Gilroes: People right to object
How ridiculous that Leicester City Council insists that another eight acres of land is required to expand Gilroes Cemetery (Mercury, July 15).
Given the size of the existing population and projected future populations there is potentially never going to be enough land. What will they do when the extra land runs out? People need green space and if it is to be used for anything in the future, surely we must safeguard our food supply and earmark this for future growing?
The residents are right to be angry and, in fact, there is a clause in the Human Rights Act (article 8) that states that people have a right to enjoyment of their property and a normal family life.
Other parts of Europe use common sense and after so many years in fact recycle their graves – how else would we be able to accommodate everyone's wish in a huge population and finite land resource?
Susan Eppel, Leicester.
9 Comments
View all
by Jon, leics
Thursday, July 22 2010, 8:28AM
“Reuben - my comment about social housing is not meant as an attack on the tennants but I was relating to the type and high density of the housing that is put up by developers so it is affordable (ie proffitable)
The residents that are objecting are trying to stop the use of the land from changing from a green space to a cemetary which is still a green place so I was just pointing out there are alternatives.
Sue
My wife and I still visit and put flowers on family graves of our ancestors who died a lot more than 50 years ago - who has the right to deny us that!”
by Susan Eppel, Leicester
Wednesday, July 21 2010, 7:44PM
“For Jon - just because the Council may have reserved the land in question by not allowing development, for he purpose of expansion and the 'time has come', this does not mean it is right. The Council has made many bad decisions in the past and in my view continues to do so.
The people outside of the city also have the same problem as there are so many demands on land for housing etc - it is no longer sustainable to make provision for millions of people forever.
An enlightened solution needs to be found such as recycling graves after 25 - 50 years as they do in other countries - just common sense.
Land doesn't grow with population size - just do the sums.”
by Reuben, Enderby
Wednesday, July 21 2010, 1:09PM
“I was 'with' Jon, leics, in his early posts on this subject, his reasoning to me sound and factual.However,his comment
where he lists alternatives he would not wish to see include "social housing". I can only assume from that, that he has been fortunate enough to buy his own home. There are many thousands who through circumstances in their lives have been unable to become owners of their own home and social housing has been the answer. I am one of those, but do not consider myself a lesser worth- while or less responsible person just because I am a 'social housing tenant'. By implication Jon appears to place me and others in social housing as a blight on the countryside. Any further comment Jon ?”
by Jon, leics
Wednesday, July 21 2010, 8:59AM
“David
I don't think you understand the planning process - the planners can only take into concideration the actual site, and any external conditions at the time. If we were to start taking into account what might happen some indestinct time in the future then no planning application will ever get through.
Personally I don't see what the problem is I would much rather have a cemetary on land next to my nice housing estate than some of the alternatives - "social" housing - opencast mine - incinerator - waste transfer site - etc. At least a cemetary is going to be quiet and peaceful and the 8 acres will take a lot of years to fill up as they will start adjacent to the existing cemetary and work their way outwards.”
by David, Great Easton, Rural Leicestershire
Tuesday, July 20 2010, 5:08PM
“The fact of the matter is, Jon, the City Council knew one day that expansion would not be a need but a necessity.
As they are the Planning Authority for all Applications within the city boundary it seems quite crazy to me to allow residential development on land which is close to an area designated for expansion of a cemetery.
Surely, it is relevant that these issues are taken into consideration before the planners arrive at their decision. The decision they arrived at in permitting residential development in this vicinity is clearly not based on logic!!”