any further progress.

2004

In the absence of local input, quotations from various garden designers had been obtained and one was selected to make a detailed planting scheme. He was very efficient and produced a comprehensive planting schedule giving full details of all the planting requirements, including the numbers and sizes required in each area. He had created a theme of blues and yellows that promised to look very attractive. Requests for price lists of their plant products were then sent to three nurseries belonging to the Horticultural Trades Association in order to get some idea of the potential costs.

None of them could supply all the plants listed at the required sizes, and their prices were variable. Using all the information, the site was split into a dozen or so areas, listed A to N, and a list of plants and trees and their prices for each area of the site was produced. The highest and lowest total prices were calculated for each area in order to ascertain how many areas the Council could afford to include in the initial planting. Five options were then produced. The first option included most of the areas in phase 1 and essential planting elsewhere, and was estimated to cost between £12,270 and £18,713, depending on the supplier. If chosen this would mean that the memorial garden would look attractive right from the start. The other options gradually omitted more areas with the minimal option costing between £6,845 and £11,157. These figures were required in order to try and estimate future expenditure.

A risk assessment had been produced for the committee and had been examined and approved by a qualified Health and Safety officer.

It was agreed by the Town Council that the site, which would include a memorial garden as well as being a burial ground, would be named the Stratton Memorial Garden after the generous lady who was intending to donate the land.

2005

A horticultural consultant would be required to be in charge of the soft landscaping when the work eventually started and the architect approached three people for quotations for this work. The designer who had produced the planting schedule was included but it was thought the Council would be better off working with a local consultant. A lady from the local area was eventually chosen. She was a fully registered member of the Garden Designers Association and had 10 years experience. She provided three excellent references and it was agreed that she would be recommended to the Council, to be appointed for this work once the planning permission had been obtained.

In June, having been advised that the planning application for the project was to be considered this month, it was proposed that the architect be appointed for the role of pre-contract Planning Supervisor for the Memorial Garden project so that the Council could proceed without any further delay should it be granted. This is a legal requirement under the Health and Safety legislation and entails assessing the hazards involved with the works and carrying out a risk analysis and, on completion of the work, checking the maintenance manuals.

2006

Due to the need to concentrate on further investigations required by WDC and the Environment Agency, no progress was made this year.

2007

This is detailed in the previous chapter.

The chairman's suggestion of using a temporary access to the site, in order to lessen any inconvenience to the nearby residents in Long Hide, had been raised but the farmer concerned had earlier expressed doubts so this was not progressed. Work continued on management issues and preparation of Rules and Regulations [detailed in Part 2], also on smaller issues and requirements in order to ascertain estimates for the following financial year.

2008

The January Town Council meeting ratified the proposal for a working group to oversee the construction phase. Three members of this group headed by Cllr Reg Orsler, who was also the chairman of the Finance Committee, subsequently met with the architect and the horticultural consultant. The horticultural consultant then set about preparing tender documents to send to two contractors, which she had recommended to undertake the soft landscaping work. The contractors undertaking the hard landscaping, along with some tree surgery, commenced work on 18th February 2008, having sent letters to Long Hide residents to inform them of this. The Council received monthly invoices from them, which were paid for from the loan.

On Cllr Wooster's return from Australia in March, she was invited to join the working group. The architect was monitoring the works. The contractors were making good progress with the construction of the access, car park, internal road loop and paths, and completion was due by the end of May. On a visit to the site it was noticed that the quarter circles and associated straight lengths of kerbing at the far end of the site, enclosing the areas intended for the installation of back to back memorials and for the bereaved to use for planting, as desired by many respondents in a questionnaire survey years previously, had been filled in with hardcore instead of soil. After photos had been circulated of what had been designed and the chairman of the working group had had some exchange of emails with the architect, this problem was rectified.

The existing site boundary was overgrown in places, with odd seedling trees here and there, and huge tree limbs growing through the boundary fencing. In some areas a lot of clearance was needed in order to accommodate the planned new hedging which would screen the site from neighbouring properties in the Aylesbury Road. The hedge work would have to wait until the autumn. It was also evident that much of the grass would need reinstating as the excavations and contractors' vehicles had inevitably damaged it.

A little later, the horticultural consultant received two quotations from the contractors she had recommended. The total of the lowest quotation, cost of plants and her fees by far exceeded the planned budget of £50,000. She had also sent a list of the plants that she intended to order. When this was examined, it was noticed that it included planting for the whole site at a cost of over £22,000. On contacting the consultant it was learnt that she had already got the plants on order from two nurseries and that a number of them were being bought in from abroad and all over the country.

The planting list was revised, reducing the numbers of plants by a total of 898. This would allow for a consequent large reduction in not only the cost of the plants, but also the labour costs involved in planting them.

The contract documents and quotations from her recommended contractors were inspected. They didn't include any edging to the borders, which would enable them to remain in pristine condition once memorials were eventually placed against the perimeter of the planting areas. Also not included in the quotations was the required extra close-board fencing. The consultant suggested that once a decision had been made on which contractor to employ, the successful candidate could be invited to meet and discuss where costs could be revised.

The working group met and agreed on the contractor, made some revisions to the work required and agreed on the revised plant list. Extra fencing and the edging were put on hold until the group were sure that they could afford to proceed with them. The consultant was advised of the changes and asked to obtain a revised quotation for the work.

In her response the consultant advised that she and the contractor had decided not to put mounds, as shown on the plan, for the planting areas and that the large heap of soil that had been retained for this purpose would have to be removed, which would have to be added to the quotation. This caused a further headache as it was known that Miss Stratton, the donor of the land, was in favour of this type of contoured landscaping, and the future placement of memorial plaques around the edges of the borders depended on them resting at an angle so as to allow for rain to run off. An email was sent to the consultant to advise her that the working group had not made any decision to no longer put mounds in the planting areas and that they still required them to be placed in the areas as specified on the plans, with an explanation as to the reason.

An update on the status of the new borehole and pump was requested from the architect who advised that it had been installed and had been tested using a temporary generator supply. A permanent connection to the electricity supply was still awaited and he advised that he had made an application for a meter to be fitted.

The soft landscaping contractor's revised quotation was for £41,000 and the revised cost of the plants was estimated to be £13,000 and these together with the consultant's fees came within the original financial limit of £50,000 once the VAT was reclaimed. Thinking of the need for watering facilities to be available when the plants arrived, the group requested the clerk to chase up the electricity service provider as an electricity supply to the pump would be required in order to utilise the borehole water.

At the end of May the working group met the soft landscaping contractor on site, as he was about to commence his remit. Also present were representatives from the hard landscaping contractors and the architect. The hard landscaping was now complete and looked good. The future security of the site was discussed as the temporary gates were about to be removed. This was resolved very conveniently by the foreman making a phone call and getting permission to sell them to the Council.

A discussion took place regarding the requirement for mounding and the group were reassured by the contractor that it had been included in his quotation. He toured the perimeter of the site with Cllr Williams and Cllr Coombs and they advised him of what was required.

During the period of construction, the working group met regularly. Reaching agreement on some issues was a long and complicated process, involving periods of research, reference back to the Town Council for opinions, waiting for quotations etc. and, for clarity, certain issues have been recorded complete, but out of chronological sequence.

The team involved with the soft landscaping were making very quick progress and, following a phone call from the consultant, £13,000 worth of plants arrived at the site and an evening visit was made to look at their condition. They were lovely plants but very dry and, as the weather was unseasonably hot, they required regular watering.

It was at this point that it was discovered that two of the valve chamber covers, which overlaid the chambers containing tap connections to the bore water, were unable to be located. Also, despite the architect and the clerk chasing up the service provider, the electrical supply had still not been connected to the pump house. Fortunately a resident in Queens Road kindly allowed the group to connect the pump to his electricity supply, which enabled the site to be kept well watered until the site electrical supply was connected. He also supplied water when there were other problems preventing the use of the borehole water.

The watering was heavy work and had been made more difficult by the delay in the connection of the electricity meter and the disappearance of two of the valve chamber covers. When they were eventually located both the valve chamber covers were completely covered by soil that had been spread over them and one had been actually damaged by heavy plant compressing it deeper into the ground buckling the sides and bending the pipe within. Although it was still working it was now lying very low in the ground and would require building up to ground level.

Also, the mysterious interference and disappearance of a tap in another chamber temporarily prevented use of the bore water as, when the pump was switched on, the water drained straight into the valve chamber with resultant lack of pressure from any other outlet. If the tap had become loose itself it would have fallen to the bottom of the chamber but once the water had been drained out, the chamber was found to be empty. Cllr Wally Woolf, who could be relied on to sort out all sorts of problems, fixed a new tap to replace the missing one so that the borehole water could be used again.

As the supply from the borehole at any one time was limited to about 2 hours if only one hose was used, watering needed to be undertaken twice a day in order to give all the plants and trees an adequate watering. Due to the heat the smaller plants would require watering in the evenings but the trees that required more water could be safely watered in the morning. The borehole was a godsend once it was established, but it was quite a task dragging the long lengths of hosing that were required to reach all the planted areas, even once all the valve chamber covers were located and used. It became obvious very quickly that there would not be sufficient water to cope with watering new turf as well so it was arranged with the contractor that the turfing would wait until the autumn when the weather was cooler.

It was ensured that all the plants were regularly watered, with help being sought from other councillors, family and friends to cover the two daily watering periods. At first there was quite a good number of volunteers, including members of the general public, who lightened the load for the working group, and every single session undertaken by someone else was greatly appreciated.

Despite all the help from volunteers the dry spell was prolonged and it became increasingly difficult to ensure that people were available for every occasion. It was agreed for a young lad to do three evenings per week for two hours a time on a temporary basis. A draft procedure for him was produced. His help was much appreciated but after he'd taken his planned holiday it wasn't long before the rains came so he was invited to do some weeding instead.

The switch in the pump house had been accidentally left on one evening, which had led to initial problems with the pump [rectified by Cllr Woolf] and lack of water the next morning. It was decided that standpipes should be acquired at some stage, along with a connecting hose to nearby water butts, as the public could then use the butts for water requirements, whilst the pump supplying the standpipes could be switched off to prevent future problems to the pump should the standpipe taps be left on.

Meanwhile research took place on alternative kerbing that would be suitable for the placing of small memorial plaques. Some was found on a web site situated in a distant crematorium and the manufacturers were identified. They provided a very reasonable quote which was much more affordable than the initial submission from the hard landscaping contractors.

Progress of the works continued to be monitored by the working group and, at their meetings, various issues discussed. There was a need to get the mains water connected to the site so that the temporary supply from Anne Stratton's garden could be removed. An estimate would be required so this could be considered at the next Estimates Committee.

The stables, which were situated on the site, were regularly discussed. It had been assumed that they would eventually provide useful storage space. Miss Stratton had recently had the roof repaired and, although there were areas that needed attention, they had been well built and were generally quite serviceable. Following an inspection of them during a site visit, the working group agreed to recommend to the Town Council that some quotations for their renovation be obtained before any decision could be made regarding their future.

Once the Council had agreed to this approach, some names, along with a list of requirements, were passed to the clerk to seek quotations for the remedial work and a number of contractors were invited to view the stables and submit quotations. Unfortunately these were rather higher than had been hoped for and for this reason were not progressed.

Some members thought that the stables should be demolished and that a custom-built building should be considered. It was decided that the concrete base needed inspecting and measuring for size and a rough plan produced of the required building. Further quotations would be required for removal of the stables and erection of the new building. The issue was referred back to the main Town Council and some suggestions were put to the councillors.

Cllr Coombs had investigated and visited dealers specialising in timber framed buildings and suggested the erection of a log cabin style building on the old stable base. One option would incorporate a storage space and a room that could be used by visitors as a waiting room or a shelter from inclement weather. The other would involve a larger building that would house the Town Office and a meeting room, for Council committee meetings, large enough to be more comfortable than the existing arrangement.

There were differing views and no decision was reached. However, in the light that the Council would be unable to commit council taxpayers' money to the erection of a building that no-one could agree on and that some sort of decision would be required if the stables were to be dealt with in the following financial year, a suggestion was made that the newly formed Memorial Garden Committee consider recommending to the Council that the stables be repaired for the time being until a decision was reached. Some attention to them was necessary for Health and Safety reasons and this would allow those who wished to see their eventual replacement plenty of time to find out exactly what would be most acceptable to the majority and whether planning permission was possible. To demolish the stables without an agreed plan for their future would be a waste of useable space and money.

Some agreed that a 'mend and make do' option would make sense, given the time constraints for Estimates and the length of time it would likely take to reach agreement on what everyone would like to have in their place. Others said it would be throwing good money after bad. In the event no money was allocated for the provision of a new building when the Estimates Committee met and the stables were later repaired.

Another item under constant review was the gates. Residents had requested wooden gates but, on investigating these at local outlets, it was discovered that the required width would cause weight problems and the Council was advised that metal gates would be more suitable. It was decided that they should be hung on metal posts. These would have to be placed to a depth of four feet for stability, as the gates would be very heavy, spanning a width of five metres.

A number of Internet sites were investigated and a number of quotations for the supply of the gates were obtained. These were discussed and arched estate gates that cost £1,607 including VAT, which was considered to be a reasonable price, were chosen. It had been discovered that automated gates, which would have been ideal, were approximately £4,000 more expensive so these were not selected for this reason.

The gates were ordered and once they had arrived on site, quotations were sought from the soft landscaping contractor and others to install them. After some time waiting for all the quotations to be returned, a highly recommended local contractor was chosen to erect the gates, and to place some double-sided fencing up to them, in order to correct the look of the fence at the entrance.

Subsequently a visit was made to the site to indicate the position the gates should be placed. It was then discovered that there was a problem with the camber of the access area. The chairman of the working group contacted the architect to arrange that he meet the contractor on site to discuss this before the gates were erected. As the ground dipped towards one side, one of the gateposts needed to be lengthened to allow for enough stability. Although the gates were hung excellently, the sloping ground made the finished effect less than ideal.

The obvious answer was to re-grade the road surface in such a way as to make the gap under the closed gates uniform and acceptable. However this problem has been revisited by the Council on a number of occasions but as yet has not been satisfactorily resolved.

Turning to another issue - some means of a permanent fixture was required to enable accurate plotting and location of graves. The working group had discussed this and originally had agreed to the idea of using marking posts as can be seen in some other facilities. The architect had provided details but later, after the group had agreed to the installation of edging and kerbing around the planting areas, this obviated the need for marking posts, as plots could be accurately located by measurement from a permanent edge.

Twice daily visits to the site were continuing, to water the plants and trees and, during these visits, councillors made notes of a number of concerns they wished to raise with the contractor. These were detailed in a letter to him with a request for a meeting. A self-employed gardener, who was helping with the watering, advised that bindweed, which was rapidly invading all the ground, needed eradicating before it strangled the plants and, as the contractor didn't turn up when arranged, gave his time on a number of evenings to carefully treat the areas between some of the plants where it was particularly troublesome. A local contractor was asked to treat the area where the turf was to be laid to ensure that the area was treated adequately as early as possible. The landscaping contractor did eventually deal with a number of the problems identified.

Suitable kerbing, which could be used for fixing small memorial plaques, had previously been identified. Further research had been undertaken to locate suitable edging to place around the borders of the planting areas and, once the working group had looked at the available options and prices and agreed the specifications, the clerk was requested to seek quotations from a number of local contractors to purchase and install them. A careful plan was made showing all the areas where the edging and kerbing was to be installed along with the measurements so that the contractor who would be undertaking the work could check these.

A meeting was arranged once the quotations had arrived to choose a contractor as the installation of the edging needed to be completed before the turfing, which was due to be laid in three weeks time. A local contractor, whose work was regarded as excellent, was chosen to install the edging and kerbing. Once he commenced, it wasn't long before the group were alerted to a further problem. He had discovered that the layout of a number of the planting areas had not been done accurately and it was necessary for him to move soil and plants so that the grave plots in the area would be of the required length. The edging was completed quite quickly but the kerbing was a special order and would take a little longer to arrive.

Following some weeding, mulching of all the planting areas was completed in August and the gardens started to look good. A tree specialist was invited to come and look over the trees, both the existing ones and the newly planted ones, some of which were giving concern, to give advice concerning their continuing care and their protection from visiting wildlife. The working group had decided to use hornbeam for the hedging and provided figures for the clerk, who was requested to take this forward with the contractor. She was also asked to obtain a quote for installation of mains water and some means of dealing with sewage, as there was no connection available outside the entrance to the site.

The Memorial Garden Committee agreed on a list of work requirements to be included in the tender documents for the maintenance of the facility and for the clerk to obtain quotations from three local contractors. The Council's yeoman had already done a rough cut of the grass in the second paddock and a general weed of the planting areas. A poster was circulated advertising for someone to work 10 hours weekly in the Memorial Garden.

The local undertaker was invited to visit the site and was shown around and, in late October, before the site was finished, submitted a request for a funeral to take place there. Permission was sought and obtained from the Planning Department, as work was still progressing with the installation of the kerbing, and there was no turf laid yet, the turfing and hedging work being due to commence in November, and there were other outstanding development requirements. However the Council was anxious to help the bereaved family. The funeral took place and two councillors were invited to attend.

This first burial changed the paddocks from a construction site to a burial facility, even though it was unfinished. Two further burials quickly followed. The Council had finally achieved the long-term goal of replacing the churchyard at St Mary's, which had been unable to provide new grave plots for a long time.

The turfing was completed at the end of the year and the working group then made arrangements for the clerk to progress the hedging, having previously provided her with full details of the requirements.

The working group was dissolved near the end of the year with larger outstanding development issues to be dealt with by the full Council. The Memorial Garden Committee was to progress other aspects such as setting out areas for composting and the storage of topsoil, external grave plot marking, getting a mains water supply, the purchase and installation of notice boards and directional signage.

