Arnos Vale Cemetery

HC Deb 21 May 1998 vol 312 cc1182-90

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

8.23 pm

Ms Jean Corston (Bristol, East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the future of Arnos Vale cemetery in my constituency. It was established by a private Act of Parliament in 1837, and is—and has always been—owned by the Bristol General Cemetery Company. It comprises 45 acres in the city, was planned as a Greek necropolis, and has been described as an Arcadian garden. It is of unique ecological importance, in that it has changed from being mediaeval countryside to a Georgian estate to a Victorian cemetery without the use of chemical pesticides or insecticides.

The cemetery provides a fascinating insight into the history of Bristol, as it contains the graves of the Victorian well-to-do, a survivor of the charge of the Light Brigade, a police officer who was murdered in Old Market while trying to intervene in a fight over the ill treatment of a donkey, and the notorious Mary "Princess Cariboo" Baker, who managed to persuade the squire of Almondsbury that she was an eastern princess.

There are also the unmarked mounds of the common graves of the Victorian poor and the markers of the "guinea" graves of those whose friends and relatives had managed to put up the required 21 shillings and so avoid a pauper's funeral. There are many Commonwealth war graves, and last—but by no means least—the mausoleum of Raja Rammohun Roy, who is internationally revered as a humanist and social reformer, and whose statue stands outside the Council House in Bristol.

The income of the cemetery obviously declined as it filled up, and the costs of upkeep rose as burials continued to the present day. In 1987, Mr. Tony Towner took over as the new owner, and he and his wife became the principal shareholders in the Bristol General Cemetery Company. He made no secret of the fact that he was effectively given the cemetery in lieu of a professional debt. Mr. Towner is a barrister.

After my election in 1992, Mr. Towner contacted me to discuss the state of the cemetery. Such was my concern that, on 6 December 1992, I convened a meeting at the Council House in Bristol, which I chaired. It was attended by representatives of Bristol city council, Mr. and Mrs. Towner, the Victorian Society and representatives of the Association for the Preservation of Arnos Vale Cemetery, known as APAC. We discussed all the issues that arose from the private ownership of the cemetery, which was facing decline. At that stage, there was already considerable dereliction in the cemetery.

There was a further meeting on 12 February 1993, which I also chaired, when we discussed issues relating to the records of the cemetery, because Mr. Towner had made it clear that he did not think that they were safe as the property was subject to vandalism. An offer was made to microfiche or film the cemetery records, and it was made clear that the cost would not be borne by the cemetery company. However, there was no co-operation from Mr. Towner, not just on this issue but on any other issue raised at the meeting in December 1992. I found that puzzling, in view of the fact that he had approached me to help resolve the issue.

As to APAC, which is now known as the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, I must say that I have never come across a more responsible and committed group of individuals. I believe that they have only the upkeep and the best interests of the cemetery at heart. They offered to provide a cut-and-clear service for the cemetery and, after Mr. Towner objected to insurance indemnity, had discussions with the National Federation of Cemetery Friends and agreed to provide their own insurance cover for any accident or mishap arising from their activities.

Their reward was rudeness, intimidation and repeated threats of legal action—once when the then chairman was recovering from a serious illness—from Mr. Towner and his solicitors. I also have copies of threatening and intimidating letters from Mr. Towner to constituents who expressed distress at the state of the cemetery.

I referred to the Raja Rammohun Roy. He has a unique importance for the Indian community, in the United Kingdom and world wide. A centre promoting his work is located in Delhi. The High Commission has made strenuous efforts over many years to restore the mausoleum. There are regular pilgrimages to the cemetery, and one visit every year—which is usually attended by the high commissioner—to mark the date of the Raja's death.

The high commissioner has been locked out on that day at least once. The spectacle of a representative of a friendly country and fellow member of the Commonwealth visiting this country, only to be locked out of the premises to which he had asked for access, and having to leave flowers at the gate, was disgraceful. There was a gross discourtesy, and, to its credit, the high commission is still patiently trying to resolve the issue.

The site is also unique in heritage terms, which is where its future lies. A letter to me from English Heritage on 14 January 1993 states: Cemetery contains 16 listed structures of which the 1830's Bath Road entrance lodges, gates and screen walls, 2 mortuary chapels of 1840 and retrospective commemoration of Raja Rammohun of 1843 are all listed Grade II*; the Cemetery Road gates, 1914–18 war memorial, 1866 obelisk and five further memorials are listed Grade II. All these structures have been on the statutory list for at least 30 years. On 19 May, the 1998 buildings-at-risk register listed the entrance lodge gates and mortuary chapel of Arnos Vale cemetery.

