Grave Concerns!

[chiddicks]

Grave Danger! https://chiddicksfamilytree.wordpress.com/2017/10/20/grave-danger/



The problems associated with Developers building over graveyards and burial sites.

[Ray T]

The fact that somebody applies of planning permission to build over a graveyard or is even granted peemission doesn't mean that they can actually do it. Obtaining planning permission is just one step in the development process and objecting at that stage will not necessarily be the best option.

I think it unlikely that the existence of graves on a site would, in itself, give adequate grounds for a refusal of permisison. Owners/lessees of graves may well have certain rights over those graves and therefore the right to object but these rights are not exercisable through the planning process.

[Ayashi]

Perhaps part of this would be a revision on how we deal with bodies.

Yes, I know there are lots of ways, but the standard is still full body burial in a field, which takes up a lot of room. Cremation takes up less room and I know sometimes cremation boxes can be placed into a wall structure- with sufficiently solid cremation boxes, this would enable remains to be more easily moved if required (rather than exhuming remains) plus the space impact would be vertical not horizontal.

Alternatively, we could perhaps think about using more of a catacomb structure. I think there are some places that have underground graveyards. Sure, it wouldn't be as nice as burying someone surrounded by flowers in the open outside, although perhaps with sufficient decoration rather than clinical concrete or something it could be made better. That way, if space is a problem, developers can still build above it. The problem would come with structural integrity- sooner or later that structure might cave in.

Not much can be done about the existing graveyards however, except, as you say, digging them all up again.

[chiddicks]

I agree Ray, but if you look up and down the country as the squeeze for available land to develop on, gets shorter and shorter, these occurrences will happen more frequently, which they are.

A lot of relatives only find out about developments after they have been approved, which surely can't be right?

The fact that somebody applies of planning permission to build over a graveyard or is even granted peemission doesn't mean that they can actually do it. Obtaining planning permission is just one step in the development process and objecting at that stage will not necessarily be the best option.

I think it unlikely that the existence of graves on a site would, in itself, give adequate grounds for a refusal of permisison. Owners/lessees of graves may well have certain rights over those graves and therefore the right to object but these rights are not exercisable through the planning process.

[chiddicks]

I agree Ayashi, a long term solution does need to be looked at. Available and new burial sites are becoming less frequent and as you rightly say, cremation does offset the demand slightly.

Some cemeteries have re-burials after a set period, say 100 years, but again this can cause unnecessary distress and heartache for loved ones. I don't have the answer myself, but think that it's a good discussion to have.

Perhaps part of this would be a revision on how we deal with bodies.

Yes, I know there are lots of ways, but the standard is still full body burial in a field, which takes up a lot of room. Cremation takes up less room and I know sometimes cremation boxes can be placed into a wall structure- with sufficiently solid cremation boxes, this would enable remains to be more easily moved if required (rather than exhuming remains) plus the space impact would be vertical not horizontal.

Alternatively, we could perhaps think about using more of a catacomb structure. I think there are some places that have underground graveyards. Sure, it wouldn't be as nice as burying someone surrounded by flowers in the open outside, although perhaps with sufficient decoration rather than clinical concrete or something it could be made better. That way, if space is a problem, developers can still build above it. The problem would come with structural integrity- sooner or later that structure might cave in.

Not much can be done about the existing graveyards however, except, as you say, digging them all up again.

[Ayashi]

I don't think I'd want to be buried if it meant being dug up in 100 years, feels like it defeats the point of going in the ground in the first place 

I've seen alternative methods where your ashes get mixed with fertiliser and a seed planted so you turn into a tree, which is all very well and good but you'd probably get cut down after a short while as well 

[chiddicks]

I like your comment about getting cut down again!!

It does beg the question of what alternatives will there be long term?

I don't think I'd want to be buried if it meant being dug up in 100 years, feels like it defeats the point of going in the ground in the first place 

I've seen alternative methods where your ashes get mixed with fertiliser and a seed planted so you turn into a tree, which is all very well and good but you'd probably get cut down after a short while as well 

[chiddicks]

has anybody had any thoughts on a long term alternative?

[Cell]

Hi,
On a similar note to the trees, there are companies that turn ashes into jewelry that have been operating for quite a while now. Google cremation jewellery.

We recently had to have our pet cat put to sleep, I asked my 11yr old what he'd like to do, bury, or cremate. He didn't like either options,  he wanted to stuff the cat! He said it didn't feel right burying him in the ground,and he hated the idea of cremating.  Needless to say I did not stuff the cat! (I am now worried he will stuff me when my time comes lol) We buried him.

Haven't got a solution,  but some people get the ashes turned into jewels.
I want to be buried, although I doubt that it really would matter to me once I'm gone.
Kind regards