In November the chairman circulated a list of sundry items to the members and at their next meeting the committee agreed for their details and specifications to be passed to the clerk to order. The list included a dog waste bin, litter bins, wheelie bins, spiked flower vases for use by the bereaved and a wire basket to hold them, watering cans and a rack to hold them, a wheelbarrow [as requested by the gardener], plastic seats [until some were provided by sponsorship], various tools, mulch mats for the trees in phase 2 and water butts and connectors. The clerk was also requested to progress the installation of a standpipe and connections for filling the butts to enable the bereaved to have a supply of water for their flowers.

A lock for the pump house was also requested to protect the internal switches from intruders. Items such as the ASSETtrac marking system, leaflets, stationery, and an electronic Book of Remembrance were included in the Estimates for purchase the following year.

Apart from these, after years of searching, dealing with major problems, much planning and plenty of stress, it was finished. The Council could start to concentrate on other issues.

Chapter 18

Conclusion

One of the reasons for writing this record was to share the experience of the Town Council's work and how problems were overcome, and to share the mistakes that were made and the lessons learned so these can be noted by other Councils seeking to provide a burial ground.

For Princes Risborough Town Council, this was a journey into the unknown. For many years the Council was rather insular in its line of action to the problem and once professional help was approached it may not always have been to the most appropriately qualified people. There was probably a lot of guidance 'out there' but it was not immediately obvious where to look for help. In fact in the past there was probably no need to go searching for help as it would have been easier to acquire a site with a smaller population and burials would have been placed in the traditional rows from one corner of the site to the other.

The serving councillors were a mixture of ordinary people working for the benefit of the community. None were paid. They brought along their own individual talents and experiences. The author was a State Registered Nurse and had an Honours degree in Psychology. Neither of these qualifications was of help in the work she was to undertake. Her two main talents were having faith and persistence, leaving no stone unturned. She also had shortcomings and wasn't a born leader. Councillors all had 'other' lives that limited the time available to use to resolve this problem, and there was a multitude of other local issues to consider and deal with, some quite time-consuming. For many years the shortage of burial space seemed to councillors to be a problem for the Church rather than the Council as, under the legislation, it wasn't a statutory duty.

Once the reality of the task had hit home all the people involved went through a steep learning curve, coping with all the situations the Council faced. Mistakes were inevitably made, some of which could have been avoided. This is not a comprehensive guide as to achieving a new burial ground and the author is no expert in the subject, just willing to share this Council's experiences so that others looking to find a site and establish a new burial facility may know that it is no simple task. A few tips follow:

Finding a Suitable Site.

It is very important to remember that time waits for no one. If it is known that the local churchyard has a limited life, start acting as soon as possible. From the time that the Council seriously started a search for an alternative burial ground, it took well over 20 years to achieve the objective. The eventual development of the Stratton Memorial Garden would have been less stressful if there had been no urgency linked to the task. Publicly allocating the task to one person or small working group with a personal interest in the task will hopefully ensure that they will have the motivation and commitment to see the task through to the end.

An elimination survey was found to be very useful. Large-scale maps of the parish were obtained showing each possible area that might be used. Fields were numbered and gradually eliminated for reasons explained earlier in the book. This provided a way of focussing on the problem and a method of progress.

The site must be owned by a willing seller. To make a decision about a particular site without an owner who is willing to cooperate is futile. Getting a particular site allocated for burial purposes on to the Local Plan is of no benefit either. If an owner does not wish to cooperate, there is no point in trying to change the situation, as a lot of valuable time will be wasted.

Compulsory Purchase should be avoided at all costs. The experience of a local Parish Council was that their District Council would not undertake this action on their behalf anyway. It can be a very lengthy procedure, the costs are an unknown quantity and could be huge and there is no guarantee of success.

Acquire information from people with the right knowledge. In the early years the Council paid for a local solicitor to find information on finding and acquiring a burial site. He issued a list of requirements but this did not produce all the answers.

The need to ascertain that the ground conditions are likely to be acceptable to the Environment Agency is vital and should be the first investigation to be made with regard to any site. Getting an informal opinion will save money being wasted on expensive tests. An officer from the Environment Agency was willing to give an informal opinion, and enquiries with the British Geological Survey were helpful also.

The presence of gas mains, water pipes, and overhead electrical wires should be checked, as these would reduce the available area for burials, as well as possibly creating an eyesore. A proposed by-pass crossed one site that the Council were hoping to use. A check with the County Structure Plan would be useful if this might be a possibility.

An informal opinion should be sought regarding the suitability of any site from the Highways Department of the County Council and the Planning Department of the District Council before spending money on other investigations.

If there is more than one area that might be suitable, the public would appreciate a survey to ascertain which site they prefer. This enables the Council to act knowing that they have public support.

Once a Site has been found

As soon as informal investigations with the Highways Department, the Planning Department and the Environment Agency have revealed that there would be no serious problems with the site, be open with the local residents. Princes Risborough Town Council was accused of being underhanded when they had maintained confidentiality about a previous site being considered when information gradually leaked out.

Princes Risborough Town Council organised a public meeting to give information about the site and gain the general support of the electorate. Their support is vital should there be objections raised by a small minority of people. Residents living close to the proposed site were sent personal invitations to the meeting. At the meeting the public were able to look at photographic displays, a plan of the site location, and an architect's representation. A video was shown of a Memorial Garden, which the author and the owner felt would be the most attractive way of developing the site. Acetates were displayed on a large screen showing a number of problems in cemeteries that the Council wished to avoid, and a questionnaire survey concerning design options was given to all attendees. This questionnaire was also circulated to all the properties in the parish within the parish newsletter.

At the public meeting, it would be wise to record on tape everything that is said. During question times there is often some banter and, following the public meeting, the Council was accused of being disingenuous, an objector alleging that they had said that the chosen site would have 'hundreds' of houses on it should it not be used for a burial site. A member of the public had actually spoken these words.

Consultation with the public is important. Apart from the questionnaires regarding design preferences, residents living near the proposed site nominated two representatives to convey their concerns to the Council. Also further photographic displays giving options for various aspects were displayed publicly and there were response sheets for people to use. Six consultation meetings were arranged for people who wished to give further input into the design. The chairman of the Burials Committee also made herself available to anyone who wished to know more or express any concern.

The Design

Looking around other cemeteries and churchyards is useful as it makes one aware of maintenance difficulties and Health and Safety aspects that might be best avoided. The design of the Stratton Memorial Garden was developed to allow for choice, as indicated by the responses received from the questionnaire survey; also with thought for possible future reburials, ease of grass maintenance, consideration for the outlook of nearby residents, and for it to be an area that people would wish to visit for relaxation. A large area near the entrance was left available for use for gardens or features that future generations might like to include.

The consultations and surveys previously undertaken with the public were very useful in producing a design that would please as many people as possible.

Liaison with the local undertakers, the local clergy, the local planning officer, the local MP, local residents and the local District Council was useful during the development of the design. The final design was shown to the donor, the nearby residents, the planning officer, a cemetery superintendent from Oxford and the local undertakers to ensure it was suitable for all. However one vital person was omitted. Once the Memorial Garden was up and running, the gravedigger required vehicular access to be as close as possible to the graves and extra slabs had to be laid across a circular grassed area to enable this, so ensure that he has a chance to view the design. Access to the top end of the site was fine in summer months as he could circumnavigate the developed area and reach it via the second paddock, but his truck required a hard surface in the winter and a planned hard surface in the 'reception area' had been omitted. He also queried how he was going to get his digger into the correct position to dig the top row of graves.

One councillor had been appointed as the point of contact with a professional consultant. With hindsight it would have been preferable for two people to be present during all such contacts, including agents and contractors, to help avoid misunderstandings. When difficulties arise it is preferable to have someone who can come up with a different way to explain things and to have a third party who can help remember what has been said.

There might have been an advantage in having the services of a landscape architect to place the draft plans on paper, although, at the time of choosing the architect, there had been plans for a building on the site. The chairman would also have liked to have had input from the organiser of the 'Cemetery of the Year' award scheme or from Sam Weller, who had started writing a book on Cemetery Design.

If there is any sloping ground in the site be sure to tell the architect that the entrance area, especially where the gates are to be placed, must be level. There was an unwanted camber at the entrance to the Stratton Memorial Garden that was not obvious to see until the gates were erected. It affected the appearance of the gates with a large gap under one end and a small one under the other.

Dealing with objections

The Planning Authority is unlikely to grant planning permission unless all concerns expressed by objectors have been addressed. Progress will be held up while these are being dealt with. Therefore the Council endeavoured to work through each concern expressed. There is always some information available that can be used. A few examples follow:

A number of objections concerned possible congestion in the nearby roads caused by parked vehicles. A survey was performed by councillors between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm, some producing photographic evidence, which was dated and timed. This indicated that the congestion didn't occur at times when funerals were expected to take place. An estimate of the numbers of cars attending funerals was obtained from the local clergy. This revealed that the majority of funerals were not large and that the number of cars accompanying the hearse would usually be small.

Some residents feared there would be a constant stream of hearses passing their homes. Actual numbers of funerals were obtained from the local churches at the end of each year to provide an estimated frequency of funerals involving burials. At that time this was estimated to be less than one a fortnight. It was also pointed out that the householder would have to be actually looking out of their front window or be in their front garden at the time to notice a passing hearse.

One owner was very concerned about the likely devaluation of her property. A survey of people living next to Hamilton Road Cemetery in High Wycombe indicated that they had no concerns about living next to a cemetery and three estate agents confirmed that the properties on the cemetery side of Hamilton Road sold for similar prices to those on the opposite side.

The Council was besieged by what seemed like a great array of objections that have been detailed in earlier chapters. Some objectors seemed to be prepared to go to great lengths to try and prevent the facility being developed. However it is the author's belief that faith can move mountains. Everything is possible. Do not be deterred by anything.

During the construction phase

The development of the facility was accompanied by a sense of pressure to get it up and running as soon as possible. It would have been easier if a site had been found much earlier.

Ensure that whoever oversees the construction has a proper contract. This is very important should there be any concerns regarding the quality of the work undertaken by the contractors.

Be aware that contractors will need a supply of running water.

Ensure that the contractors know exactly what is required of them and that details are given to them in writing. Despite detailed plans produced by the architect, there were misunderstandings involving the hard landscaping contractors who were otherwise very satisfactory in their work.

For the soft landscaping, it is essential to use consultants and contractors that you know and trust. Do not accept recommendations unless you are absolutely certain of the reputation of the firm. Also if there are two people available who can spare the time to visit the site on a daily basis, this may prevent difficulties arising.

In retrospect the planting for the Stratton Memorial Garden might have been organised differently, with landscaping contractors being responsible for the initial soil preparation and only planting the large trees and shrubs, with supervision of course. The author feels that smaller plants could then have been ordered in separate batches and planted by local volunteers.

Thorough preparation of the soil before planting is essential. This includes primary weed clearance, especially bindweed. Only once the treatment has been shown to be satisfactory, should adequate rotavation of the soil take place, with the incorporation of compost if required.

Good quality plants are essential. Some that subsequently didn't thrive were found to be pot bound. Also it is important to ensure they are well watered from the time of their arrival on site and planted with care. Regular watering is also essential in dry weather. If it were not for the volunteers that came to keep the plants and trees watered over the following weeks, many of the plants could well have died.

Financial

Try to avoid unforeseen costs. They can play havoc with the budgeting. The Burials Committee were unaware of the costs of securing a Section 278 Agreement that was required in order to construct the access into the site. There had been no serious consideration of the condition of some stables that were situated on the site and smartening them up was an extra. Correction of the layout was another unplanned for expense. Service connections are all extras. There are also a large number of smaller items that will be required which can add up to quite a large sum.

If any unspent budget which had been allocated to the Burials Committee in previous years had been ring-fenced and allowed to accumulate, the total would have been very useful when the construction phase was about to start, and would have also resulted in a smaller loan.

Grants are available to enhance old burial grounds but no grant-giving body was found to provide any financial help for a new facility. Much time was wasted looking.

Get written quotations from all consultants and contractors.

Don't get involved with a Business Plan until firm figures can be provided to the accountant.

General

Be aware that diverse opinions on many different aspects of the project will inevitably cause disagreements and strained relationships. A thick skin is beneficial; the task is not for the faint-hearted.

Much work undertaken by the author has been omitted, as it didn't ultimately get used. Beware of getting bogged down with work in the effort of trying to make everything perfect.

Considering that the Council was under much pressure to get the site up and running as soon as possible due to the lack of alternative burial facilities, it is hoped that the local community will forgive any shortcomings or delays.

The future

We all wish for our loved ones to be buried in well-maintained pleasant surroundings. This will be the last resting place for many of the residents and it is the author's hope that someone will have the enthusiasm to continue to develop the Stratton Memorial Garden into a facility that can be considered one of the best in the country and fit for a National Award. Perhaps this would be made possible by volunteers or interested groups offering to aid the Council by helping with mundane tasks, such as looking after small areas, and the eventual establishment of a 'Friends of the Stratton Memorial Garden' group.

Towards the end of 2008 the author became less involved. The Memorial Garden was receiving burials and the clerk and other councillors took over. Since stepping back from the project and later resigning from the Council, there have been a number of additions and changes as other people with different ideas take over the responsibility for the facility. A number of original decisions have been revised. A later chapter details the original ideals envisaged by the author, most of which were accepted by the Council, but some not implemented. Maybe they will be revisited.

Thankfully, at the time of writing in 2011, the churchyard at St Mary's remains 'open', and cremations are still accepted. Although there are no empty burial plots, readers may be interested to know that an existing single grave was able to accommodate a relative at a later date.

The Stratton Memorial Garden in 2012

Courtesy of Peter Dixon

Another recent view of the Stratton Memorial Garden

Courtesy of Tim Addison
Epilogue

Readers may be interested to learn that, following her donation of the paddocks for the use of the community as a Memorial Garden, Anne Stratton subsequently received the Town Council's Citizen's Award. On learning of all her past activities for the benefit of the community and charitable work she was also nominated for a national award. The author was delighted to learn that she was subsequently awarded the MBE in 2010.

Anne Stratton receiving the Town Council's Citizen's Award

with from left to right

Cllrs Ben Benifer, Alan Turner, Gary Hall, John Coombs, Wally Woolf,

Reg Orsler, Pamela Williams, Eunice Clifford and Pam Summerbell.

Anne Stratton, the donor, Cllrs Maggie Wooster and Alan Turner [Mayor].

Taken in 2009 at the Inauguration of the Stratton Memorial Garden

Chapter 19

Funding Investigations

1999 - 2007

1999 - 2001

Attempts to reduce the financial impact of the provision of a burial ground on the local council-tax payers by making a representation to Wycombe District Council to change the status of Whiteleaf village and / or the Ragpit are detailed in Chapter 6.

2002

With outline planning permission having been obtained earlier this year, and with no inkling that there would be any major hold-ups the Burials Committee were looking at the issue of funding the proposed Memorial Garden.

In October Cllr Miv Hughes, who was then vice chairman of the Burials Committee, asked if any thought had been given to grants available under the Land Fill Tax Provisions. This query prompted the chairman to start making enquiries with the Onyx Environmental Trust [Landfill Grants], English Nature Sustainability Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, and the clerk wrote to the Public Works Loan Board to establish the situation with reference to obtaining a loan.

2003

Having read about their Special Projects Fund in the Chalk and Trees Newsletter of the Chilterns Conservation Board [CCB], an enquiry was made to see if the Council might be eligible for a grant towards hedging, trees and screening in the site as it was a planning condition that screening be provided. The officer felt that they should be able to help but needed a little more information and suggested a site meeting. The site meeting was promising but when the application form was studied carefully it was found that the CCB could not support a project relating to a planning condition.

An enquiry was also made to the Bucks Foundation who sent an application form for a grant. A subsequent application was unsuccessful. Following advice from the clerk, a search was also made at the Aylesbury Reference Library to learn of any other grant-giving organisation using 'A Guide to Local Trusts in the South of England.' However most either donated for a particular cause, or to a charity within a particular area.

Contact was made with the Priory Centre and Buckinghamshire Community Action [BCA] who provide a Funding Advice Service which included an adviser to discuss the project, access to computerised databases to help identify appropriate funding sources and schemes, information on applications etc.

The Chiltern Society who give grants for smaller items, such as direction signs, notice boards, hedge planting and management of non-native trees, were contacted but at the stage the Council were at they were unable to help.

The Rural Enterprise Scheme [DEFRA] was contacted to see if a grant was possible to reduce the call on the Council precept but the project didn't fit their criteria either and drew a negative response.

In December came an unexpected offer from two residents wishing to purchase part of the proposed burial site to extend their garden and secure their view for a large sum of money. This appeared at first to be the perfect answer. Although some councillors were in favour of accepting this offer, there was also a gut feeling that it wouldn't be the correct thing to do. The offer required much thought and a list of the advantages and disadvantages was initiated.

2004

At the January meeting of the Burials Committee, the pros and cons of accepting the financial offer were discussed. Although understanding the desire of the residents to protect their long-term outlook, the main Town Council later ratified the recommendation made by the Burials Committee to decline the offer.

Enquiries were sent to the Mobbs Memorial Trust and Slough Estates who were financing the overhaul of the Stoke Poges Memorial Gardens because, although their stated area of interest was Stoke Poges, it was known that they had helped a local church, but they were unable to help.

Enquiries were made with People's Places Award Scheme but, on receiving the eligibility form and guidance notes, it was learned that the Princes Risborough postcode rendered the Council ineligible, as it wasn't noted for being in a disadvantaged area. The People's Places Award grants were directed towards a project that would benefit disadvantaged people living in deprived areas. Also, a Parish Council, although consisting of councillors who were all volunteers, couldn't be considered to be a typical voluntary group so the Council fell short of fulfilling their criteria.

Progress continued with pursuing other possible grants to alleviate the extra expenses involved with developing and running a burial ground. Using a special computer programme called Funder Finder, and entering details of what the Council wished to be funded, the area of the project, the nature of the organisation and the amount the Council wished to raise, the search retrieved 176 potential funders and 30 were selected for printing with references to publications giving further details of each. On researching each one, most were eliminated due to the Council being unable to meet their criteria. Most grant giving bodies either donate for a particular cause, or to a charity within a particular area. There were grants available to renovate old cemeteries but no charitable body seemed interested in giving grants towards the establishment of new ones.