Mr. Towner's failure to disclose his financial situation meant that it was difficult for English Heritage to give grant, because he could not demonstrate need for financial assistance. He knew that in 1992. The south-west team of English Heritage made it clear that there was no possibility of a grant to him, that he was unable to accept the grant conditions, and that it would not communicate further with him on the matter. I formed the view then that a trust for the people of Bristol was the only answer.

Bristol city council's responsibility has generally been confined to environmental matters, principally the crematorium. It was built in 1928, when cremation was not common. Mr. Towner's accusation that the council built crematoria to put Arnos Vale out of business is manifestly absurd. Canford crematorium opened in 1957, and Bedminster Down in 1971, as cremation became more acceptable and popular. That was long before Mr. Towner knew where Arnos Vale was. He took it over in the full knowledge that there were local authority crematoria in Bristol.

Arnos Vale crematorium is at the end of its useful life. Bristol city council has served notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, ordering the company to meet certain conditions and bring the crematorium up to standard. Mr. Towner appealed against a previous notice, and I was astonished when he succeeded. He was given until 31 March 1998 to bring the crematorium up to the standards laid down by the 1990 Act.

I do not often read the Investors' Chronicle, but I am pleased that I read the 7 January 1994 issue, because I saw an advertisement for "Arnos Village Cemetery Operator". It continued: Arnos owns and operates a 45-acre cemetery in Bristol less than half a mile from Temple Meads station. It has retained Hambros to advise it on developing up to 30 acres of the site. If negotiations over the new Bristol City development plan go well, Arnos calculates that up to 400 houses could be built on land where graves have been moved. Meanwhile it looks an attractive shell. It is important to remember the case of the Westminster cemeteries. In January 1987, three were sold by Westminster borough council for 15p—or 5p each. The cemeteries—at Mill Hill, East Finchley and Hanwell—were outside the boundaries of Westminster borough, and so were thought to be a waste of Westminster ratepayers' money. According to Lady Porter, in an Evening Standard article on 8 March 1989, the cemeteries were offered to the appropriate local authorities for nothing and were refused, so it was decided to sell them to eliminate the £300,000 a year maintenance costs. Valuable land was also given away with the cemeteries—12 acres at Mill Hill. The purchaser, who paid 15p, sold them on for £1.25 million.

When I saw the advertisement, I immediately contacted Bristol city council. I am pleased that the result was that conservation area status was conferred by the council in July 1996. In a way, that made sense of the previous few years and of Mr. Towner's refusal to co-operate in guaranteeing the future of Arnos Vale. My opinion is that his objective was always to sell the site for development.

Matters came to a head earlier this year, with a newsletter from the company headed: "Exhumation—a sad necessity?" It says: An uncertain future for our famous Arnos Vale Cemetery now needs you to consider how best to continue your respect for your relatives and loved ones graves. If the grave of your loved one or friend is in the top part stretching between the Cemetery Road gates and the Park where the distress and dereliction is at its greatest (and will be unaffected by Heritage funded improvements to the original Arcadian Gardens) you may wish to consider exhuming the remains for re-burial in the original Victorian Arcadian Gardens (which whatever happens must surely be preserved) near the chapels or for cremation with the ashes to be buried in a cremation plot in the same area, or to be scattered here, or if you wish, to be re-interred in another cemetery of your choice. How has this come about? One simple answer—No money. Why not? Two main reasons—competition for cremations from Council owned crematoria installed despite our company having sufficient capacity, at that time, for the whole of Bristol and the costs of compliance with environmental legislation. The newsletter invites readers to apply for an information pack on the future of Arnos Vale and how exhumations are arranged. I immediately contacted the Home Office, and asked that no decision be taken on the granting of licences for exhumation.

That notice must be unprecedented, and the public reaction was what any right-minded person would expect: extreme distress, revulsion and anger. The culmination was Mr. Towner's announcement that he was closing the cemetery permanently, as from 31 March 1998. I cannot describe the grief and distress that that caused, but the people of Bristol decided they would have none of it. They took over, drew up a rota for locking and unlocking the gates, and set about a clean-up. The cemetery looks better than it has for years. Mr. Towner's reaction was to call those people "vigilantes", who were involved in "mob-rule", in a letter to me. I can only describe the use of such language in respect of bereaved people as despicable.

The Bristol Evening Post has helped to keep up the pressure, with coverage virtually every day. There are now 1,500 people in its Arnos Vale army. That coverage has been vital in keeping the issue at the forefront of public attention.

