WITH five councillors signing a request, Four Marks parish council held an extra-ordinary meeting last Thursday.
At the annual village gathering, reported in The Herald last week, much public comment had been made concerning the policy on what ornaments are allowed on graves in the Brislands Lane cemetery, especially that of young Jack Innes.
Since then councillors said they had received many extra comments from residents, some who were present at the meeting but claimed they felt too intimidated to speak at the time.
One of the residents had told council chairman Peter Hobbs, ÒI felt like taking the law into my own hands and removing everything from the grave when I attended a funeral there recently.Ó
Mr Bryan Timms suggested that a compromise situation be adopted. He proposed a three-month delay before enforcement and removal of the particular items. During this time he would attempt to negotiate a compromise. He could not, however, guarantee success.
The council held a wide-ranging discussion with comments that if a resolution had been passed by the council it should be acted upon.
Anne Storey thought that if time were given for Mr TimmsÕ talks there might be a way forward. The problem had been there for a very long time but she felt the council should do everything possible to achieve a peaceful solution.
She backed the call for a three-month delay to allow voluntary compliance with the enforcement notice for the removal of such items that do not conform with the burial ground regulations.
Mr Rushton, while praising the chairman for his handling of a difficult meeting, wondered whether if Mr Timms had had the opportunity to talk to Mr Innes, the grandfather, before the meeting whether people would have been so antagonised?
He was not certain that an amicable outcome would be achieved but felt the council should try, and be seen to have tried after viewing both sides of the situation.
Obviously, he said, some people are not aware of what is allowed and perhaps the rules should be looked at defined more closely. He also felt the funeral organisers had let the council down by not making relatives aware of the conditions ruling as to ornaments. He was concerned that temporary crosses would also be removed.
Mr Timms had, in fact, had a meeting with Mr Innes four months ago although Mr Timms said that the discussion was mainly social although the subject of noises on the grave had been discussed.
It was pointed out that the notice posted by the council had stated quite clearly that unauthorized articles would be removed.
Mr Hobbs told the meeting that the undertakers had confirmed the details of regulations were always handed to relatives.
The rules had been looked at in comparatively recent times and wooden crosses of a permanent nature were not allowed.
Pat Seward pointed out they had never been removed in the past.
According to Mr Hobbs, the church rules stated that if the wooden cross was required as a permanent memorial then special application should be made.
While it was agreed the whole argument was about compassion there were two sides to the coin.
Mr Innes had been told what was acceptable, and other residents were saying that if all the items were left in Brislands Lane burial ground then they did not wish to be buried there.
Mr Burton Mills pointed out that the HAPTC had agreed the parish council had done everything in its power and that the headmaster of the village school had written to say that he realised there are rules to be observed and that precedents can cause problems. It was a no-win situation for everyone.
Mr Innes and his daughter had received five requests from the council over seven months to remove the items.
Mr Mill argued: ÒWe should listen to the other people who have relatives buried there,Ó he added ÒWhat signal does this send to the other 330 plot holders and the electorate?Ó
Mr Timms, while agreeing with Mr MillsÕ comments, thought that the problem was not about facts and figures, or precedents.
ÒWe will ensure this never happens again.Ó
Mr Mills did not agree. Another grave had already attracted teddy bears as soon as they had appeared on the InnesÕ grave. ÒA precedent had been created.Ó
The parish council had been accused of having no feelings, Mrs Storey said this was not the case. She never wanted to attend another meeting like the recent annual village assembly.
The question was asked what would the council do if, after three months there was no compliance with the rulings.
Mr Rushton did not expect a solution but the delay would show the wider electorate that the council would have tried all means to achieve compromise.
It was agreed that Mr Timms should talk to Mr Innes and endeavour to reach a compromise.
Although it was unprecedented for the council to call an extraordinary meeting after a parish assembly, the resolution regarding enforcement of the burial ground rules was upheld with the date of enforcement being delayed until the last day of June.