The problem of finding any grants to help with the funding of the new facility was discussed with Francis Gomme of BCA. The question of whether to place the future memorial garden and burial site into a charitable status in order to qualify for grant aid was considered and he suggested contacting the Bucks Associations of Local Councils [BALC] to enquire if other Councils had opted for charity status and, if so, what they thought of it. However, BALC advised that the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB] would not make a loan to a Parish Council if it were acting on behalf of a charity, and that the Parish Council itself could apply to the PWLB for a loan.

However, another important project involving the future of the former Berryfield School site was also now competing for attention and possibly funding with the Burials Project, in a climate where the parish precept was already one of the highest in the district. The Council was trying, with the Methodist Church and the Guinness Trust, to purchase the derelict site and were currently planning for a quality community hall together with a church facility and a range of low-cost homes on the site. This gave the chairman of the Burials Committee concern that any funding provided by the PWLB would be for this project rather than for the burial facility.

Enquiries led to a suggestion that the District Council might provide an interest free loan. A letter was sent to the Chief Financial Officer to enquire if this was a possibility. His response indicated that a loan might be possible but interest on it would be payable. Having read a notice in Hamilton Road Cemetery, which indicated that land for the Snowdrop Garden had been donated by Wycombe District Council a phone conversation with the Chief Financial Officer seemed encouraging regarding a grant towards the trees and access costs but eventually came to nothing.

An enquiry was also made to the English Nature Sustainability Fund [Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund] but the Council's project didn't fit the criteria for their help.

Around this time a draft budget for the total development was prepared in order to try to identify the size of the loan that would be required and the ensuing loan repayments that would be included in the budget for the following financial year. After a lot of research one was duly produced. It totalled £192,425 but Cllr Orsler, the chairman of the Finance Committee, didn't appear too fazed by it and it was approved at the main Town Council meeting, albeit with two abstentions.

However, there were problems causing a delay with the consideration of the planning application, which meant that a request for a Public Works Loan could not be submitted.

2005

The first communication with the Onyx Environment Trust in 2002 was not pursued, as it was believed that the local Landfill site did not fall within the criteria required. On discovering that it actually did, the chairman of the Burials Committee had written to the Onyx Environmental Trust in 2004 enquiring whether the Council's project could be considered for grant aid and a long saga had commenced concerning this line of investigation. For clarity it has been placed altogether but mainly spanned from January 2004 until October 2005. The detail has been included so that members of the public can see how much work goes on in the background and other Councils can decide whether applying for a grant is worth the time and trouble. One of their categories for grant aid was 'Projects that provide or maintain public amenities or parks' which implied that the Council had a good chance of success if an application was submitted.

The Access Statement was the first hurdle to overcome. This required an outline of the project and details of the nearest landfill site. This was then checked for compliance with the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and found to fall within the criteria. In February the chairman of the Burials Committee started working on providing responses to the questions required for the more detailed submission. She contacted Laurie Johnson of BCA in March to find out how much detail was required and a meeting was arranged in April when he was able to give some guidance. In May a 15-page draft was completed, sent to Mr Johnson and circulated to councillors for their comments.

A 3rd Party Funder was required for this particular grant to be progressed. The Landfill Tax Credit Scheme allows landfill operators to contribute up to 6.5% of their landfill tax directly towards environmental projects through a body such as Onyx, allowing them to claim a tax credit of 90% of the money given. The shortfall of 10% leads to a requirement for grant applicants to provide an independent 3rd Party Funder to reimburse this 10% to the Landfill operator through Onyx. The 3rd Party Funder could be a private individual or company but unfortunately could not be the applicant. Therefore enquiries were made locally to find someone willing to undertake this role.

The Council were specifically asking for a grant of £20,000 for the cost of the plants for the project, as plants, although very much in the plans, were not considered to be an essential element should finances be limited for any reason. A number of people had allowed their names to be placed on a volunteer list should their services be required and community help for the planting would have been advantageous in many ways.

By October all the councillors had seen the draft and it was proposed at the Burials Committee that it be recommended to the Council that the application be prepared for submission. This required a mass of supporting documentation, which wasn't immediately available. By January 2005 most had been obtained, and in February, after a year of intermittent work, the application was finally sent to Onyx.

The paperwork was returned to the Council in April with the news that there was now a new procedure and the Council would have to make a fresh application. The primary application form was rewritten and sent to Francis Gomme for scrutiny and he made some helpful suggestions, which were incorporated and the document was submitted. By the end of May it was learnt that the application had got through the first round and a further application form giving more details was the next step. This was tackled and required help from the chairman of the Finance Committee.

By the end of June the document was ready and sent to BCA where it was scrutinised again by Francis Gomme and Laurie Johnson. By July, following a number of additions and amendments it was sent to Onyx along with a thick wad of supportive documents, which the clerk had obligingly supplied. An officer from Onyx then contacted the chairman of the Burials Committee through the clerk to request some further information. He required a Business Plan showing projected income and outgoings for 3 years for the facility, and a Gantt chart relating to the development of the project. He also required a list of all the elements [plants] to be covered by the grant and their estimated costs, and this involved producing a spreadsheet showing all the plants required for each area and their costs and a plan of the site showing each area. Graham provided some valuable input with producing a Business Plan and by August, the officer had received all he required and seemed very encouraging about the prospects of the application.

However, after all the work that was put into it, the application was unsuccessful. The Onyx officer was very sorry but explained that they had received an overwhelming number of applications for funding and invited the Council to try again in 12 months. Lack of success may have been due to the fact that planning permission had not been obtained at that time due to delays caused while WDC and the EA were dealing with concerns raised by objectors. In retrospect the work involved was probably out of proportion to the amount of funding requested and not worth the countless hours spent on it.

News came to the Council that DEFRA was about to provide up to £100,000 to each of the English Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty to operate a Sustainable Development Fund that could be used to offer grants for local projects. After the wasted effort experienced in the past with trying to find a grant, this was not pursued.

Approval for borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board had been received and had to be extended every 6 months to remain valid whilst there was a delay with receiving planning approval.

2006

There were serious doubts as to whether the project would ever come to fruition and other issues were being dealt with this year.

2007

Once planning permission had been granted, the clerk made a fresh application to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister [ODPM], on behalf of the Council, for funding from the Public Works Loan Board [PWLB]. The Council paid for a consultant to produce a Business Plan, and sought quotations for the planned work and estimates of other expenses. By October the cost of the hard landscaping had been ascertained and the Burials Committee had decided to limit the costs of the soft landscaping to £50,000. With other anticipated expenses included, the Council was able to decide on the amount of funding that would be required to be borrowed from the PWLB. Following permission from the ODPM for the Council to borrow up to £400,000, the clerk applied for £250,000 repayable over 20 years which was finalised in January 2008 at an interest rate of 4.58% repayable by two half-yearly instalments. Thankfully this terminated the time spent investigating other sources of funding.

Chapter 20

Financial Planning

As the work on the site was progressing it was necessary to ascertain what charges would be made for the various services that would be provided. In June 2008 the Burials Committee agreed that the chairman would update her calculations and circulate suggested charges and estimated costs, which were required for the Business Plan and for when the first burial took place.

A basic requirement is to have some idea of the numbers of people using the service. These had not been easy to estimate, as there was no exact figure available. The chairman had collected burial and cremation figures annually from all the churches and had approached the local undertakers for figures but she knew that these would not necessarily provide an accurate picture of the situation.

She had also made an enquiry with the Office of National Statistics for deaths and they supplied a figure for HP27 [the area postcode] which was 141 in 2000, but HP27 covered a number of neighbouring parishes including Askett, Bledlow, Lacey Green and Loosely Row, Monks Risborough, Parslow's Hillock, Saunderton Lee and Speen, which were separate parishes with their own burial facilities. So this line of approach hadn't been very useful.

From the figures obtained from the churches, she worked out an estimate of the average number of burials and cremations that might be expected to take place in the facility each year.

As well as these she used figures obtained from the Association of Burial Authorities. At that time the UK population of 58 million people resulted in 645,000 deaths annually, of which 30% opted for burial. Princes Risborough had a population of between 8,000 and 8,500. The expected number of deaths in proportion annually would therefore be 89 or 95 depending on which figure was used. The estimated number opting for burials at 30% [the national %] would be 27 or 28. However the Draft Community Needs Assessment of January 2004 for Princes Risborough had found that locally only 25% were opting for burials, which would reduce the total.

Also it was still possible to use the churchyard if a predeceased spouse was occupying a double grave, or if it was desired to inter ashes there. As well as this, a large number of cremations would not necessarily lead to the use of the Memorial Garden for the subsequent interment of the ashes as relatives may prefer to scatter these in a favourite place.

Furthermore other factors could lead to a variance of an estimate. The overall numbers may be higher due to Princes Risborough having a larger proportion of elderly people than other towns, with 2,255 aged between 60 and 90 in 2001. Bird flu or some other natural disaster might also affect rates. The percentage opting for burial, rather than cremation, may increase should there be a significant rise in the costs of cremation, or if green burials and DIY burials become more popular. However, high burial fees to eke out the longevity of a burial facility, due to the increasing difficulties in establishing new burial grounds, may lower the percentage opting for burials.

Averaging between the worst-case scenario and the best-case scenario, this led to provisional estimates of 21 burials and 29 cremations, which was, for office purposes, 50 potential customers. It could only be a best guesstimate.

With regard to how to set fees the chairman made enquiries with other Burial Authorities regarding their charges and also contacted the Audit Commission, the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management [ICCM] and Hacker Young [one of the UK's Top 20 accounting and auditing firms] to see if they had any recommendations.

An officer from the Audit Commission gave some phone advice, which basically was that the Council could charge what they liked but he stressed that they shouldn't be seen to be profiteering from the bereaved. The response from the ICCM was that some authorities looked to recover all their expenditure through fees and charges whilst others chose to only recover a part, and that the real test was what level the market would accept. They suggested that one area the Council might wish to consider would be the arrangements made for lease periods on graves and memorial rights as the shorter the period, the more likely the Council would be able to maintain contact with owners, which was useful if there was an issue over graves or memorials, and this would also assist the cash flow. The officer from Hacker Young advised that the Council could charge such fees as it thought proper.

Bearing in mind the response from the Audit Commission, that the Council should not be seen to be profiteering from the bereaved, the chairman worked out charges for providing an interment based close on the estimated costs to the Council.

All the likely costs relating to the provision of interments were therefore listed. These included extra weekly staffing hours as these would need to be increased to cover the administration time for a number of tasks such as arranging an interment, attending an interment, and dealing with enquiries for the estimated 50 customers, and for someone to undertake monthly spot checks to ensure graves were dug to the correct depth and that the excavation procedure was safe. A task was allocated so much time and multiplied by the number of clients, or the number of occasions it would need to be done.

Administrative tools relating to the provision of interments such as stationery, special record books, site plans and computer software for electronic records were another cost. The site would require more security than other green spaces in the town, which was a further expense to consider. Lastly the charge should include provision for the grave to be levelled and re-turfed on at least two occasions so as to maintain the pristine appearance of the lawns following settlement of the ground.

The extra hours required for staff and the costs for the undertaking of the other tasks over a year were totalled and then divided by the numbers of clients expected to use the facility, with cremation charges being set lower on account of the reduced requirement for levelling and returfing of the lawns. It was expected that the charges would be revised once actual figures became available. An additional cost might be the provision of underground markers, once this system was acquired.

It was considered that the costs of the general maintenance of the site should fall on the precept in the same way as they did for the other green spaces in the town. These would be included in the budget for the Memorial Garden Committee, once quotations had been received. They would include maintenance of the lawns and gardens, hedges, trees, and regular removal of waste. Periodic expenses would need to be included, such as maintenance or replacement of fences, gates, replacement of plants, replacement of consumables, compost, mulching etc. Other regular expenses would be the Health and Safety checks, insurance cover, water and electricity and rates if applicable.

The chairman suggested that charges for the Exclusive Right of Burial and memorial fees, which were both optional, should aim to cover the costs of the loan repayments, bearing in mind that fees would have to reflect the greater amount of space used by a burial and a larger memorial in comparison with the burial of ashes and a smaller plaque or memorial. For cremations the amount of the memorial fee would also depend on the cost of providing the kerbing, should it be required to fix a plaque on.

The chairman thought that small markers placed into the planting areas for a number of years should not be charged as this would allow for a focal point for the bereaved to place their flowers and would encourage people to use the natural area under the centre line of trees [marked 'A' on the plan of the Memorial Garden – see plan in the following chapter] for ashes and not cause a run on space around the paths in the formal garden.

Sources of income were therefore from interment fees for burials and cremations, the sale of Exclusive Burial Rights and memorial fees, rated differently according to size of memorial. Other possible sources of future income could be consideration of prepaid sale of Burial Rights, with or without reservation of plot, donations from bereaved to purchase seats, trees, shrubs etc, fees for searches of, and provision of copies of records, and fees for entries into an electronic Book of Remembrance.

The suggested rates were discussed at committee and were accepted for recommendation to the main Town Council. It was also agreed to recommend that non-residents should pay double rates and that, on compassionate grounds, there should be no charge if the deceased was aged 12 or under. The practice of doubling fees for non-parishioners dates back at least to the 19th century. [Litten 1991, page 86].

The clerks would decide on the fees for searching of records and provision of copies.

The costs of maintenance had also been investigated. Cllrs Pamela Williams, Pam Summerbell, Wally Woolf and the chairman had visited the site to generate a list of the maintenance work that would be required there. The September meeting of the committee that year had agreed on their proposed list of maintenance work to be included in the approved tender documents and for the clerk to obtain quotations from three local contractors.

They also agreed to recommend to the Council that an advert, prepared by a member of the Burials Project Team be used in order to employ a gardener to work in the Memorial Garden for 10 hours a week, initially on a self-employed basis, with the opportunity of a permanent contract once the exact requirements were established, subject to suitability. The Town Council ratified this recommendation.

The estimated costs and income for the Memorial Garden for the following financial year 2009 - 2010 were circulated to the full Town Council, along with all calculations and other paperwork, and the Council ratified the recommended charges in October.

Outstanding sundries and work had been identified which enabled future budgeting to be identified. However the best-laid plans don't always lead to expected or evenly spread results, certainly over a short period. After a brisk start the numbers of customers didn't keep pace with expectations. This may be considered good news in terms of the sustainability of the site or less welcome news in that the precept would have to cover the shortfall in the cost of the loan repayments.

Chapter 21

Aspects of Management

There are a number of publications dealing with this subject and therefore this chapter only attempts to relate the chairman's thoughts on a few aspects relating to the establishment of the Council's new facility, which were considered by the Burials Committee, although not always implemented.

The Burials Committee had agreed some aims and objectives in response to a request by the Chairman of the Council some years earlier. These were:

\- To find and set up a new site for burials and cremations - planning, acquiring access and funding.

\- To produce a design taking into account the diverse needs of the bereaved, the wishes of the majority of the parishioners, concerns of neighbouring residents, landowner's wishes, undertaker's requirements, requirements of the clergy, Health and Safety needs of workers and visitors, consideration of development and maintenance costs, impact on future generations [visual, financial and sustainability] and get approval from the main Town Council.

\- To investigate management requirements and practices including policies/regulations, documentation, information leaflets etc and to establish a supportive group.

As the time passed and the protracted problem of finding a burial site to replace the churchyard came within reach, the chairman started to introduce various issues onto the agenda at the committee meetings.

Who will manage the facility?

At a Burials Committee meeting in 2003 it was agreed that ultimately a Management Committee should be set up to oversee the running of the burial facility. There were a variety of structures, such as employing an external manager, or setting up a committee using outside representatives, or having an internal sub committee of the Council, or a mixture of councillors and other outside representatives, such as the local funeral director or stonemason. A letter was sent to the Local Council Review asking other Burial Authorities if they would share their experiences, both positive and negative, and this yielded a number of helpful responses. The chairman also contacted a large number of local Councils and others further afield who had previously given helpful information, and the Buckinghamshire Association of Local Councils sent contact details of others who might be able to help.

The Burials Committee, having studied all the available information, eventually decided to recommend to the main Town Council that a new sub-committee of the Council be set up to manage the facility with a budget, as with other committees of the Council.

The subject lay dormant whilst the Council was dealing with concerns from objectors that were delaying the determination of the planning application. At a meeting of the Burials Committee in 2007, some four years later, after the chairman had proposed that the clerk should attend a training day in connection with the administration of the Memorial Garden, one councillor suggested the Council should get a professional manager instead of managing the facility itself, adding that neither clerk had any spare time. As there was no agreement the issue was referred to the Human Resources and Administration Committee.

The following week, whilst the chairman of the Burials Committee was discussing the subject with Graham, the legal adviser assisting the Council, Graham expressed his concerns about the idea of getting a manager, saying that the Council could delegate functions but not responsibility. He added that, if they were to decide to employ a manager, they would also have to train him/her, supervise that he/she was doing things as the Council wished, supervise that he/she was complying with all Health and Safety regulations; and the Council would be ultimately responsible for their employee's actions. He added that, with managing five recreation grounds, which the Council already did, the Council had most of the expertise they needed and that the actual numbers expected would not lead to too much extra work.

Consequently the chairman submitted a proposal to the Administration and Human Resources Committee:

'To consider the merits of employing a manager to perform some of the functions required for the Memorial Garden versus the merits of using the expertise of our clerks, Health and Safety officer and yeoman, and to recommend to the Town Council which route to pursue [Manager or in house expertise]'

She informed councillors of Graham's concern that, in employing a manager to run the Memorial Garden, the Council might be abdicating its role and passed some notes [below] to them.

Further problems of employing a Manager

\- Local undertakers advise this could lead to a conflict of interests if the role was delegated to them.

\- How would you employ a manager? If you pay them to do regular hours each week they may have no interments in one week and a lot in another. The Council may be paying for them to be idle one week.

