*** DEBUG START ***
*** DEBUG END ***

Court rules against plinth as a 'troubling' precedent

22 November 2024

JOHN LORD/COMMONS/GEOGRAPH

St Lawrence’s, Stoak, in Cheshire

A WEDGE-SHAPED plinth installed without permission in a Cheshire churchyard must be removed because it did not meet churchyard regulations, and would set a “troubling” precedent if it remained, the Diocesan Chancellor has ruled.

The Consistory Court of the diocese of Chester refused to grant permission to retain in place the wedge-shaped plinth, which had been installed in the churchyard of St Lawrence’s, Stoak, on the grave of Jayne Louise McAlister, who died on 15 January 2015. The petitioners seeking permission were Jean Andre (Andy) McAlister, Shirley McAlister, and Peter McAlister, who are the parents and brother, respectively, of the deceased.

The plinth had been installed on a concrete base immediately in front of the memorial to the deceased by her father, Andy McAlister. No stonemason had been involved. The plinth was of black shiny material broadly matching the colour of the memorial itself. Mr McAlister envisaged that, in due course, his ashes and his wife’s body would be buried in the same grave, at which time a suitable inscription could be added to the plinth.

The incumbent, the churchyard co-ordinator, and the PCC objected to the retention of the plinth. It was argued that, were the plinth permitted to remain, a precedent for further applications would be set. The objectors acknowledged that there were some headstones and additional stones that had “slipped through the net over the last years”, but said that the parish was “trying to get on top of such matters”.

Mr McAlister, they wrote, “appeared to be under the impression that he could add stones and other accoutrements to his daughter’s grave without permission, which in turn had led [another named individual] to think he could do the same”.

The main objections were that the installation of the plinth was not “in line with current Churchyard Regulations”, and that the parish was “currently trying to bring the churchyard back into line with these Regulations”.

The Chancellor, His Honour David Turner KC, said that correspondence disclosed a misunderstanding on Mr McAlister’s part that he had “purchased” the grave. This was “never the case in a consecrated churchyard”, the Chancellor said.

While the memorial installed belonged to its owner or “heirs at law”, the plot or ground in question did not. Express permission was always required for any addition, such as kerbs, chippings, flower receptacles, or an additional plinth to be placed on the plot. The land remained part of the churchyard.

The diocesan Churchyard Regulations were approved by chancellors in each diocese, and existed principally to enable clergy and the public to understand what, generally, might be permitted without a faculty or special permission.

The Regulations existed, the Chancellor said, “to create clarity and consistency as to what may be appropriate to a churchyard setting, fairness as between families wishing to have loved ones buried, and practicality for volunteers and others charged with tending and maintaining churchyards as worthy and peaceful places of rest”.

There was no doubt, he said, that this particular plinth, although well intended, fell foul of the regulations in this diocese. It was “an unauthorised addition” that plainly extended the “footprint” of the memorial, which had otherwise been accepted and approved.

Chancellors had, in recent years, taken differing views on granting permission outside of the regulations. Some had required “exceptional circumstances” to be demonstrated by petitioners.

The Chancellor said that his task was to “strike a balance between the petitioners’ request . . . and the position of the parish clergy and PCC whose policy [was], commendably, to try to secure compliance with Churchyard Regulations”.

In favour of the petitioners was the fact that the plinth was already in place, it was not unsightly or dramatic in impact, and the churchyard maintenance implications were fairly limited.

Against this was the parochial opposition, the concern about a potentially troubling precedent, some maintenance inconvenience, and the commendable desire of the PCC and ministry staff to enforce the Regulations as they stood.

In this case, the Chancellor said, what the petitioners were anxious to achieve was really “grave reservation”. That was not an unworthy goal, but to seek to achieve it by the current means was “not appropriate”.

This might be realised “by other means which need not require departure from regulation”, the Chancellor said. The grave appeared to be sufficiently capacious to achieve what the family desired, and the existing memorial was sufficient to accommodate further names and dates.

The petitioners had, therefore, failed to discharge the burden upon them of showing that the plinth should remain, and Mr McAlister had a clear responsibility to remove, or arrange for the removal of, the unauthorised plinth and its concrete base.

Browse Church and Charity jobs on the Church Times jobsite

Forthcoming Events

Women Mystics: Female Theologians through Christian History

13 January - 19 May 2025

An online evening lecture series, run jointly by Sarum College and The Church Times

tickets available

 

Festival of Faith and Literature

28 February - 2 March 2025

tickets available

 

Visit our Events page for upcoming and past events 

Welcome to the Church Times

 

To explore the Church Times website fully, please sign in or subscribe.

Non-subscribers can read four articles for free each month. (You will need to register.)