A WEDGE-SHAPED plinth installed without permission at a Cheshire cemetery must be removed because it does not comply with cemetery regulations, and would set a “troubling” precedent if it persists, the diocesan chancellor has ruled.

The Presbytery Court of the Diocese of Chester has refused to grant permission to keep in place the wedge-shaped plinth, which had been installed in St Lawrence’s Churchyard, Stoak, on the grave of Jayne Louise McAlister, who died on January 15, 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 base had been installed on a concrete base just in front of the deceased’s memorial by her father, Andy McAlister. No stone masons were involved. The base was made of glossy black material largely matching the color of the memorial itself. Mr. McAlister envisaged that in due course his ashes and his wife’s body would be interred in the same grave, after which a suitable inscription could be added to the plinth.

The holder, the cemetery coordinator and the PCC opposed the maintenance of the base. It was argued that if the plinth was allowed to remain, a precedent for other demands would be set. Opponents acknowledged that some headstones and other stones had “slipped through the cracks in recent years” but said the parish was “trying to get a handle on these issues.”

Mr. McAlister, they write, “appeared to be under the impression that he could add stones and other paraphernalia to his daughter’s grave without permission, which led (another named person) to believe that he could do the same.

The main objections were that the installation of the plinth was not “in compliance with current cemetery regulations” and that the parish was “currently attempting to bring the cemetery into compliance with these regulations.”

The chancellor, His Honor David Turner KC, said this correspondence revealed a misunderstanding on Mr McAlister’s part that he had “purchased” the grave. This has “never been the case in a consecrated cemetery,” the Chancellor said.

If the erected monument belonged to its owner or his “legal heirs”, this was not the case for the plot or land in question. Express permission was always required for any additions, such as borders, gravel, flower receptacles or an additional base to be placed on the plot. The land remained part of the cemetery.

Diocesan regulations on parish cemeteries were approved by the chancellors of each diocese and existed primarily to enable the clergy and public to understand what, in general, could be permitted without special faculty or authorization.

The Regulations existed, the chancellor said, “to create clarity and consistency as to what may be appropriate for a parish cemetery, fairness between families wishing to have their loved ones buried and for practical reasons for volunteers and others responsible for maintaining and maintaining the cemeteries as worthy. and places of peaceful rest.”

There was no doubt, he said, that this particular base, while well-intentioned, violated the regulations of this diocese. This was an “unauthorized addition” that clearly expanded the “footprint” of the memorial, which had otherwise been accepted and approved.

Chancellors have, in recent years, adopted divergent views on granting authorizations outside of regulations. Some had demanded that the petitioners demonstrate “exceptional circumstances”.

The Chancellor said his task was to “strike a balance between the demands of the petitioners. . . and the position of the parish clergy and the PCC whose policy (was), laudably, to try to ensure compliance with cemetery regulations.”

In favor of the petitioners was the fact that the plinth was already in place, that it did not have an unsightly or dramatic impact and that the implications for the maintenance of the cemetery were quite limited.

Against this were parochial opposition, concerns about a potentially troubling precedent, some maintenance inconveniences, and the laudable desire of PCC and ministry staff to enforce the Regulations as they were.

In this case, the Chancellor said, what the petitioners sought was actually a “serious reservation”. This is not an unworthy goal, but seeking to achieve it by current means is “not appropriate”.

This could be achieved “by other means which do not necessarily require a departure from the regulations”, the Chancellor said. The grave appeared to be large enough to accomplish what the family wanted, and the existing memorial was sufficient to accommodate other names and dates.

The petitioners have therefore failed to demonstrate that the plinth should remain, and Mr McAlister clearly had responsibility for removing or causing the removal of the unauthorized plinth and its concrete base.