\- What happens if they are sick, go on holiday or up and leave? There is a danger of the Council being left high and dry.

\- No one can monitor their work or spot any errors unless they have also been trained.

\- The public will still wish to approach the Council staff with enquiries [which they wouldn't be in a position to answer] and to sponsor trees etc.

\- Professionals usually come with high expectations regarding pay.

\- Don't know anyone local who is likely to have the relevant experience or back up support that our staff have.

\- There is a possibility of deceit if they are responsible for receiving fees and issuing receipts.

The benefits of keeping the work in house

\- The Council have the expertise [excellent office staff, computers, Health and Safety Officer and yeoman]

\- Knowledge can be passed on from one member of staff to another.

\- All details would be available in house for meetings and enquiries.

The Council are in charge and know what is going on.

\- Staff are answerable to the Council.

\- Email requests can be accessed from home and if registers are electronic then everything could be done from there with any member of staff being able to access requests.

\- The public would expect to be able to come to the office if there was something bothering them.

\- If another member of staff or extra hours were allocated, then at least they could be busy with other office work when there is a quiet period.

It emerged that the clerk was quite happy to take on the responsibility of administration and councillors agreed to recommend to the main Town Council that the clerk should undertake the duties and another office worker should be taken on, as there had been a steady increase of clerical work. The Council ratified these recommendations at its next meeting.

The Town Council had, in October 2003, agreed that once the Burials Committee had completed its task, it would be replaced by a new management committee. When the time eventually came in 2008 the committee was named the Memorial Garden Committee. [The 5-year gap was due to the delay in getting planning permission due to the need to address objectors' concerns.]

At a later meeting the chairman submitted her suggestions for the remit of the new committee. These were: -

\- To oversee the management and maintenance of the Memorial Garden

\- To set and review regulations annually and recommend to the Town Council.

\- To recommend fees and charges to the Town Council according to estimated forecasts of uptake.

\- To resolve any problems

\- Ensure adequate numbers of plots are available.

\- Continue with the overall development of the site.

\- Encourage the formation of a supportive voluntary group.

\- Recommend a budget annually.

\- To be aware of all relevant national issues and keep up with any training days available.

\- To ensure by regular visits and appropriate signage that no unwanted precedents are established in the Memorial Garden.

However there are always different viewpoints within a committee. After some discussion a reduced remit was agreed for recommendation to the Town Council.

Management Plan

This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of how the Memorial Garden would be managed. It is included just to show how the subject was approached.

In June 2003 the architect had requested a Management Plan so that he could ensure that the plans of the Memorial Garden covered all the future running aspects. The chairman produced a draft and, at a workshop with other members of the Burials Committee, this was checked and a few amendments made before it was passed to him.

The plan had 3 columns headed Task, Management Requirements and Site Requirements and seemed fairly comprehensive, in view of the fact that none of the councillors had any expertise in running a burial ground and were relying on input from a number of other authorities. Tasks included all actions [or choices] likely to be undertaken by the clerk, the bereaved, the gravedigger, other contractors and visitors to the memorial garden or any natural-occurring activity occurring there, including growth of trees, plants and grass.

The list of tasks covered everything imaginable that might occur at the site, from advertising the facility, ensuring it was safe in all aspects to watering plants etc., and was a useful tool in identifying items that would be required for the facility to run efficiently and for various facilities to be available as required.

It also enabled aspects of maintenance to be identified such as clearance of dead flowers and litter, emptying litter bins and green bins, cleaning of spiked flower vases, grass cutting, intermittent levelling of grave plots as settling occurred, tree care, care and replacement of plants, and appropriate plans and site requirements identified.

As there were a large number of shrubs and trees on the site, time was spent consulting gardening manuals and producing a document which included all the plants and trees, a description of each so that they could be easily identified, the recommended care for each one and the best time of the year to administer the appropriate care. Input had also been received from a professional regarding the care of the trees.

The Health and Safety Officer would cover the possibility of accidents, incidents, vandalism and general security.

Record Keeping

A number of companies advertising in the newsletters of the Association of Burial Authorities and the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management [ICCM] were contacted to acquire details of their digitalised record keeping systems in case the Council should decide to support their use. This would enable speedier communications with undertakers and could be accessed by staff working from home if required. A typical system would cost approximately £1,000 plus VAT at that time, which would include software, 12 months support and one day's installation/training. Support for subsequent years would cost a further £150 per year. Additional training was available at £295 per day but shouldn't be necessary. An officer at the ICCM gave details of a further company producing electronic record keeping, designed specifically for town and parish cemeteries and, on contacting them, they provided further details. At the same time alternative stationery requirements and registers were investigated.

Minutes of the Burials Committee state that it was agreed by all that both options should be available, and that records created online should be printed and kept in a relevant file. It was also agreed that the task of looking into software management options, should be passed to the clerk for follow up. The research details were subsequently passed to the office staff.

Stationery

The paperwork would have to cater for the fact that this facility would differ from other facilities in that it had been planned so that different areas were available to give the bereaved choice. The areas catering for different choices needed to be included within the stationery:

Area A denoted a green area for ashes only with no memorials

Area B denoted an area for burials within the formal garden area where small memorials would rest on the sloping edge of the adjacent shrub border along with flowers in a spiked container, if desired

Area Ba as for B but for ashes

Area C an area set aside for childrens' burials

Area D was for burials with double rows of back-to-back wedge-shaped memorials and opportunity to place plants within the kerbed area adjacent to the memorial

Area E was for green burials situated in an evergreen area

Area F was for burials where flush memorials would be used with no permanent flowers

Area K was a kerbed area to hold plaques where ashes could be placed, along with flowers if desired, in the adjacent shrub bed.

[Photos showing what areas B, D and F would look like are at the end of this section along with a plan showing the location of the different areas.]

In view of this, the Notice of Interment used by most Burial Authorities would be inadequate. The Burials Committee considered how to progress stationery requirements. The chairman had collected samples from a number of different Burial Authorities and had adapted them to cater for choice of location. It was agreed that she would email details to the other committee members and the clerks with this in mind. They were circulated with the expectation that once vetted and modified, they could be used as templates with the Council's logo placed on them. It was suggested that some, such as the Notice of Interment, if placed on the Council's web site, could be filled in on line by the funeral director and emailed direct to the Council, and thus be accessed by any of the staff. The clerk was invited to get them vetted by her colleague who had been giving her advice.

Following an informative day at Chesham Town Council, the clerks advised the Council that they had been provided with modified copies of Chesham's stationery to use if they wished. It was planned that the clerk would bring the samples to a Burials Committee meeting in July and recommend what they felt would work best for them. However, with so many other issues to consider this aspect was eventually left for the clerks to choose which was most appropriate.

Area B.

Area B. It was envisaged that there would be small stone plaques sloping up at the edge of the shrub borders something like this: The bereaved would be able to use spiked flower vases to place their flowers in the shrub border, thus adding colour, whilst leaving the lawns accessible to mowers.

Area D

Area D was designed to accommodate wedge shaped memorials sitting back to back as shown below. For those people who wished to plant flowers, the surrounding area could be used for this purpose.

Area F

Area F was designed for placing memorials sitting flush in the grass and would be suitable for people who wished to have a memorial but were not able to visit regularly to look after flowers.

Plan of phase 1 showing the location of the different areas

Accurate Plans of Grave Plots

Two councillors had measured the areas D, E and F to ensure that the space available for burial plots corresponded to the allocated numbers on the plans that had been produced by the architect. The architect provided some enlarged photocopies of each section where burial plots were located. One of these areas was scanned and modified in a computer programme to remove all unnecessary lines, and to add grave numbers and other information. A hard copy was passed to the clerk with an offer to do the same with other sections if requested.

With hindsight it would probably have been possible for the architect to transmit the whole plan to the office staff so this aspect could have been available electronically for their use.

The chairman had visited a large Memorial Garden where there had been a digital site location system available for visitors so they could accurately locate where to find a particular grave plot, and would have liked to have seen this as a future project.

Underground Marking System.

In order to provide an extra way of accurately locating unmarked graves, especially important where ashes would be placed underground in the lawns of the formal garden area, it was arranged to contact the representative of a firm manufacturing an underground marking system to invite him to come and demonstrate its use to councillors. A representative came from ASSETtrac and demonstrated the system, which was found to be very easy to use. All the councillors who attended were convinced of its usefulness.

Money was in the budget for this to be progressed and it was arranged that the clerk would purchase the system.

Electronic Book of Remembrance.

In a questionnaire survey undertaken with all the local residents in 2002, a large number of respondents had indicated that an entry into a Book of Remembrance would be desired [see Chapter 10]. The chairman had approached Dave Gregory, a computer expert, who was an ex-councillor with some ideas of how it could be achieved. He very kindly agreed to help and after a while sent a link to his mock-up on-line Book of Remembrance, which was passed to other councillors to try out and give comments. At the Burials Committee meeting in March 2008 members discussed and agreed to some changes and corrections to the proposed on-line Book of Remembrance. Money had been put aside in the budget to add this to the Council's web site.

However concerns were raised about the possibility of hackers getting into the site so the subject was put on hold while the chairman made enquiries with four operators who were able to give assurance that this was not a problem. She then sent some details, and links to other Remembrance Book sites, to the rest of the Council.

There were many reasons for wishing to progress this issue.

\- It would be inexpensive for the bereaved and could be viewed by all their friends and relatives worldwide.

\- For an extra small cost, a photo and an obituary could be added which would give far more detail than could be placed on a stone memorial.

\- The ambience of the facility would remain garden-like if there were a reduced number of memorials and plaques. Whilst there were areas where plaques could be placed for memorialisation of people who had been cremated, they were finite and if used up quickly would lead to problems and crowding later.

\- The ability to see a loved one's name remembered on an anniversary would be much appreciated by the bereaved - evidenced by insertions into local papers and in floodlighting sponsorship at the local church.

\- People would not be committed to looking after the upkeep of a memorial or regularly replacing flowers, which would benefit those who were infirm or living at a distance.

\- Long car journeys on anniversaries may be reduced or eliminated thus saving resources.

\- Information and photos of the Stratton Memorial Garden could be included on the site.

\- There appears to be a growing trend for this service. It would be a shame to deny people who first use the memorial garden the chance to select this way of memorialisation when it is possible that later users will be able to do so when this trend becomes more popular.

There appeared to be no disadvantages; Internet providers had advised that hacking was not likely to be a problem given that the sites had the normal security features. The Data Protection Act had been raised but was irrelevant, as the insertion would be made through the clerk by the next of kin who obviously would be giving permission by their very act of requesting an insertion.

Despite its very easy use, there seemed to be a reluctance to progress this further, which was a great pity as it would have been ideal for families who live some distance from the site, and much less expensive than memorial stones. In addition it would have brought in a little more income to the Council to offset the cost of the loan repayments for the facility.

Web Site Information

There were no problems with placing some details of the new facility on to the Council's web site.

An article giving some history and details of the different choices available was circulated to other councillors and subsequently submitted.

Publicity Leaflet

The chairman had visited Carlisle City Cemetery in 2002 and met Ken West MBE who was then the superintendent. She had been very impressed by the efficiency combined with a high standard of care that was offered to the public through their Bereavement Service enabling the bereaved to arrange a funeral to their particular requirements. She received their comprehensive leaflet given to all those contemplating using their facilities, and this gave details of their charter for the bereaved, and all the options available for different types of disposal. There was included on it a list of 18 further handouts giving further information on various issues. She hoped that eventually Princes Risborough Town Council would offer such a comprehensive service.

Following a suggestion from a committee member, that a colour-coded plan of the available burial/memorial areas should be generated, the chairman of the Burials Committee and her vice-chairman, Cllr Wally Woolf, set about producing a leaflet which contained a plan showing all the different sections available and giving an explanation of what type of memorialisation was permissible in each area, along with the contact details of the clerk.

Having never attempted this before it was quite a complicated process but once they felt happy with their work a local printer produced a limited number of samples for the Council to examine. Following their approval 1,000 were printed and professionally folded by a local firm ready for distribution to local undertakers and other outlets.

Accessing Guidance

The Town Council applied to join the Association of Burial Authorities so as to acquire guidance and further knowledge on cemetery management. This organisation was formed in 1993 by a group of cemetery managers, friends of cemeteries, members of the Church of England, memorial masons and landscape architects. Sam Weller was Chairman. Later the Council applied to join the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management, which provides very comprehensive study courses as well. Officers from both organisations were extremely helpful in answering various queries. Two members of the Burials Committee also attended a Risk Assessment Seminar to learn more and the Burials Committee agreed that the clerk should purchase a copy of the Guide to Safety in Burial Grounds issued by Zurich Municipal.

Locking / Unlocking the gates

At a Town Council meeting the possibility of inviting a member of the public to lock/unlock the Memorial Garden gates, once installed, for an honorarium was discussed but councillors preferred to investigate electronic locks in the first instance. The working group overseeing the development of the site subsequently investigated electronic locks but the financial outlay looked to be too onerous at that stage. The possibility that two people might job share this task for a nominal annual payment was explored again as, with the prevailing financial climate, it was thought that this would enable individuals to budget for something extra in their lives, but this idea wasn't taken up when suggested in the CROSStalk newsletter. Council staff subsequently took on this task but a report in the March 2011 CROSStalk indicates that there are renewed thoughts for a timer system to be purchased to open and close the gates.

Voluntary Group

One of the agreed objectives of the Burials Committee was to establish a voluntary group as, having helped her husband maintain a section of the local churchyard, the chairman was keen for such a group to be formed to take an interest in the Memorial Garden.

When the Consultation meetings were arranged in 2002 there was a response sheet for the public to indicate their preferences concerning 40 design aspects that were being exhibited in a photographic display. At the end of this sheet was a box that people could tick if they wished to volunteer help in the future. Over a dozen people had indicated that they would like to do this.

In 2008 the Burials Committee was wound up with all its objectives achieved except for this one that would probably be easier to arrange once the Memorial Garden was operative. When the remit of the Memorial Garden Committee, which would take over from the Burials Committee, was proposed at an informal committee meeting, one of the responsibilities proposed was that the committee would encourage the formation of a supportive voluntary group. Unfortunately this was not taken up by other members and was not included.

Chapter 22

Development of Policy

2001 - 2008

The development of the policy for the Stratton Memorial Garden originally arose from the observation of practices in other cemeteries and churchyards, and the desire to avoid many undesirable features which could be seen in them. Apart from this, the regulations were made with the following objectives in mind: -

\- To reduce Health and Safety risks for everyone to a minimum – for example the use of smaller memorials reduces the likelihood of back problems for those contractors who regularly undertake the task of placing them in situ.

\- To preserve the Memorial Garden as an area of peace and beauty for the majority especially those whose properties overlook the site.

\- To allow the site to remain available for future generations. This is possible if all adult graves cater for at least two burials, which allows for reuse should legislation permit, and if memorials are placed next to the grave in a planting area where possible, so that they do not have to be disturbed.

\- To cater for choice for the bereaved, but mindful that the bereaved should be given the opportunity to opt for small unobtrusive memorials, or to place a written memorial in an electronic Book of Remembrance, in order to avoid thousands of large memorials changing the ambience of the gardens and using all the space once all the residents of the town have passed on.

2001

A visit to Arnos Vale Cemetery in Bristol in 2001 was maybe the first cue to making notes regarding future policy. Tall memorials peeped out of long grass and high weeds, and the cemetery looked very neglected. This may have been due to the fact that it would be very costly to maintain and that there was likely no source of income once it was full.

With the possibility of the churchyard at St Mary's being closed and future maintenance having to be paid for from the public purse, two local contractors were asked to quote on the comparative costs of grass maintenance in a section where there were rows of graves with a mixture of several types of memorials, including upright ones situated in undulating lawns, and a similar sized level area without memorials. With memorials in situ, the work is very labour intensive using small mowers, where possible, and strimmers around each memorial. The figures the contractors provided showed that grass maintenance around memorials created approximately three times the expense of a similar sized level area with no memorials in situ. A further expense would be the removal of grass cuttings from the bases of the memorials.

A subsequent visit to Carlisle City Cemetery prompted more ideas seen there to be noted down. Of interest were rows of graves, which were situated back to back so that the memorials were 'double' and were set within a flower border where there were heathers and other plants between them. This left the lawn, which contained the grave plots, uncluttered making grass maintenance much easier to achieve. A comprehensive leaflet was available for those contemplating using their facilities giving details of all the choices available for different types of disposal so the bereaved could arrange a funeral to their particular requirements. This leaflet was to be the first of a bigger collection.

In October that year there were a number of items in the local press concerning problems at a local cemetery where there was a policy of using flush memorials in the lawns to allow for ease of maintenance. Apparently a number of the bereaved were flouting the regulations by placing vases, pots and little mementos on the grave plots and then complaining bitterly when they were removed in order to facilitate grass cutting. This indicated that, for those people who wished to place items on the grave for long periods, there should be areas close by where they could be placed without being a nuisance. It would also be vital to ensure that any regulations were adhered to right from the beginning so as not to allow any precedents to be set that would be hard to change.

During visits to a number of burial grounds looking for design ideas, one site further afield had a vast expanse of flush memorials and it was noted that some were uneven where settlement had occurred and this allowed an accumulation of leaves to rest there giving a littered effect. The uneven ground and memorial also created a possible trip factor. A policy of routine levelling of the ground and the memorials would eliminate this problem.

2002

At a public meeting in January this year, amongst the photographic display boards was one where many photographs demonstrated all the problems that could be seen in traditional cemeteries or churchyards, where upright memorials were common. It included photos of memorials that were either leaning, broken or fallen. Some of the photos showed memorials placed on slightly higher ground than the neighbouring ones. The level of the grass was further complicated due to lack of topping up after the ground had settled, or conversely because too much sub soil had been left on the grave plot following burial.

It would be much easier to avoid this problem completely by levelling the lawn areas first and keeping them uncluttered so as to facilitate levelling when it would be required later. This led to an estimation of the costs for levelling a grave once it had started to settle and including the costs for this, and the subsequent reinstating of turf, in the interment charges, so that the costs of subsequent re-levelling would not fall upon the public purse.

