Gilroes Cemetery set to expand as Hindu protests rejected
An extra eight acres of burial ground is set to be created at Gilroes Cemetery to stop the city running out of space for graves.
Leicester City Council plans to use agricultural land it already owns, following fears remaining burial plots will be full within 18 months.
-
Gilroes Cemetry, Leicester
This is despite scores of objections from people living in the nearby Heathley Park estate and a 280-signature petition.
Councillors will be advised to approve the plans for the cemetery at a meeting on Tuesday.
Residents fear their properties will be devalued, and have complained the cemetery extension will prevent people from enjoying "the green space".
Many local Hindus have objected because their holy books say they cannot live near a cemetery.
Some have told the council they would have to move house.
But the council said those concerns were outweighed by the fact that the cemetery is used by 47 different faiths, who should have the choice of being buried locally.
Leicester Hindu Voice condemned the plans.
Spokesman Mukesh Naker said: "We're disappointed that the residents' concerns clearly have not been listened to.
"Hindus believe that graveyards have lots of negative energy. It's likely that some Hindu residents will decide to move, rather than live near a graveyard."
Nearby resident Dr Thirthahalli Girish said in a letter to the council: "I belong to the Hindu religion and my religious belief does not permit me to stay next to the cemetery. My house faces straight opposite the proposed extension.
"I would be devastated to see and face the cemetery on an everyday basis if this extension goes ahead.
"This would be extremely distressing to me and my family."
The nearest houses to the site are in Avington Close, Margam Close and Hyde Close, but these homes will still be 40 metres away from the proposed cemetery extension.
Mature trees and hedges would screen the site, the council said.
Resident Reena Vaghela said: "The greenfield surroundings is one of the reasons for us moving into this area."
Fellow resident Sandip Kaur Badyal wrote: "I understand they need more space but unfortunately I am against the extension of the cemetery on to land currently used to graze horses.
"I feel that it will be very disturbing to know and even see burial ceremonies taking place virtually on your doorstep."
Residents even cited the Human Rights Act, saying that their right to religious expression would be impeded.
But a council planning report said: "The purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. It is not to protect the private interests of one person, or a group of people."
The council says no other suitable sites are available in the city.
Gilroes is the city's main site for burials and cremations.
31 Comments
View all
by Susan Eppel, Leicester
Sunday, July 18 2010, 12:44PM
“How ridiculous that Leicester City COuncil insists that another 8 acres of land is required to expand Gilroes Cemetery.
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?
I expect as usual Leicester City Council have undertaken a full 'public consultation'.”
by A Spook, Leics
Saturday, July 17 2010, 7:17PM
“Are the houses not built on the site of an old Hospital? What about the ghostly spirits of all those that died there? Did anyone object to these that are probably still roaming around!”
by Adrian, South Leics
Friday, July 16 2010, 7:33PM
“I wonder if the occupants of the cemetery objected to having Heathley Park built due to the possibility of it containing malign spirited people?
Love the "born 1876" reply, long live the typo's.”
by HB, Bradgate Heights, Leicester
Friday, July 16 2010, 2:44PM
“AS, Heathley Park has made a very valid representation of the real facts. I think people living in other parts of the city are being judgemental on religious overtone to this issue, when in reality there are so many other negative impacts of this. The situation is tricky, the population is ageing, where else can we provide good life to those who are living and where do we bury/cremate our dead :-(
My earlier suggestion to create an elevated mound (10 feet high) with mature hedges and trees planted across the stretch would completely obscure the sight of cemetery and also provide environmentally pleasing view. Council, can you please do something here.”
by Pete, Leicester
Friday, July 16 2010, 2:00PM
“How far is near ? why was it ok for the Doc to live there now and with the extension (which cant be that much ) now means its the most important thing in the world.
Does his religion give a distance 200 meters-300
And then if you use the green space next to it you are really close then , so can you walk by this negative energy but not live by it?
Surly you are already near so you have broken all your beliefs ha ha you are condemed to a like of negative ....equity
I had friends who were the first to live in Heathly Park, they moved because the kids used to play football on the streets never used the green spaces.it was horrible full of little kids and their mouthy parents.
Didnt want to live near a cemetary why buy a house next to one.”
by Jane C, Another Planet
Friday, July 16 2010, 1:25PM
“I'd love to live next to a cemetery. All that peace and quiet.”
by Observer, Leicester
Friday, July 16 2010, 1:18PM
“Gilroes is a Christian cemetery - the UK has Christian roots, and still does. It shouldn't matter what the Hindus want if they base everything on their religious beliefs. It's their fault they didn't realise the cemetery will have to be expanded.
If you live in a valley, expect to get flood damage to your house.
If you live next to a cemetery, expect to see more headstones.
They have no right. If they don't like the expansion, they should sell off their house and move on.”
by Boroko, LE3
Friday, July 16 2010, 10:14AM
“At the risk of seeming a tad pedantic, does it not occur to people that their comments on here reflect on them?
Surely if you're going to take the time to post a comment it would make sense to check spelling, grammar and punctuation?
Otherwise you just come across as an intellectual mollusc...”
by Jay, Leicester
Friday, July 16 2010, 9:45AM
“bumble for your information the land does not belong to the cemetery(Gilrose) it is public property and the land is ear marked as green wedge in the master plan hense the need for planning!!! surely the public and residents need to be widly consulted as we were told that the council on the 29th March in their full cabinet defered the extention dission 'pendinding further consultations' so where were the consultations. Whilst I am all for the extension as there is a need I still thing the councill have failed in their obligations to the residents of H P”
by bumble, LFE
Friday, July 16 2010, 9:10AM
“Lapsed planning permission does not mean that there was a plot to secure the development and then reapply. It happens all the time. Your surveys would have shown at the very least that the cemetary owned the land (mine certainly showed if land was owned by a buisiness as part of the environmental survey). Now we would all like beautiful vistas without it changing however we must unfortunately also accept that if a person owns land, recieves planning permission and uses it that is their legal right. Yes we may object but those objections not turning the situation round does not equal not being listened to, but simply that the position for was stronger than the postion against.”