Bristol's planning, transport and development committee considered Arnos Vale cemetery at its meeting on 23 April 1998. It welcomed the report, and agreed that a regeneration study, looking at the historic buildings, landscape and future management of the cemetery, should be commissioned. Subsequently, the policy and resources committee agreed to underwrite the cost of the study, until money becomes available.

The regeneration study is expected to cost about £40,000. The council hopes to set up a joint project, funded by English Partnerships, English Heritage and the Bristol Preservation Trust. A brief for the study is being put together, and it is hoped that it will be commissioned in June and that there will be a report in September. The council is about to write to Mr. Towner, requesting urgent works to listed buildings. If he fails to carry them out, the city council will undertake them and put a charge on the property. A petition of about 18,000 signatures will be submitted to the city council any day now.

The leisure services committee is satisfied that the quality landscape is being well cared for by volunteers, and it looks forward to a landscape plan as part of the regeneration study. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took on landscape maintenance around its graves.

There are marvellous opportunities for community involvement in regeneration and to tie in with Government projects, such as the environmental task force. There is also the possibility of a local employment and training project for work on walls and buildings, as well as landscape maintenance and enhancement. The site may be beneficially used as a local social history resource outlet for schoolchildren and others who are interested in local history.

Mr. Towner charges £25 for every letter or fax that he sends in connection with funerals, and £15 for each phone call. A private burial takes three weeks to set up, and that was described by a Bristol undertaker as "extortionate and without justification."

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will reply to the debate, and I call upon him to use any powers that are open to his Department to secure the cemetery as a precious asset to our heritage and as a haven for remembrance, contemplation and conservation. I understand that his Department has reserved powers to serve a repair notice on a site owner specifying work that is to be carried out, but that those powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. I cannot think of any circumstances that are more exceptional than these.

There are other issues, such as the granting of exhumation licences by the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will be able to speak about the Home Office's response. There is also the issue of the way in which exhumation licences are granted. I agree with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission that licences should be granted only if there is "an overriding public necessity." My central argument is that no one should be allowed to profit from the bones of the dead or from the bereavement or remembrance of the living. Mr. Towner may have been able to play cat and mouse with me and with Bristol city council, the Friends of Arnos Vale Cemetery, the Indian high commission and English Heritage, but he did not reckon with the force of public opinion in Bristol. He should accept that there is no future for Arnos Vale as a business, and that his procrastination has brought disrepute to the city of Bristol and distress to people whose only concern is to provide a fit and proper resting place for loved ones and ancestors. If he is not prepared to co-operate in the setting up a trust for the people of Bristol, he should go back to Oxford, and let us get on with it.

8.42 pm

Valerie Davey (Bristol, West)

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has said, and I echo her concern for the people of Bristol and those further afield who, in their distress, have been writing to us. Tomorrow is the 226th anniversary of the birth of Raja Rammohun Roy, the Indian philosopher, and in his memory, people may wish to visit the cemetery. However, every day is an anniversary to some family who have loved ones in that cemetery. Every day draws people not just from the Bristol area, but from much further afield, because there are 40,000 graves in that cemetery.

We are debating a human tragedy, and the dignity with which the people of Bristol have responded is to their great credit. We seek the Government's help in redressing the despicable situation of one person trying to make a profit at the expense of the majority of people in that area who wish to maintain the cemetery. They display great dignity, and bring to bear a great deal of endeavour and hard work. I trust that the Minister can offer some help in that endeavour.

8.44 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Tony Banks)

It seems that this is my week for Adjournment debates. The one last night was about church bells, and I suppose tonight's debate is about those for whom the bells have already tolled.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) on drawing this important matter to the House's attention. I listened carefully to the concerns about the future of Arnos Vale cemetery, and I can understand why the matter has aroused anger, not only in Bristol but further afield. The Government understand those concerns, and wish to secure the future of this important and historic cemetery. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friends that initiatives are in hand to do that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was laid out in 1836 to 1840 with buildings by Charles Underwood, who was Bristol's leading neo-classical architect of the early 19th century. It is a fine and early example of what was a new concept in cemetery design, and it was influenced by the great pictures of 18th-century landscape gardens and the romantic ideals of the time. Its historic importance has been recognised in many ways.

In 1996, the efforts of my hon. Friend led to Bristol city council including the cemetery within the Arnos Vale conservation area. Such areas are of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance. They are designated by local planning authorities in the light of their local knowledge.