Some graves in a nearby town only had bare chalk covering them, which wasn't very attractive. It prompted the thought that those people interred below might feel ashamed and disgusted with the way society had little concern for the state of their grave plot.

Another potential detraction was the custom of having integral vase holders placed into predrilled holes in the memorials. Whilst they were ideal for the newly bereaved, giving a stable container in which to place flowers, a walk around the local churchyard revealed that the majority were not being used regularly and they eventually became an eyesore once the need to visit regularly had lessened. Many contained dead flower stalks or the weight of the flowers had subsequently led to the flowers and metal top falling out on to their side. Others were just empty with the metal tops pushed up with earth and weeds growing through. The metal tops themselves were also either dented, sitting askew, lying on the grave or completely missing. Some graves had a visiting metal top from another grave. In an effort to keep something in them once visiting was not so frequent, many contained artificial flowers and these were prone to getting faded after some months. Also it was possible to pick up off-cuts of material from the artificial flowers from the surrounding grass when strimmers were used in the area, which was a litter problem.

During the summer the chairman of the Burials Committee and her mother undertook a survey of the two newest sections of the churchyard, categorising these flower holders as follows: -

\- In use and looking good - 67

\- Containing very dead or faded artificial flowers - 49

\- Containing dead grass and weeds - 5

\- Empty but in good condition - 134

\- Empty and damaged or ill-fitting - 33

\- Missing - 39

In total the two sections contained 327 of these containers, of which only approximately 20% were in good condition and being regularly used. This percentage would decrease in older sections of the churchyard and in winter. The regulation to prohibit the use of these integral flower holders was therefore included to avoid both the problem of the gardens looking a mess and to relieve the bereaved of the responsibility of trying to keep them tidy or full. Instead spiked vases were to be recommended, as these could be placed in the nearby garden areas to provide colour there and could be removed when no longer required.

Kerbed graves were another problem seen in traditional cemeteries. Where these existed some had been filled with small stones that could be a hazard when using a strimmer if they were displaced into the grassy surroundings. Others had been left and the ground within was uneven and full of weeds or dead grass, which couldn't be reached with mowers. It was agreed therefore that kerbs would be a no no.

During visits to many churchyards and cemeteries this year, copies of their regulations were acquired and kept for later perusal. The town clerk was also requested to obtain copies of regulations produced by a number of neighbouring Councils who were Burial Authorities.

Two members of the Burials Committee attended a seminar on Risk Assessment. This allowed for the inclusion of matters of safety and risk in the regulations. The committee also asked the clerk to obtain a copy of the Zurich Municipal Guide to Safety in Burial Grounds.

The chairman of the Burials Committee examined Council for Racial Equality publications to ensure that the Council complied with their general duty. Those who desired a particular orientation could be catered for as the plans included grave plots facing assorted directions, although if a burial mound were to remain over the grave, the 'green' area in the second paddock would probably be more acceptable to all.

Sam Weller of the Association of Burial Authorities [ABA] was consulted to learn of any further guidelines issued in respect of the needs of those with different cultural background. He recommended that sections should be saved for different sects but, with the limited land available, this was not considered to be practicable for the Council's facility.

There was a requirement under Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977 to provide non-consecrated space. However the ABA, the Phoenix Award Scheme and the Church of England Faculty Commission all recommend NOT consecrating any space. Consecration can lead to Church Law restrictions so a faculty might be required to make any changes. If the land was not consecrated, the Council could cater for people of all faiths and, where specially requested, the grave plot could be dedicated to the religion of the deceased at the time of the interment.

The consultation process undertaken this year clearly indicated the need for people to be able to have a choice so details of different burial options were included in the regulations.

2003

Photocopies of the Local Authorities' Cemeteries Order 1977 and the Local Authorities' [Amendment] Order 1986 were obtained from the County Reference Library. Copies of their cemetery regulations started arriving from neighbouring Councils who were Burial Authorities. These would be used to draw up those for the Stratton Memorial Garden.

2004

The Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management [ICCM] had been recommended as a useful contact so the chairman contacted them to enquire if there was a recommended length of time for the burial rights to extend for, along with a number of other queries. Their Chief Executive, Tim Morris, was very helpful and introduced her to their very informative web site. He advised that the national average for burial rights was 50 years and was reducing. Plots for cremated remains were generally offered for shorter periods of time, as were memorial rights. He suggested that the Council offer extensions to grants after 5 years to re-top them to 50 years, which would enable the Council to keep in touch with the owners of memorials and also would maintain extra income.

In March, having received further regulations from various contacts, the chairman had a large number of samples, all slightly different. Some were very extensive, covering every possible circumstance that might arise. Some were complicated to read and some were short and simple not extending to more than 2 sides of A4. Some were out of date being based on the Burial Acts of 1852 to 1908. Some sounded rather authoritative and some sounded very helpful. Many hours were spent recording samples from them for each of the sub headings that would be required. The recorded samples together amounted to 20 pages. It would be a case of choosing the most appropriate wording and eliminating the samples that were not suitable in order to produce regulations suitable for the Council's facility. However, as the Memorial Garden was to have different sections to allow for customer choice, the regulations would need to include extra details appropriate to these sections.

Graham Reddie a solicitor specialising in Burial Law offered to assist a working party in the decision of the most suitable regulations and wording.

2005

Due to the accumulating problems in acquiring planning permission, the Burials Committee decided to wait until it was granted before making any recommendations.

2006

This year was spent concentrating on addressing the problems created by some objectors and no progress was made with the development of policy for the Stratton Memorial Garden.

2007

Following the eventual granting of planning permission, an informal gathering of the Burials Committee took place in March where the chairman was hoping, among other things, to get some volunteers to form a working group to agree on the specifications regarding the size, shape and composition of memorials that could be placed in various areas so that these details could be included in the regulations which would need to be available when the first interment was performed. Whilst it was reasonable to allow choice in certain areas, it would be important not to ruin the ambience of the gardens by having no restrictions at all. No-one volunteered but members suggested that the garden areas be kept unavailable for a period to allow them to look their best for as long as possible.

The chairman therefore worked on the document to gradually reduce it to a manageable size. There were many areas that needed clarifying and Tim at the ICCM was very helpful in this respect. A draft was then sent to Graham for his input. The progress of the draft was discussed at the Burials Committee and it was agreed by all that the chairman and Graham should continue producing the draft document.

After he'd had time to examine it thoroughly Graham brought a copy of the draft regulations to the Council office and each item was discussed in detail. He suggested a large number of modifications which were very constructive and also advised that some issues should be clarified with Tim. These were duly cleared up with him and led to further modifications in the wording of two paragraphs.

Once all the revisions had been made to the document, it was sent back to Graham who had offered to undertake a further check.

2008

Graham completed his second examination of the draft regulations in March and sent a list of helpful comments regarding the syntax of some of the regulations along with some further constructive suggestions, which resulted in a few more changes. The final draft was very comprehensive and all his work was greatly appreciated.

Cllrs Ben Benifer, Carl Etholen and Pamela Williams, members of the Memorial Garden Committee were then asked to look through the draft regulations and subsequently raised no comments or objections. As there were still a number of decisions required [such as proposed opening times, the length of the Exclusive Right of Burial and other items] for inclusion in the regulations, an email was circulated to members of the committee in preparation for the next meeting in July. At this meeting these details were resolved amicably.

The completed draft regulations were subsequently circulated to the clerks and also to other members of the Memorial Garden Committee. The clerks passed them to an officer at Chesham Town Council who had previously given them helpful guidance for his opinion, and on their return, there were a number of further suggestions, which were incorporated.

At the October meeting of the Memorial Garden Committee the chairman proposed that the final draft of the regulations for the Memorial Garden be recommended to the Town Council for approval. Another councillor counter proposed that the same regulations, prepared by him in a more user-friendly way and circulated to the councillors, be recommended to the Town Council for approval. It was pointed out that the user-friendly version contained many omissions and alterations to the text, which changed the meaning in places. As her proposed final draft was the result of much vetting, editing and approval from Graham Reddie, a very experienced solicitor dealing with Burial Law in the War Graves Commission, who had spent many precious hours ensuring as far as possible that this draft met the town's needs, and it had also been subsequently vetted by others, the counter proposal was not seconded, and the original proposal was passed. The first burial was soon to take place at the Memorial Garden and it was important that the regulations should soon be generally available for the public.

Before the Town Council met to make a decision regarding the draft regulations, there was much email activity concerning them and opposing opinions expressed regarding some details, in particular clause 3m, which two councillors thought to be discriminatory in favour of people who had a religious belief, and therefore against those who didn't. No discrimination was intended and another Council, which had vetted the draft, used the same wording. It was included to ensure that nothing occurred at a funeral, which might be unacceptable to the public.

The Council finally debated the content of the draft regulations and they were accepted after a long discussion and the other councillor had put in a counter proposal for his version. Voting was 5 for and 5 against and the Mayor, Cllr Alan Turner used his chairman's vote to accept them. This task, which had been on the go since 2001, and should have been less controversial to achieve than getting planning permission for the site, was now thankfully completed.

These original regulations are reprinted in Appendix 4.

Chapter 23

A National Problem

1998 - 2011

Princes Risborough was not alone. The shortage of grave spaces was occurring all over the country, especially in London. In the 1990s there were about 640,000 deaths each year in Britain, and it was estimated that all available grave spaces were likely to be used in 18 - 20 years. It is a problem that particularly affects this country. In Europe, bodies remain in graves for as little as 5 years before they are exhumed and placed in catacombs or marble filing cabinets.

The Government began looking into the possibility of changing the law to allow reuse of grave space in England, but the process has been slow, perhaps due to the sensitivity of the subject.

Church Law does, in principle, allow for the reuse of the churchyard after a comparatively short time, less than 100 years. Over hundreds of years this has happened but the relatively recent practice of placing a memorial over a grave has led to churchyards becoming 'full'. This has effectively led to some parishioners being prevented from exercising their legal right as, according to the Common Law, a parishioner or a person who dies in a parish has a legal right to be buried in the Church of England parish churchyard.

When a churchyard becomes 'full' Section 1 of the Burial Act 1853 enables the Parochial Church Council [PCC] to apply to the Privy Council to make an Order in Council to close it. Once a churchyard is officially closed there is no legislation at present that can reverse this situation.

However, not all churchyards are automatically officially closed when 'full'. There are at least two local churches where reuse of grave spaces or interments between graves [interburials] take place and this has enabled the communities to continue to use their local churchyard, as has been the practice for centuries.

Once burials cease to be accepted, and the churchyard is closed, it becomes more difficult for the church to draw potential volunteers to help with the grass cutting and other duties. Volunteers are often motivated to help keep the churchyard looking well maintained due to having a relative buried there.

If the PCC then wishes to relinquish responsibility for the maintenance of the churchyard, once closed by Order in Council, it may serve a written notice to the local Parish or Town Council, in accordance with Section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972, indicating their intention to pass this duty over to them. The Council, in turn, may choose to pass responsibility for the maintenance to the District Council, but whoever ends up taking responsibility; the local council taxpayers will bear the cost and the standard of maintenance may not be the same.

It is therefore in the interests of the local community for local Councils to increase their grants to churches to encourage them to continue to accept the responsibility for maintaining the churchyard. This is because the rows of upright memorials found in a typical churchyard present a formidable amount of maintenance and this would be very costly to undertake with the same care as given to the task by dedicated volunteers. Not only the maintenance of the grass and that of the trees, benches, surrounding walls and fences, but the Health and Safety implications related to any unsafe memorials can be very costly.

1998

In 1998 cemetery authorities and the Home Office were about to hold their first formal meeting to discuss proposals to allow the reuse of graves. Local Authorities and those owning private cemeteries were hoping to get the Home Secretary to allow old graves to be reopened and any remains to be interred deeper so that fresh burials could be added in order to solve the shortage of burial space.

1999

The Home Office was preparing a consultation document about the reuse of graves, which was to be issued the following year. According to a news item [Sunday Telegraph November 1999] the Government was going to propose 'double decker' graves to alleviate the severe shortage of space in inner-city areas, by the reuse of graves of over 100 years of age, reburying any remains at a deeper level.

2000

In November this year a press notice was sent to Princes Risborough Town Council. The Environment Sub-committee of the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs had resolved to undertake an enquiry into cemeteries and was requesting witnesses to submit memoranda of up to 8 A4 pages by the 13th December 2000. Among the subjects it wished to examine were the long term planning for new cemeteries and burial space, and the management and provision of cemetery services.

The problems that the Council was experiencing trying to find a replacement site to establish a new burial ground were thought to be almost resolved with the recent offer from Miss Anne Stratton to donate her paddocks but the chairman of the Burials Committee, having undertaken a lot of research trying to find a suitable site by using a method of elimination, felt that this and all the past failures and problems might be of interest to the enquiry. Also her experience as a bereaved mother and as a voluntary helper in the local churchyard might be relevant.

2001

She therefore prepared a response to the Press Release, detailing all the problems that had arisen in trying to acquire a new burial ground. Once she had finished, her work was circulated to other councillors for their approval before it was posted to the Home Office.

In May the Council received a copy of the committee's Report and Recommendations to the Government. A Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations was included. The committee was concerned that there was no central information regarding the number, condition and operational viability of the country's cemeteries and recommended that research should be undertaken to address this. They acknowledged the importance of cemeteries in catering for the needs of the bereaved, as well as having cultural, historical, environmental and amenity value. They expressed concerns over the shameful condition of some cemeteries and the shortage of burial space and made a number of observations regarding existing solutions to halt the decline with suggestions as to how these could be improved. Furthermore they recommended that the Government's Advisory Group should produce guidelines on Management Plans to distribute to cemeteries. Lastly they advised that they felt that legislation should be introduced to allow the reuse of graves if affordable burials were to be available for the bereaved.

The report filled two volumes. One gave comments from the committee members and evidence from witnesses. The other contained submissions to the Environment Select Committee, of their experiences on a wide range of related issues, from many Councils and others nationwide involved with burials and cremations, and cemeteries and memorial gardens.

Both volumes were very comprehensive, interesting and useful. The chairman slowly ploughed through them, making notes of informative articles which might help with decision making should the Council be fortunate enough to make progress with Miss Stratton's paddocks.

She then produced all her extracts from the 8th Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee for other councillors to read if they wished. These included comments and experiences from interested parties on the following subjects: -

\- Closed Churchyards

\- The Need for a Local Burial Site

\- Finding a Site

\- Environment Agency Issues

\- Planning, the District Council and its Responsibilities

\- Initial Funding for Setting Up

\- Organisation – Planning of Layout

\- Reasons for Having Memorials at Ground Level

\- Management Committees

\- Rules and Regulations

\- General Maintenance

\- Fund Raising for Maintenance

\- Fees and Costs

\- Cremation - Burial - Recycling

\- Ethnic Minorities

\- War Graves

\- Reuse of Graves

\- Woodland Burials

\- Vandalism

\- Items of Interest

\- Cemeteries of Interest

It was noted that the Environment Select Committee's Recommendations stated that Local Plans should include a provision for burial grounds but the Wycombe District Council's Local Plan had made no reference to such a provision. This prompted the clerk to send a letter to Wycombe District Council pointing this out. Their response indicated that the securing or allocation of sites for a burial ground was not the responsibility of the Local Plan. They noted the recommendations of the Government's Select Committee, but added that their status was currently limited, and most of the recommendations were predicated on further research to be carried out by the Government.

2003

As a result of the report on cemeteries the Government decided that all aspects of burial law and cemetery provision should be reviewed. The Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group was formed, representing all organisations and other groups to 'provide good practice advice on the provision, management and maintenance of cemetery facilities; to produce advice on good burial practice and procedures; and make recommendations for any appropriate legislative change' [Tim Morris writing in Local Council Review March 2003]. A consultation document was being prepared. This would include discussions on the sustainability of cemeteries and the increasing shortage of burial space. All Councils were asked to ensure that the questionnaire be responded to in order to help the Government ascertain the state of the nation's burial grounds and feelings regarding the issue of reuse of grave space.

One of the roles of Graham Reddie, who was helping Princes Risborough Town Council on a voluntary basis to overcome a number of problems, was representing the War Graves Commission on the Government's Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group.

2004

The Home Office published the consultation paper – 'Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century: The Need for a Sensitive and Sustainable Approach'. This summarised the main issues, the need for a common legislative framework for burial and cemeteries, the responsibility for adequate provision of burial facilities, querying whether more or less legislation was required to ensure high standards throughout the country, and the possibility of the reuse of old burial grounds being acceptable to the public. All the issues were examined in detail and followed by invitations for views to be submitted concerning 37 different proposals, the issue discussing the possible reuse of grave space generating the most proposals.

With an interest in the possibility of the law being changed to allow reburials, and having plenty of experience with the problem of trying to provide a facility, the chairman of the Burials Committee undertook to make a further submission on behalf of the Council. As the Council was not yet operating as a Burial Authority, she didn't feel qualified to answer some of the questions so only gave responses to those she felt would be useful to the enquiry.

2005

In September the chairman received notification of a number of workshops that were being arranged to take place in London between November and the following January, and an invitation to attend one of these if interested. She opted to attend one in November that was concerned with the Provision of Burial Grounds. The issues discussed were: -

\- Power or duty to provide?

\- Additional powers

\- Planning

\- Consultation

\- Finance

\- Notification

In Hansard [November 2005], Harriet Harman, the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, which had taken over responsibility for burial law and practice from the Home Office, expressed her gratitude for the many detailed submissions that were received. She advised that the responses indicated general support for the modernisation of burial laws and the need to ensure adequate facilities were available for burials, including the use of old burial grounds. She advised that she would soon be publishing a summary of the responses. Arrangements would be made to have discussions with practitioners in order to progress the law reform.

Also in November the Department for Constitutional Affairs published a reference document entitled 'Guide for Burial Ground Managers'. This work had been included within the remit of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group.

