Campaign group: Cemetery site search is a farce

An action group fighting against the possible use of land on Bury and Rochdale Old Road as a cemetery have described the process in finding a site as a “farce.”

The site was chosen last year and was close to reaching the planning stage when it was withdrawn over lack of consultation.

The Council went back to the drawing board and produced a list of five possible sites, one of which was the Bury and Rochdale Old Road site.

Just weeks into the new consultation of the five sites, the four news ones have been withdrawn because the land owners aren’t willing to sell.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/58359/two-more-cemetery-sites-withdrawn Leaving the cemetery site search back at square one.

Anne Shorrock, from the Bamford Green Belt Action Group, spoke to Councillors at a Township meeting on Wednesday night (7 July). She said that the officers had been inefficient and suggested there had been a lack of “interest” and “thoroughness” on part of the council officers.

She said: “We appreciate there is a need for a new cemetery but this process has now descended into a farce.

“And we are now being told that as sites drop out they will be replaced by new ones and the consultation being extended until 19 September.

“This could go on ad infinitum and is fast becoming a time wasting exercise.”

Ms Shorrock said important information regarding one of the sites has been withheld.

“That is for the withdrawn site 3; the owner of Plumpton Hall draws his domestic water supply from an underground watercourse on this site and thus the site had to be withdrawn because of possible contamination.

“This is essential information which was kept from us, and may I say the public, by the officers who had already consulted with the owner of Plumpton Hall.

“This now leaves the possibility that if site 5 becomes a burial ground there could be leaching into the withdrawn site 3 thus putting the existing watercourse at risk of becoming contaminated and, furthermore, putting people’s health at risk.”

She added: “The whole of this meadowland is completely unsuitable for a cemetery and could be a health hazard.

“The best solution for this land with its history and vast amount of wildlife and the fact that it is a picturesque assets to the borough is that is should be made subject to some kind of Preservation or Protection Order to link in with the surrounding areas of Ashworth Valley, Carr Wood and Birtle.”

Ms Shorrock suggested that the whole exercise be withdrawn and that a Council owned site be found.

Mark Widdup, Director of Environmental Management said Rochdale has a “challenge” in finding new grave space. He added: “Rochdale can’t be extended. If we do nothing we are going to run out of new grave space in Rochdale by 2012.

Mr Widdup agreed that this is a “significant” issue. He said in total 45 sites had been looked at before the five were shortlisted. He said all but one of the land owners had been contacted and they were willing to get into discussions.

He said that all the sites will be revisited and he “hoped” that would include a mix of private and council owned land, but that council owned land does not make the process any easier.

He said: “It is no less contentious in whatever the area.”

Mr Widdup said the search was being taken “seriously” but he has to “report back a solution.”

Councillor Wera Hobhouse questioned if the whole process was starting again, she was assured it is not and the consultation is being extended.

However, Councillor Patricia Sullivan said the whole process should start again.

Mr Widdup said: “We know that each site have strengths and weaknesses and we don’t have the luxury of having ideal sites.

“There will have to be compromise at some stage.”

Mr Widdup added that the lack of grave space is a “national issue” and although it is not possible at the moment in the future the council may have to look at reusing grave space.

Councillor David Clayton suggested that three or four smaller sites be used rather than one big one and added he didn’t think there was a council site that would be large enough.

A £10,000 deposit had already been put on the remaining site following the first process. Mr Widdup said this was “standard practice.”