2006

In January the Government's response to the consultation was published entitled 'Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century'. It summarised the views to each of the proposals and made a number of conclusions. In brief there was support for consistency in any reform of burial legislation, but not for unnecessary or excessive regulation, and for local authorities to have a statutory duty to provide burial facilities. The issue of reuse drew much support but also a significant amount of opposition, and it was recognised that if reuse were to be permitted in principle, then it was important that decisions regarding this issue were made locally so that they reflected local concerns and attitudes. As there was a wide range of views, the next step would be to investigate the different aspects of modernising the law, which would include thoughtful consideration of how to utilise old burial grounds.

The chairman of the Burials Committee also received a report detailing the main views expressed at the workshop she had attended. These would not necessarily be taken up by the Government but would hopefully be an aid to decision making.

2007

The Local Council Review [September 2007] gave an update of the latest developments. Public consultation had shown widespread support for both modernisation of the burial system and for the reuse of graves. There was a plan to enable burial authorities to reuse old graves of at least 100 years of age, which would require certain adaptations to current regulations.

2008

A representative of the Ministry of Justice, which took over the work of Burial Law Reform Policy from the Department for Constitutional Affairs, contacted the clerk. They were producing a new document entitled 'Guidance for the Provision and Maintenance of Burial Grounds', and wished to obtain the Council's permission to include the \following statement in it.

'Princes Risborough Town Council circulated a questionnaire to all parishioners asking for their preference for a new burial site. The results showed that choice of facility was important to the residents, so the Council was able to take account of those views in the design of the cemetery'.

The Council agreed and the clerk was requested to confirm that the Town Council was happy for this to be used. However, the word 'cemetery' was to be replaced with 'Memorial Garden'. The clerk was also requested to organise a press release to communicate this request.

2011

A recent communication with the Ministry of Justice reveals that the 'Guidance for the Provision and Maintenance of Burial Grounds' has not yet been published. Discussions about the content are still ongoing and, unfortunately, they cannot give any indication as to when they will be concluded.

Thankfully, at the time of writing, the churchyard remains 'open', and cremations are still accepted. Although there are no empty burial plots, readers may be interested to know that an existing single grave was able to accommodate a relative at a later date.

Chapter 24

A Personal Perspective

There were several reasons for my writing this record:

\- To acknowledge what can only be the Hand of God who made the eventual success possible. There were a number of incidents that occurred which, added together, could not just be coincidental.

\- To acknowledge the extreme generosity of the donor, Anne Stratton, and the assistance received from a number of other people who helped to progress this project.

\- A desire to make a public record so that people interested in researching the history of the town will be able to learn of the origins of the Stratton Memorial Garden.

\- A desire that any other small Council undertaking a similar project can learn from the experiences and mistakes associated with this one.

\- To enlighten members of the public regarding the activities of their local Council.

\- For the sense of completion of the task.

This hasn't been an easy book to write. Never having tried before, when I first decided to make a record of the search and the problems that were encountered, I thought it would just be a case of referring to my diaries and writing everything down in chronological order. However with so many facets being addressed concurrently, some taking weeks, months or years to work through, the reader would be faced with a mishmash of facts. This would have muddied the waters and made the record very difficult to follow. Therefore some issues were separated into different chapters. Even so, in each chapter there were areas where the chronological order was not strictly followed. This was to allow the completion of a subject before introducing a new aspect.

In order to try and prevent sidetracking, other issues, such as financial, management, policy and legislation issues were put into Part 2 and the appendices.

Trying to gain a comprehensive picture of the earliest work undertaken by the Council was difficult as the clerk who was employed by the Council at that time had a long-term illness and wasn't always available to make records. Also in earlier times when the local population was smaller, some councillors knew everyone and made verbal contact rather than sending a letter, which saved time and expense but left no hard copy of what was actually imparted. Furthermore the Council met in the upper room of the Market House, a very small room with just a small cupboard for all the records rather than a proper office, and this would have inhibited the storage of masses of paperwork.

Another problem that was encountered when researching the earlier work undertaken by the Council was a policy of referring to a site under investigation by a number. With so many sites being investigated, simultaneously at times, there was difficulty in accurately identifying the location of some, as one number referred to two different locations and a further site number could not be attributed to a location. I consulted with a number of ex-councillors and the clerk but was unable to clarify this fully.

It was also difficult to decide where to start and what to include. Did it start on the day that Princes Risborough Parish Council, as it then was, received a letter from the local Parish Church to advise them that the last quarter of the churchyard was now being used for burials, or was it, more personally for me, on the day of the death of my 17-year-old son John in 1987?

It was certainly this personal loss that provided the drive and motivation required to try to ensure that the town would have a future place for burials. My husband Ben was unable to consider the use of cremation so a burial was arranged in the local churchyard at St Mary's.

It was also the subsequent death of my 21-year old niece Ruth in South Australia that led to a Memorial Garden on the other side of the world providing the concept of a choice of burial plots and some design inspirations for the Stratton Memorial Garden. The further premature death of my husband, and my need for him to be laid to rest in the churchyard with our son [whose grave was only a single depth one] provided some inner determination not to give up during the last trying period before planning permission was finally granted.

A road accident, which deprived me of my nursing career, gave me the opportunity to join the Council. Not ready to be put out to grass I had looked for some alternative activity, and in the local press was a notice that Princes Risborough Town Council was looking to co-opt somebody to fill a vacancy that had arisen. Years previously I would not have considered myself to be a suitable candidate, but I was now studying for a degree in Psychology with the Open University, and felt more confident of my ability. With my father's assertion, that councillors are not particularly special and are just ordinary people, ringing in my ears, I decided to apply and was delighted to be accepted, thanks to the support I received from Cllr Barbara Richer and Cllr Dave Allworth, which was greatly appreciated.

On joining the Town Council in 1996 I soon discovered that the Council had been trying, unsuccessfully, for many years to find a new burial site and that the churchyard was filling up and would soon be unable to accept any more burials. As I had, in the past, lost my teenage son in a car accident, and he had been buried in St Mary's churchyard, I was very concerned. Before his death I had never taken much interest in the churchyard. Afterwards however, I had visited his grave every day for months, and my husband had started doing voluntary work there on a regular basis, strimming a section of the newer churchyard, helping to keep the grass maintained. He carried this work out for about 18 years. I also joined him regularly for a number of years sweeping the grass cuttings from the gravestones. We were both very appreciative of the facility.

Once closed, the churchyard would not be able to be re-opened, as the decision would be irreversible. Being part of the congregation of St Mary's Church enabled me to feel able to make a number of approaches to the Parochial Church Council [PCC], to communicate my concerns and to try to persuade them to continue burials within the churchyard, either by reburial or interburial or to use the land adjoining the churchyard [where the new rectory has now been built]. In one of their responses they explained that investigations suggested that the machine used by the undertakers to dig graves would likely damage existing graves both above and below ground. The land old enough to be considered for interburials was in the old churchyard, and records showed a very high density of graves over the whole area. A great number had also been levelled so graves could not be pinpointed with accuracy.

The PCC were mindful that disturbing graves in any area of the churchyard was a very sensitive issue. The first plan for a church extension on the north side of the church failed principally because of objections to the disturbance of graves there, even though some were very old. Also the siting of one of the exterior lights for the floodlighting near a grave had upset the family concerned. The PCC confirmed that the land at the back of the church could not be used for burials as they were only allowed to consider it for property development.

Although my efforts to persuade the PCC to continue burials in the churchyard were not successful it led to me placing more importance on the need for an alternative place for burials.

When I joined the Burials Committee in 1996, the location of site 17 was still unknown to many of the councillors. Once I became aware of its location at the end of the year, I felt uneasy about it. For a start its distance from the town wouldn't be very convenient for those requiring daily visits. The thought of mourners being approached by strangers at a time when they were most vulnerable in a remote burial ground was also disturbing. Finally the huge expense of funding and running a new burial ground, as well as incurring a new heavy expenditure in keeping the maintenance-intensive churchyard in good condition, was another issue to consider.

My failure to help make more grave places available in the churchyard coincided with the collapse of the Council's plans to establish a new civic cemetery in Cadsden, a nearby village. At this point councillors effectively gave up looking for another site as they felt there was nowhere left, having spent years investigating many other areas of the locality.

At that time I was heavily involved with my studies with the Open University working to obtain a degree in Psychology and had little spare time but later that year [1997] an eye condition caused problems with reading so I decided to take a year out from my studies while it resolved. A few weeks later, Cllr Allworth triggered my involvement in trying to find a replacement site by issuing his challenge to me to find a site. This was tantamount to giving me permission to try and do what others before had not been able to achieve. The eye problem then was fortuitous in a way as this unplanned for spare time gave me the opportunity to apply myself to this bigger problem.

I was able to benefit from the lessons learned from the earlier work undertaken by the Council and a few months later, the Council reconvened the Burials Committee and I was elected its chairman. I never thought that I would still be involved with the progress of the burial ground over a decade later.

A very fortuitous factor was my involvement with Banjovi Revival, a local banjo band led by my sister, Joyce Wooster, which played in local venues mainly for the older generation. One of the members, Pauline Gibson, by some lucky coincidence, had worked in Maidenhead at the War Graves Commission and, although retired, had kept in touch with Graham Reddie, their solicitor. She had confided to him some of the details of the problems being encountered with obtaining planning permission and, with his interest and very pertinent experience in the subject, he was able to offer valuable advice, and help the Council to cope with the problems it was beset with.

A further unforeseen but beneficial incident was the help received from Christopher Stratton, a relative of Anne Stratton who, by some stroke of good luck, happened to be a professional who dealt with planning appeals. His input was very much appreciated.

In all, the personal experience, the timing, the opportunity, the help and support - all these combined at the right time to enable the eventual successful outcome of the problem. I feel extremely privileged to be able to be a part of the success story. However all the work by the Council would have been futile were it not for the extreme generosity of Anne Stratton in donating her valuable land, and for the cooperation and help from Eva and Terry Lloyd in providing an access for the site. I remain convinced that the Hand of God was involved.

The last few years after my husband died were a struggle and I was very grateful for the support from the 'Car Boot' councillors, Alan, Gary, Wally, Eunice and Pam. I left the Council in 2009 and remarried. Already involved with 'Banjovi Revival', the 'Towersey Folk Band' and trying to get to grips with the Uilleann pipes, I also joined my new husband's 'Black Dog Band'. Life is fun again.

Maggie Wooster Keyte

Appendices

Contents

1. Summary of investigated sites in Elimination Survey

2. Literature concerning 19th Century plumbing

3. Legislation concerning Boreholes

4. The original Regulations [agreed October 2008]

Appendix 1

Summary of Investigated Sites in Elimination Survey

1. Located at the end of Long Hyde. The western part was allocated for housing and its potential development value would be extremely expensive.

2. Located beyond Site 1. The western part was allocated for housing and its potential development value would be extremely expensive.

3. S.E. of the junction of Peters Lane and Aylesbury Road. Owned by the National Trust, and used for sport. An officer from the National Trust discussed the request with his Regional Director and other members of staff and their feeling was that the Trust should remain faithful to the donor's wishes, the money for the purchase of the field having come from a number of sources including local individuals, Eton College, the Pilgrim Trust and the Ramblers Association. The officer checked the deed of gift and covenants and there were various restrictions regarding buildings and structures and also the present lease to the football club did not expire for a number of years. Furthermore local organisations such as the Horticultural Society, the Primary School and various charitable organisations used the land for shows, sports days and fundraising activities. In all he did not think a change of use to a cemetery would be acceptable to the various organisations, individuals or the Trust.

4. Paddock located on the south side of Peters Lane. The planning officer felt that this land was too closely related to the residential occupation of the adjoining property and the owner did not wish to sell a narrow strip that would have enabled the access to a neighbouring field to be widened, which may have led to a solution.

5. Paddock next to the school in Peters Lane. The planning officer felt this site was somewhat remote from the main built-up area and was also closely adjoined by housing, but thought it may be worthy of further consideration. It was included in the November 1998 CROSStalk Burial Site Survey and eliminated on the grounds of being too close to the nearby school and a number of other objections. The owners were willing to sell although were hopeful that any offer would reflect its potential development value. However the planning officer advised that, because its location was in the green belt and subject to green belt policy, Wycombe District Council would not consider housing development on it.

6. Aylesbury Road, south side of the Holloway. The owner was doubtful that nearby residents would wish to see his land used for a burial ground so felt he would say 'no'.

7. Whiteleaf. Owner does not wish to sell.

8. Whiteleaf. Owner does not wish to sell.

9. Near Whiteleaf Cross. Other councillors were unable to support this area.

10. South side of Peters Lane above Westfields. Dangerous access. Unsuitable on account of topography and location.

11. South side of Peters Lane below Westfields. Owned by a Charity and cannot be sold. It was also unsuitable on account of its topography and location.

12. Bordering Upper Icknield Way. Covered by covenants to the National Trust. The access was too narrow in any case and couldn't be widened.

13. Land adjoining the Upper Icknield Way. The Planning Officer was concerned about the inadequacy of a reasonable access as the Upper Icknield Way is protected by National Trust covenants.

14. Land adjoining the Upper Icknield Way. As for 13.

15. Sports field adjoining the Upper Icknield Way. As for 13. An alternative access from Salisbury Close was vetoed by the Highways Department as being too narrow.

16. Field between Upper Icknield Way and Kop Hill. The planning officer advised that this was reasonably well located for the town, although uphill from the main residential area and there was no pedestrian footway beyond Salisbury Close. In his view it was worthy of further consideration. The owners were very sorry but they were unwilling to sell.

17. Field between Upper Icknield Way and Kop Hill. Owned by the same people who were unwilling to sell this field either.

18. Field behind Princes Risborough School. No access for traffic. A water main crosses the field.

19 - 33. All located to the south of the town. Overlying Lower Chalk, a major aquifer – unsuitable geologically. Vetoed by Environment Agency.

34 - 60. All located to the west of the town. Overlying the Upper Greensand, a minor aquifer – unsuitable geologically. Vetoed by Environment Agency.

61. Sports field Mill Lane. Overlying Head deposits – Upper Greensand – owners unwilling to sell.

62. Aylesbury Road, west side. Land drainage required on neighbouring field. Would require major road works to provide a safe access. Environment Agency felt it was not ideal. Nearby well.

63. Aylesbury Road, west side. Would require major road works to provide a safe access. Owner has done extensive land drainage so might be too wet also. Property on site of old pumping station.

64. Aylesbury Road, west side. Wet, waterlogged at times, springs in the area. The owner advised he would not be willing to sell.

65. Aylesbury Road, east side. The owner's wishes were unable to be fulfilled.

66. Askett. The owner was willing to consider selling this site. It was included in the CROSStalk Burial Site Survey to the parish. Objections were received. It is also rather remote with no public transport passing nearby so reaching it would be problematic for some visitors. It was also designated as only 'possible' rather than 'probable' by the Environment Agency.

67. Askett. Owner did not wish to sell.

68. Askett, north east of 67. This was found to be landlocked – no access.

69. Askett. Owner confirmed he did not wish to sell.

70. S.E. Askett roundabout. A gentleman who had rented the field in the past advised the name of the owner. However on writing to the owner there was no response. He was also ex-directory. On enquiries it was learned that there had been a death and the spouse was very ill so didn't intrude further.

71, 72 and 75. Cadsden. Owned by a golf club. They advised that they would not be willing to sell.

73. Whiteleaf. Charity Land - rather remote, narrow road and difficult to reach.

74. Ragpit, Whiteleaf. Owned by the Town Council. The planning officer felt this site was too remote from the main settlement of Princes Risborough and its access from the Upper Icknield Way through the Whiteleaf Conservation Area, together with its topography, could militate against its use as a cemetery.

76. East of town and south of Peters Lane. National Trust covenants covering parts of this field. The Planning Officer was concerned about the inadequacy of a reasonable access.

77. East of Wycombe Road. Owner does not wish to sell.

78. East of Wycombe Road. Owner does not wish to sell.

79. Shootacre Lane. Included in the CROSStalk Burial Site survey. Unable to acquire freehold.

80, 82 and 83. South side of Woodway. Owner offered two more suitable sites, but not freehold.

81. North side of Woodway. Owner does not wish to sell.

84. Small site at Owlswick. Brought to the Council's attention. Geologically suitable but too remote and difficult for people to reach with no public transport.

85. St Dunstan's extension. Only a half acre in size. Archaeological dig required.

86. Aylesbury Road, Kimble. Rather remote and owner unwilling to give a written response.

87. Wades Park adjacent to churchyard. Unsuitable geologically – ground water level only 1-2 m from surface. Vetoed by Environment Agency.

88. Cadsden allotments. Previously investigated as Site 17. Objections from residents and offer from trustees was withdrawn.

89. Hampden Estate, Kop Hill. Tenant wishes to continue farming the land. Underground water mains would prevent use of a wide diagonal strip.

90. South west of the town. Overlying the Upper Greensand, a minor aquifer – unsuitable geologically.

91. South west of the town. Overlying Lower Chalk, a major aquifer – unsuitable geologically.

92 and 93. School sports field. Not available.

94. Kop Hill. Owners confirmed they were unwilling to sell.

95. Woodway. Owner confirmed that he was unwilling to sell.

96. Kop Hill. Owner confirmed that he was unwilling to sell.

97. Askett. Severe access problem.

98. Amen Corner site. It was included in the CROSStalk Burial Site Survey to the parish. The owner could only offer it on lease.

Map of Princes Risborough and surrounds showing the approximate location of fields investigated in the Elimination Survey.

Contains Ordnance Survey data copyright

Crown copyright and database right [2011]

Appendix 2

**Literature concerning 19th Century plumbing**

Chapter 15 referred to literature and legislation that the author believed indicated that the borehole which was placed within the grounds of a nearby property should have been subjected to planning permission and building regulations, and should have been required to be closed once harmful bacteria were found in the underground water.

i. Water Law, Principle and Practice

by Richard Macrory MA 1985. The author was a barrister and lecturer in Environmental Law and Policy.

Chapter 6 Page 58

6.4 Planning permission

Planning permission from the local planning authority will normally be required for the sinking of a borehole whether for test or other purposes since it constitutes an 'engineering' or 'other' operation under the definition of 'development' in s22 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.

[It is the author's belief that if planning permission for this borehole had been requested it would not have been granted as there was permission already granted for a burial site on the neighbouring property.]

ii. 'Dangers to Health' a Pictorial Guide to Sanitary Defects

by T. Pridgin Teale MA 1881

A very interesting book containing pictures showing how plumbing defects caused health problems in the 19th century. In particular: -

Page 65 illustrates how people drink sewage when badly joined or broken drainpipes allow it to filter into a well.

Page 67 illustrates a full cesspool overflowing into a well.

Page 69 illustrates a well near a 'fold yard' allowing soakings from sodden manure to ooze through the soil to the well.

Page 71 illustrates the overflow from a cesspool into a rainwater tank.

Page 73 shows a cesspool overflowing and causing the floor and wall of a house to be damp from sewage.

Page 75 illustrates additions to a house built over forgotten drains.

Page 83 shows how joints in pipe work were opened by the giving way of foundations. [A neighbouring property to the Memorial Garden suffered from subsidence.]

Page 89 shows pipe work made from 'seconds' tubes.

Page 91 shows putty joints in leaden soil pipes leading to leakage.

Page 97 illustrates pipes with the flange fixed the wrong way.

iii. Edwin Chadwick and the Public Health Movement

by R. A. Lewis 1952

Comments regarding plumbing in the mid 19th century.

Page 295

Pipes were frequently manufactured of unsuitable materials, thin and brittle, crudely fashioned, and so untrue in section that two pipes of twelve inches diameter, when brought end to end, might show an unevenness of joint of more than an inch. A variety of joints – butt, socket, half-socket, rabbet – came into confusing use. To the faults of the pipe-makers were added those of the pipe layers.

Appendix 3

Legislation concerning Boreholes

The following extract is confirmation of Macrory's statement

Town and Country Planning Act 1971 c78
Part III

General Planning Control

Meaning of development and requirement of planning permission

22-[1] In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, 'development', subject to the following provisions of this section, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.

***

The following extract confirms that the meaning of 'development' was carried forward into later legislation]

Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Part III

Control over Development [315]

Page 391

55 Meaning of development and new development

[1] Subject to the following provisions of this section, in this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, 'development' means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.

***

The following legislation appears to indicate that the construction of a borehole for drawing water for domestic use is also subject to building regulations, and the requirement for closure if not resulting in the provision of wholesome water.

Halsbury's Statutes Volume 35 Public Health and Environmental Protection

The Building Act 1984
Part 1

Building Regulations

Power to make building regulations

1 Power to make building regulations

Page 561

[1] the Secretary of State may, for any of the purposes of -

[a] securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings,

[b] furthering the conservation of fuel and power, and

[c] preventing waste, undue consumption, misuse or contamination of water,

make regulations with respect to the design and construction of buildings and the provision of services, fittings and equipment in or in connection with buildings.

[2] Regulations made under subsection [1] above are known as building regulations.

2 Continuing requirements

Page 562

[2] Building regulations may impose on owners and occupiers of buildings of a prescribed class [whenever erected, and whether or not any building regulations were applicable to them at the time of their erection] continuing requirements with respect to all or any of the following matters-

[a] the conditions subject to which any services, fittings or equipment provided in or in connection with a building of that class may be used,

[b] the inspection and maintenance of any services, fittings or equipment so provided,

[c] the making of reports to a prescribed authority on the condition of any services, fittings or equipment so provided,

[3] If a person contravenes a continuing requirement imposed by virtue of this section, the local authority, without prejudice to their right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention, may-

[a] execute any work or take any other action required to remedy the contravention.

***

The following section appears to require that wholesome water is provided by water undertakers unless this is unreasonable.

25 Provision of water supply

Page 589

[1] Where plans of a house are, in accordance with building regulations, deposited with a local authority, the authority shall reject the plans unless a proposal is put before them that appears to them to be satisfactory for providing the occupants of the house with a supply of wholesome water sufficient for their domestic purposes-

[a] by connecting the house to a supply of water in pipes provided by...water undertakers,

[b] if in all the circumstances it is not reasonable to require the house to be connected as aforesaid, by otherwise taking water into the house by means of a pipe, or

[c] if in all the circumstances neither of the preceding alternatives can reasonably be required, by providing a supply of water within a reasonable distance of the house,

and the authority are satisfied that the proposal can and will be carried into effect.

[3] If, after any such plans as aforesaid have been passed, it appears to the local authority that the proposal for providing a supply of water-

[a] has not been carried into effect, or

[b] has not resulted in a supply of wholesome water sufficient for the domestic purposes of the occupants,

the authority shall give notice to the owner of the house prohibiting him from occupying it, or permitting it to be occupied, until the authority being satisfied that such a supply has been provided, have granted him a certificate to that effect.

36 Removal or alteration of offending work

Page 594

[1] If any work to which building regulations are applicable contravenes any of those regulations, the local authority, without prejudice to their right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention, may by notice require the owner-

[a] to pull down or remove the work or

[b] if he so elects, to effect such alterations in it as may be necessary to make it comply with the regulations.

***

The following Act appears to give the local authority power to prevent the unwholesome water from being used for domestic purposes.

Public Health Act 1936

Provisions for the protection of public from polluted water

140 Power to close, or restrict use of water from, polluted source of supply

Pages 139 - 140

[1] If a local authority are of the opinion that the water in or obtained from any well, tank or other source of supply not vested in them, being water which is, or is likely to be, used for domestic purposes, or in the preparation of food or drink for human consumption, is, or is likely to become, so polluted as to be prejudicial to health, the authority may apply to a court of summary jurisdiction and thereupon a summons may be issued to the owner or occupier of the premises to which the water supply belongs, or to any other person alleged in the application to have control thereof.

[2] Upon the hearing of the summons, the court may make an order directing the source of the supply to be permanently or temporarily closed or cut off, or the water therefrom to be used for certain purposes only, or such other order as appears to the court to be necessary to prevent injury or danger to the health of persons using the water, or consuming food or drink prepared therewith or therefrom.

141 Power to deal with insanitary cisterns, etc

Page 140

Any well, tank, cistern, or water butt used for the supply of water for domestic purposes which is so placed, constructed or kept as to render the water therein liable to contamination prejudicial to health, shall be a statutory nuisance for the purposes of [Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990]

***

The following legislation also appears to indicate that if a private water supply is likely not to be wholesome, that the Local Authority could serve a notice requiring the property to have their water supplied by a water undertaker.

Halsbury's Statutes Volume 49 Water

Water Industry Act 1991

80 Remedial powers of Local Authorities in relation to private supplies [867]

Page 943

[1] Subject to the following provisions of this section, where a Local Authority are satisfied in relation to any premises in their area which are supplied with water for domestic or food production purposes by means of private supply-

[a] that any water which is being, or has been or is likely to be supplied for those purposes to those premises by means of that private supply is not, was not or, as the case may be, is likely not to be wholesome; or

[b] that that private supply is failing, has failed or is likely to fail to provide to any house on those premises such a supply of wholesome water as [so far as that house is concerned] is sufficient for domestic purposes,

the authority may serve a notice in relation to that private supply on one or more of the relevant persons.

[6] The steps that a relevant person may be required by a notice under this section to take in relation to any premises shall include-

[a] requiring a supply of water to be provided to those premises by a water undertaker or by any other person.

84 Local Authority rights of entry etc [871]

Page 949

[2] Any person designated for the purpose by a Local Authority may

[a] enter any premises for the purpose of-

i. ascertaining whether any provision contained in or made or having effect under this Act with respect to any water fittings, or with respect to the waste or misuse of water, is being or has been contravened,

[b] carry out such inspections... and take away such samples of water

Appendix 4

The Original Regulations [agreed October 2008]

The following regulations were compiled using examples from numerous Burial Authorities and input from an expert at the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management, and carefully scrutinised and edited by Graham Reddie, a solicitor specialising in Burial Law, working for the War Graves Commission.

Regulations for the

Stratton Memorial Garden and Burial Ground

owned and managed by

Princes Risborough Town Council

1. Hours of Opening

2. Administration

3. Interments

4. Graves

5. Memorials

6. General

7. Offences in the Memorial Garden

1. Hours of opening

The Stratton Memorial Garden is open to the public daily from 8 am [9 am on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays] to dusk, or to 9 pm whichever is earlier, throughout the year. The Town Council [hereafter referred to as the Council] may vary these days and hours from time to time. The Council may temporarily close the whole or part of the grounds as often as, in the opinion of the Council, such closure is desirable. No person shall enter or remain there when closed to the public. A person shall not enter or leave otherwise than through the entrance gates.

2. Administration

[a] Administration is dealt with by the Town Clerk, who will be happy to help you with all matters on behalf of the Council, at the Council Offices, 1 Tower Court, Horns Lane, Princes Risborough, Bucks HP27 0AJ, or telephone 01844 275912. [Email address has been removed as it was out of date].The reception desk and telephone lines are open on Tuesdays and Thursdays between the hours of 10 am – 3 pm and Saturdays 10 am – 12 noon.

[b] The records, which contain information regarding the name and age of the person buried, the grave number and the date of burial may be inspected free of charge at the Council Offices when the office is open. A certified extract from a Register of Burials may be provided for such fee as is prescribed in the current schedule of charges.

3. Interments

Clients should be aware that memorials are not permitted in some sections and that there are strict limitations on what can be placed in some areas and must therefore ensure that they select the intended location of the grave with care.

[a] Public or Common Burials. These are for instances where a Right of Burial is not required. These graves are communal, meaning that other bodies may already be buried in them, or be buried in them in the future. For an interment in a public or common grave, the next of kin of the deceased person, or the person who arranges the funeral must sign a statement that it is understood that the bodies of other persons are or may be buried in the same grave. This must be passed to the Town Clerk with the Notice of Interment.

[b] For the Exclusive Right of Burial in private graves, on payment of the appropriate fee, a Grant of Right of Exclusive Burial will be granted for a period of 50 years. The Council may, upon payment of the appropriate fee, allow extension or renewal, at any time, for a further 25 years if required. The Grant shall be purchased at the time of the first interment. No person may purchase the Exclusive Right of Burial in more than two grave spaces, except by special permission of the Council. Non-residents may only purchase grave spaces for immediate use, unless they have previously resided in this parish for at least 5 years. The authority of the owner of the Grant of Right is required for installation of any memorial or other work upon the grave.

[c] Transfer of Ownership. Transfers of the ownership of the Grant of Right may be made during the life of a registered owner. On the death of the registered owner of the Grant of Right, the interest should be transferred as possession of a Grant does not in itself confer any rights upon the holder. The transfer should be registered at the Council Office

[i] at the request of the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased owner upon production of a Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration.

[ii] Where Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration have not been issued, at the written request of the surviving spouse or, if there is no surviving spouse, all the surviving children.

The appropriate transfer fee must be paid in accordance with the Council's current schedule of fees. Where unused grave space is transferred to a non-resident of the parish, such non-resident shall pay to the Council such additional fee as would have been payable if the original purchaser had been a non-resident.

[d] Extent of Rights - While an Exclusive Right of Burial exists, no body or cremated remains can be buried in the grave without the written consent of the owner of the Right, other than the remains of the grantee, of any person specified in the grant, or in an endorsement on the grant made by the Council at the request of the grantee, or of any person whom the grantee permits to be buried in the grave. This means that it is essential to get the written consent of the registered owner when it is planned to re-open a grave for a burial or the burial or underground scattering of cremated remains. Where the holder has transferred the benefit of a grant during his life, or by will, or the grant has transferred on the intestacy of the holder, the transferee is in the same position as the grantee in the exercise of the rights, and may exercise them, as he thinks fit. The Right of Burial gives only the right to inter a body and no control over the surface of the grave.

[e] Form of Indemnity - Where the written consent of the registered owner cannot be conveniently obtained, or where the Deed of Grant has been lost or mislaid, the Council may accept a form of Indemnity. An interment in an existing private grave will only be permitted on condition that the person arranging the funeral completes this form giving a satisfactory explanation of the facts, so that the Council and all its officers and servants are fully indemnified from and against any claim whatsoever which may arise as a consequence of the reopening of the grave.

[f] Residents who have lived in the parish for at least the last 5 years, and whose names appear in the Register of Electors, and any children residing in the parish, may be interred in the Memorial Garden on payment of the appropriate fee as set out in the Schedule of Fees. Parishioners who have, within the last 24 months, moved from the town in to long-term care would also be charged the basic rate. The Council may require to view proper evidence to support these conditions and their decision on that evidence will be final. Interment of other people may be permitted at the Council's discretion subject to payment of the prescribed fee.

[g] Notice of an interment shall be given on a form provided by the Council, which must be produced at the Council office at least 48 hours prior to the time of such interment exclusive in every case of Sundays and Bank Holidays. The notice must contain:

\- full details of the deceased

\- the proposed interment details

\- the section of the Memorial Garden and grave space to be used

\- the signature of the owner of the Exclusive Right of Burial [if applicable]

\- confirmation by signature that a copy of these regulations has been received by the client.

On receipt of a Notice of Interment the Clerk shall confirm the details by email, fax or letter.

[h] Fees and charges must be paid at the time the notice is given, or the works cannot be commenced. No interment shall be allowed in any grave if any fees or charges payable are unpaid unless an alternative arrangement has been agreed beforehand. Fees and charges will be in accordance with the scale current at the time of burial. The Council reserves the right to alter fees and charges at any time.

[i] The time arranged for a burial shall be that of arrival at the graveside. Funerals will be accepted to arrive at the Memorial Garden between the hours of 10 am – 3.30 pm. If there is to be a service before the burial, care should be taken to allow sufficient time for its duration and for the journey.

[j] No burial may take place on Bank Holidays or Public Holidays, Saturdays or Sundays except under emergency conditions or by special permission of the Council.

[k] In all cases the appropriate Registrar's Disposal Certificate or Coroner's Order for Burial must be delivered to the Council before an interment may take place. Should the certificate not be delivered to the Council for reason of its delivery being omitted or it has been lost or mislaid, a written declaration made on Form 18 [available from the Council] may be accepted and the burial permitted on condition that the original certificate or a duplicate of the original is obtained and handed to the Council within 24 hours. [It should be noted that no burial will be permitted to take place unless the death has been registered and a disposal certificate issued by a Registrar of Births and Deaths] When the deceased has died outside England and Wales, a certificate of No Liability to register the death must be obtained from the Registrar of Births and Deaths for the sub-district in which the burial is to take place. For the interment of Cremated Remains a Certificate issued by the Crematorium concerned regarding the foregoing is required.

[l] The body of any deceased person will not be accepted for interment unless it is enclosed within a suitable coffin or container. Adequate particulars of the deceased person therein shall be clearly marked on it.

[m] It is the responsibility of the Undertaker or the person arranging the interment to arrange for a Minister [if desired] and to be responsible for providing sufficient bearers to carry the coffin reverently from the hearse to the grave. Any form of religious service may be used but any other ceremony is subject to the approval of the Council. Alternatively the coffin may be committed without service.

[n] Graves are sold in rotation in each section with the next available space being allocated in the row in which graves are currently being prepared.

[o] Children's graves are available for a sole interment and the size of the coffin is limited to 5 feet [1.5 metres].

4. Graves

[a] All graves shall be excavated or re-opened only by gravediggers or workmen approved by the Council. Gravediggers must adhere to the Council's Regulations for Grave Digging.

[b] No grave shall be dug until the Council has marked the plot to be used.

[c] Conveyance of Materials All boards, tools and other material or plant required shall be conveyed by hand, on carts or trucks, the wheels of which must have a tyre width of not less than 4 inches [10 cms]. Heavy plant must have caterpillars so as to spread weight and prevent damage to grass. Care must be taken to avoid cutting up or damaging the roads, paths or grassed areas.

[d] Removal of Rubbish and Surplus Materials. Every person working on any grave or memorial shall, immediately upon its completion, clear up and remove from the site any rubbish or surplus materials remaining, and at no cost to the Council. If any person, after receiving one week's notice from the Council, neglects or fails to comply with this requirement, the rubbish or surplus materials will be removed by the Council, and that person who so neglects or fails shall, on demand, pay the Council the appropriate cost of removal.

[e] The depth of every grave [whether or not the Exclusive Right of Burial has been purchased] shall be determined by the Council. Every new grave for adults will be dug to six feet six inches [2m] as for a double depth grave, and, on re-opening; a layer of at least 6 inches [150 mm] of earth must be left between each coffin. No part of any coffin shall be less than 3 feet 3 inches [1m] below the level of the ground. Ashes shall be interred at a minimum of 2 feet [60 cms]. Where the nature of the ground is suitable, triple depth graves may be permitted.

[f] Covering of graves. After burial, the earth and turf shall be replaced and kept level with the surrounding area. No mounds will be allowed on any grave. The surface area of the grave must be left free of obstructions in the interests of safety and to facilitate maintenance. The Council will mow all graves provided in the Memorial Garden. Cultivation of the grave space is not permitted. Any settlement of the soil will be made good by the Council twice yearly as required, and further turf or grass seed applied. The Council reserves to itself the right of passage over all graves.

[g] After interment no remains shall be removed unless there has been produced to the Council the faculty or licence required by law from the necessary authorities.

[h] Cremated remains must either be interred below ground in an urn of metal or wood [no plastic containers are allowed] or, alternatively, they can be scattered below ground in the designated area. Up to two caskets of cremated remains may be placed in a plot where the Exclusive Right of Burial for a period of 50 years has been purchased. The scattering of ashes above ground is not permitted in any circumstances. The removal of buried cremated remains for whatever purpose requires an Exhumation Licence from the Ministry of Justice or its successor.

[i] Use of purchased graves. Cremated human remains may be buried or scattered underground in purchased graves, with the consent of the owner of the Burial Rights. Where the purchased grave is of sufficient depth and will be required at a future date for the burial of a second coffin, the casket of ashes must be buried so as to permit the free passage of any coffin. The burial of cremated remains in any grave for which the Exclusive Right of Burial has not been purchased is not permitted.

5. Memorials

[a] Different methods of memorialisation will be prescribed for different sections of the site and details of permissible size, composition, and colour and the prescribed fee can be obtained from the Council offices. A Digital Book of Remembrance is being created which will be accessible through the Council's web site.

Section A [cremation area] As this is a natural area, a small marker will be allowed to mark the plot for the first 8 weeks but no permanent memorial or other items may be placed here. Wreaths may be placed on the plot after the interment, and on special occasions, and will be removed after they have died or after 4 weeks. With the Council's permission the small marker may subsequently be placed in a nearby planting area to create a focal point for placing flowers if desired.

Section B is not yet in use to allow for the grass and planting to become established. The Memorial Garden Committee will determine the size and composition of the plaques.

Section C is reserved for the burial of babies and young children, or their cremated remains. The Memorial Garden Committee will determine the size and composition of the plaques. Coffins shall be no longer than 5 feet [1.5 m].

Section D is for burials and allows for the installation of a wedge shaped memorial, which shall be of a size no larger than 18 inches by 18 inches by 3.5 inches thick [45 cms x 45 cms x 10 cms] in the adjacent planting area.

Section E is a natural area for burials and no permanent memorials are to be placed there, although flowers and temporary markers may be placed within the designated planting areas.

Section F is another burials option, allowing for memorials, which shall be no larger than 24 inches wide by 18 inches deep by 2 inches [60 cms x 45 cms x 5 cms] thick and which must be placed flush with the surrounding grass at the head of the grave.

Section K allows for memorial plaques, which must be installed on the kerbing provided. Details of size and position of fixings can be obtained from the Clerk. Interment of ashes, if required, may be under the grass adjacent to the kerb, if available, or in Section A. It is possible to purchase the right to install a memorial in the absence of an interment.

[b] Application for placing a memorial. The application must be made by a Monumental Mason and the registered grave owner jointly on a form provided by the Council. This should include a drawing showing the dimensions, type of stone and finish, system of fixing and the inscription to be placed thereon. The Council has the power to prevent the use of any inscriptions that it considers unsuitable. The application must also bear the signature of the registered owner of the Exclusive Right of Burial or his executor, or of the next of kin in the case of an unpurchased grave. The appropriate fee should be included with the application. The Memorial Mason will be required to confirm by signature on the application that the proposed memorial will be installed in accordance with the National Association of Monumental Masons' recommended practice and to British Standard BS 8415 or as prescribed from time to time. The submitted details must be approved by the Council. No memorial work may be carried out until permission has been granted.

[c] Where the exclusive rights have been granted to place and maintain, or add an additional inscription to a memorial, on a grave space or in a planting area adjacent to it, this will be for a period of 30 years. The Council may permit the renewal of these rights following expiry for a further period, subject to the memorial/plaque being in a safe and stable condition and any defects identified being repaired at the cost of the owner. Should adequate repairs not be made the Council will notify the owner by letter to the owner's last known address of its intention to remove the memorial/plaque after the expiration of three months. Notices of the Council's intention will also be placed in the Memorial Garden and published for 2 successive weeks in a local newspaper. Plaques/memorials can be removed without compensation being payable to the owner.

[d] The right to place and maintain, or put any additional inscription on a memorial on a grave space, or in a planting area adjacent to it, in which no exclusive rights have been granted will be granted by the Council for a period of 14 years from the date of the interment of the person commemorated. The right will be granted to the person who appears to the Council to be the next of kin of the deceased person commemorated.

[e] At the expiration of any grant under the above, or of any extension of such period, the Council may move the memorial/plaque to another place in the Memorial Garden, preserve it elsewhere, or remove and destroy it without compensation.

[f] No unauthorised person will be permitted to carry out the work of placing, repairing, altering or adding to any memorial.

[g] In the construction of memorials materials used shall be of the best quality and description and no memorial shall be constructed in plastic or wood, natural stones only being permitted. Trade names are not permitted on any part of a memorial/plaque. No memorial or plaque may be bored to incorporate a metal flower holder. Memorials should be inscribed at the base in 1 inch [2.5 cms] lettering with the plot number of the grave space at which it is to be placed. All work in connection with memorials and any necessary reinstatement arising there from shall be done to the satisfaction of the Council.

[h] Installation of memorials is permitted during normal opening hours only. During the installation of the memorial, all materials and equipment shall be conveyed to the area in such a manner as to prevent damage to walks, paths, roads or turfed areas and all soil or waste material shall be removed in a like manner. Mats, boards or canvas shall be used as approved by the Council to achieve this end. All debris or surplus material must be removed from the site, and any damage caused to adjacent graves or memorials must be made good to the satisfaction of the Council. If any damage be caused to the grass, shrubs, buildings, memorials or other property by the bringing in or removal of materials, whilst the work is in progress, or otherwise, the person or persons causing such damage shall reimburse the expense of making it good. No hewing or dressing of memorial stones will be permitted in the site. The area must be left in a clean tidy state.

[i] The owner is responsible for maintaining the memorial. They are to be kept clean and in good repair by owners, or their lawful successors. If the owner fails to comply with this regulation, the Council reserves the right to remove any memorial, after notifying the owner by letter to the owner's last known address, of its intention to remove the memorial/plaque after the expiration of three months. Notices of the Council's intention will also be placed in the Memorial Garden and published for 2 successive weeks in a local newspaper. Plaques/memorials can be removed without compensation being payable to the owner.

[j] The Council reserves the right to inspect and test memorials/plaques and to temporarily make safe any unstable memorial pending notification to the owner who must then arrange for repair by a Memorial Mason at the owner's expense. The Council may require the owner of any monument, gravestone or other structure, which in their opinion has become unsafe, to remove it. If the owner fails to comply with any such requirement within 14 days or, if in the opinion of the Council, the removal should be effected immediately then the Council may carry out the work without incurring any liability for any damage arising. Plaques/memorials can be removed without compensation being payable to the owner.

[k] The Council does not accept responsibility for the removal and replacement of memorials for the re-opening of graves in Section F. This is the responsibility of the funeral director, who is also responsible for the repair of any damage caused. Any memorial that is replaced on its respective grave following an interment will be inspected and any defects identified are to be repaired at the expense of the registered grave owner. The removal and replacement of a memorial to facilitate the reopening of a purchased grave shall be at the expense of the owner of the Exclusive Right of Burial.

[l] The Council will not be responsible for any damage to monuments, gravestones and other structures other than damage occasioned by the negligence of its officers, agents, servants or workmen.

[m] Temporary wooden crosses or small bronze plaques, of a suitable size, are permitted to be placed in designated planting areas.

[n] Soliciting for orders within the Memorial Garden for the placement or repair of any memorial or plaque, or for any other work connected with graves, is strictly prohibited. The Council reserve the right to exclude from the site any person or company or firm on whose behalf any person has been found soliciting or suspected of doing so.

[o] The Council has the power to remove unauthorised and unsafe memorials. The Council also reserves the right to remove or alter the position of others [following expiry of the relevant grant] if such a course appears to the Council to be desirable, after the expiration of three months following notification to the owner by letter to the owner's last known address of its intention. Notices of the Council's intention will also be placed in the Memorial Garden and published for 2 successive weeks in a local newspaper. Plaques/memorials can be removed without compensation being payable to the owner.

6. General

[a] Visiting the Memorial Garden. You are required to respect the peace and dignity of the Memorial Garden and behave in a decent, quiet and orderly manner. No children under the age of 12 years are allowed unless accompanied by a responsible adult. Dogs should be kept on a lead with their owner and any mess removed. Vehicles are to be kept on the roadway and the speed to a maximum of 10 mph. Cycles or Motor Cycles must not be ridden within the site. No alcohol or illegal substance is to be brought into, or consumed within the Memorial Garden. Smoking is not permitted. Litter is to be placed in the bins provided. The playing of music in any form is prohibited except with permission of the Council.

[b] The lawns of the Memorial Garden are an amenity for the benefit of all visitors and should be kept as such. Burial plots shall be levelled, grassed and maintained as a lawn by the Council. The turfed area of the grave therefore must not be cut to form a flowerbed and no gravel or stones may be placed around memorials, or other item on the grave plot. The Council reserves the right, without compensation, to remove any such item which has been placed on the grave plot in contravention of these regulations. Grass cutting will be carried out by the Council at a frequency determined by weather conditions and by the Council. Within the areas not in current use, maintenance will differ from the normal grass cutting cycle and be determined by the Council.

[c] Natural wreaths only may be placed on the grass in areas where there are no adjacent planting areas. Please remove all wrappings and dispose of them in the bins provided. If it is desired to keep the flowers in water, a spiked plastic vase, obtainable on site, may be placed into the grass. Flowers and wreaths may remain on a grave for up to 4 weeks, after which they and any plastic spiked vase will be removed. The Council will allow further flowers or wreaths to be placed in all such areas, at the time of a special occasion or during the Christmas period.

[d] In the interests of Health and Safety, no glass or porcelain containers are permitted anywhere and the Council prescribe the use of metal or other unbreakable material for flower/plant containers. The Council regrets that no responsibility can be accepted for the removal of, loss of, or damage to flowers or vases. Planting areas are provided for the placement/cultivation of flowers or other plants in some sections. Flowers are to be removed when dead. Artificial flowers will be allowed in the planting areas for a limited time, but will be removed after 3 months or when they become faded. The Council shall be at liberty to remove any moveable articles that are broken or have become unsightly.

[e] No dressing of the graves is permitted. This includes scarves, ribbons, soft toys, garden ornaments, tinsel etc. The Council will only allow the placing of small mementoes where this involves children, with the prior consent of the Council. If there is any doubt please contact the Clerk for clarification. Any such item will be removed and disposed of by the Council after the expiry of 12 months from the date of the interment.

[f] Memorial Seats. The Council may allow the purchase of a seat with either a carved inscription or a bronze plaque placed on the top back rail in memory of a deceased person. The seat will be sited as close as possible to the position you require. Please contact the Clerk of the Council for details of suitable seats that can be purchased. Wooden seating is not being used on this site.

[g] Bulb donations. There is a provision for the donation of bulbs to be planted within the Memorial Garden. The bulbs will be planted in a position deemed appropriate by the Council - For a full list and further details please contact the Clerk. Inappropriate varieties, such as Spanish Bluebells, will not be allowed.

[h] Perennials, shrubs and trees may be sponsored in memory of a loved one. Please contact the Clerk to view the approved list. The Council reserves the right to decide where these will be planted and to use their own contractor at the appropriate time to plant them, also to trim or remove trees or plants donated, if they become diseased or a Health and Safety risk. No trees can be planted in any part of the ground except by the Council. In areas where the planting of flowers, shrubs or plants is permitted the growth shall not exceed four feet [1.2m] in height and the Council reserves the right to prune, cut down or dig up and remove any flower, shrub or plant at any time when, in the opinion of the Council, the same has become unsightly or overgrown.

[i] Service graves. If desired by the family, in order to allow the use of the standard service memorial, these may be exempt from the rules relating to the size of memorials and planting of the grave area although the burial plot would have to be allocated in an appropriate area determined by the Council.

[j] Staff working on behalf of the Council. Visitors or persons attending funerals shall not interfere with the employees of the Council at their duties. The Council forbids any gratuity being offered or received by any of their employees or the carrying out of private work of any kind in connection with the Memorial Garden.

[k] The Council accepts no liability whatsoever for death or personal injury, loss of, or damage to, property or any other loss, damage, costs and expenses caused to persons entering the Memorial Garden.

[l] Regulations and Charges/Fees. The Council reserves the right to alter or amend these regulations at any time; to introduce further regulations, as it considers necessary; to waive any of the foregoing regulations in exceptional circumstances or to impose temporary restrictions on any matters not specifically covered in these regulations. The Council reserves the right to alter or amend the Schedule of Charges likewise.

7. Offences in the Memorial Garden

[a] Unlawful behaviour. No person shall behave in any way so as to create any disturbance, commit any nuisance, interfere with any burial taking place, or interfere with any grave, memorial or plaque, or any flowers or plants or play at any game or sport. The Council reserves the right to exclude anybody behaving inappropriately or in breach of these regulations.

[b] Unlawful entry. No unauthorised person shall enter or remain at any hour when it is closed to the public.

[c] Unlawful use. No burial shall take place, and no memorial or plaque shall be placed, and no additional inscription shall be made on any memorial, without the permission of the Council. The scattering of cremated human remains [ashes] above ground is not permitted under any circumstances.

[d] Unlawful action. No body shall be buried or cremated human remains interred in any grave in which an exclusive right of burial for the time being exists except with the consent in writing of, the owner of the right.

Revised October 2008.

Acknowledgements

To Anne Stratton, as without her generosity in donating her two valuable paddocks, the community would have nowhere locally to bury their loved ones.

To Eva and Terry Lloyd, as without their help in providing an access, the two paddocks would have remained tantalisingly inaccessible.

To Graham Reddie who gave so much of his time to help with the problems incurred, for his work with the regulations, and for scrutinising this record.

To the late Dave Allworth, Chairman of the Council from 1995 to 2001 for his work as the 3rd person to chair the Burials Committee, for his initial challenge and encouragement, and for his help and support to the author whilst he was on the Council. It was a joy to be able to show him photographs of the finished Memorial Garden before he died.

To all past councillors who gave input into the problem, especially Ron Wynands, who agreed to chair the 1st Burials Committee, and Barbara Richer, who took over from him. Their work was not in vain, and the author benefited from reading their experiences.

To all those councillors who helped to support the project, or who served on the Burials Committee at some time and put up with the chairman. These include Ben Benifer, Eunice Clifford, John Coombs, Dave Gregory, Gary Hall, Fred Harrold, Miv Hughes, Alan Kirby, Don Morris, Reg Orsler, Dawn Smith, Pam Summerbell, Alan Turner, Pamela Williams, and especially Wally Woolf who gave so much of his time, active help and stalwart support.

To Christopher Stratton for providing a Planning Representation which helped to turn the fortunes of the planning application.

To officers of the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management and the Association of Burial Authorities, for their help with various queries, especially Tim Morris and the late Sam Weller. Also to officers of various Councils who responded to queries and requests, especially Ken West MBE, who may remember showing a rookie councillor around Carlisle Cemetery.

To Steve Wynn and his wife Margaret, and the late Ian Roe who represented the interests of the residents living near to the site.

To Harry Henley, a local plumbing engineer, for his voluntary [hard] work in providing the initial water supply to the site. Also Robbie Wooster who provided some helpful labour with the digging.

Special thanks should be recorded for those members of the general public who had offered their help with watering the plants, especially John Summerbell who also spent many hours weeding the gardens, and Monty Wooster who also spent much time tackling some of the bindweed.

My grateful thanks to local landowners Dorothy Brock, William Thomas-Davies and Jim Walker for their offers of help during the search for a suitable site.

Sincere thanks are due to all those people who wrote letters to Wycombe District Council Planning Department supporting the proposed Memorial Garden whilst the Council was experiencing prolonged delays due to the need to address concerns raised by objectors.

To all my family for their loyal support, help, encouragement and patience. My late husband, Ben, spent many years doing voluntary work in St Mary's churchyard and would have offered his services in the Stratton Memorial Garden.

To my old friend Heather Barwick for checking my grammar in this record.

To Peter Dixon and Tim Addison for their photographic input.

To Dianne Norton for her outstanding patience.

To all my friends and acquaintances for their support and my humble apologies to anyone I have missed.

I reserve my final words to thank God for keeping watch over the project and supplying the necessary support and help, which led to its eventual success.

References

Assessing the Groundwater Pollution Potential of Cemetery Developments [Environment Agency, Bristol, Product Code SCHO0404BGLA-E-P, April 2004 updated version].

DETR Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans - A guide to Procedures. 1999

[Product Code 99PD0724]

DETR Development Plans \- What You Need to Know. 1998 Code 95 LGP 062

Hailey, Mary and Knight, Anthony [eds.] "...As Witness This Day..." Princes Risborough Baptist Church 1707 – 2007 A Celebration [Freedom Print, Holmer Green, 2007]

Kidd, Rex A, St Mary's Church, Princes Risborough: An Historical Guide [S. E. Printing, Princes Risborough 1997] ISBN 0 9518123 0 0

Lewis, R. A., Edwin Chadwick and the Public Health Movement 1832 – 1854 [Longmans, Green and Co., London 1952] 614 094 208 1 LEW

Litten, Julian, The English Way of Death: The Common Funeral Since 1450 [Robert Hale, London 1991] ISBN 0 7090 4350 3

Local Plans and Unitary Development Plans – A Guide to Procedures [Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Code 99 PDO724 2000]

Macrory, Richard, Water Law: Principles and Practice [FT Law & Tax, 1985].

ISBN 9780851209555

May, Trevor, The Victorian Undertaker [Shire Publications Ltd, Princes Risborough, Bucks 1996]. ISBN 0 7478 0331 5

Pridgin Teale, Thomas, Dangers to Health: A Pictorial Guide to Domestic Sanitary Defects [J and A Churchill, London 1881].

Rugg, Julie. The Origins and Progress of Cemetery Establishment in Britain in The Changing Face of Death – Historical Accounts of Death and Disposal. Edited by Jupp, Peter C, and Howarth, Glennys. [1997] Macmillan Press Ltd. London.

ISBN 0-333-63863-8

Trick, Julian; Klinck, Ben; Coombs, Patricia; Noy, Dave; Williams, Geoff. Burial sites and their impact on groundwater. [British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, NG12 5GG, IAHS Press, Wallingford 2005] ISSN 0144-7815

West, Ken, A Guide to Natural Burial [Sweet and Maxwell 2010]

Wilson, Sir Arnold Talbot, and Levy, Hermann. Burial Reform and Funeral Costs [1938] Oxford University Press

Wycombe District Local Plan to 2011 - Deposit December 1998

# # #