More recently, the cemetery has been listed grade II in English Heritage's "Register of Historic Parks and Gardens". In addition, the cemetery contains 14 grade II and grade II* listed buildings. As we have heard, they include the grade II* tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy, who died in Bristol in 1833. He is described by the Indian high commissioner as one of the most significant figures in the social, cultural and intellectual history of India during the last two hundred years. The tomb is regarded as a shrine for all Indians, and I was appalled to hear from my hon. Friend that, in the past, pilgrims to the tomb were locked out. That is a disgrace, and one can only apologise to the Indian Government and to the followers of Raja Rammohun Roy for that insult. His tomb, like some other unlisted and listed buildings in the cemetery, is in poor condition.

The Indian high commissioner met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to express his concern that the tomb may deteriorate beyond rescue, and be lost for good. He is also worried about access to the tomb for pilgrims who come to pay their respects. High commission officials have discussed those problems with Mr. Towner of the Bristol General Cemetery Company, which owns the cemetery. However, I am afraid that the parties have so far been unable to agree on how the matter should be resolved. That seems to be a common story when one tries to make arrangements with Mr. Towner.

In many ways, the problems surrounding the tomb of Raja Rammohun Roy encapsulate the difficulties that face the cemetery as a whole. Many of the tombs and vaults are in a dangerous condition, due to neglect by those who own them, and the grounds have become dangerous, raising public liability issues. The entrance lodge and gates and the mortuary chapel, which is listed grade II* are in the highest category of risk in English Heritage's new "Register of Buildings At Risk" which was published on Tuesday.

I understand that the long-term financial viability of the cemetery company to manage the cemetery effectively and safely has been in doubt for some years because of declining revenues from burials and cremations. In addition, we understand that the company's crematorium has been closed because of insufficient funds to upgrade the cremators as required to ensure compliance with environmental protection legislation.

Understandably, these matters have raised widespread local concern that the cemetery may be forced to close. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East said, the cemetery was closed for a time last month, but public pressure forced the company to reopen it.

The attitude of Mr. Towner was mentioned several times by my hon. Friend. I noted her criticism of the way in which he manages the cemetery, and the difficulties that the city council, local residents and others have had in trying to discuss with him how to secure the cemetery's long-term future. I well understand local anger. The recent history of cemeteries being sold off or passed on to unsuitable persons is sad and depressing. We all remember well the scandal of the Westminster cemetery sale.

I should make it clear that English Heritage has always stood ready to consider any request for grant aid support in respect of listed buildings in the cemetery, and remains willing to do so. I confirm that it remains ready to consider assisting the city council with both professional advice and grant aid in the event that the city council decides to use its statutory powers for listed buildings in disrepair.

It may be helpful at this point if I outline legislative provisions that may have some relevance in respect of the cemetery. On guaranteed access to the cemetery, little can be done. As my hon. Friend has said, Arnos Vale is a private cemetery, established by a private Act of Parliament of 1837 and run by a private company. Beyond what is contained in that and subsequent private Acts relating to the cemetery, the activities of the Bristol General Cemetery Company are not subject to regulation. Other than in relation to any requirements of the Burial and Cremation Acts, and to limited Home Office powers of intervention, the company is largely free to conduct its business on its terms.

Nevertheless, the company will have a contractual relationship with people who have bought burial rights in the cemetery, and any infringement of the rights thus acquired will be subject to the provisions of civil law. Individual families with concerns about their burial rights may wish to consider taking legal advice.

I said that the Home Office had limited powers of intervention. It has an interest in ensuring that any relevant regulations relating to burial grounds are observed, and that such grounds are not allowed to become a health risk or to offend public decency. To that end, it has powers to undertake inspections of all burial grounds. In extreme cases, it is open to the Home Office to seek an Order in Council to require certain works to be carried out, or to close the site to further burials.

I can inform the House that the Home Office is considering whether it would be helpful and appropriate to undertake an inspection of the cemetery. My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn has arranged to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter, and how far the Home Office may be able to help.

The legal powers relating to the protection of listed buildings are set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The primary responsibility for the upkeep of a listed building rests with the owner, but sanctions can be imposed by the local planning authority when a listed building is in a poor state of repair. In the case of Arnos Vale, ownership of listed tombs and other buildings will rest with either the cemetery owner or private individuals.

Where the authority considers that a listed building is in need of repair, it can serve a repairs notice on the owner, specifying the works that are considered necessary for the building's preservation. If no action is taken in response to the notice, the authority can begin compulsory purchase proceedings. In addition, in the case of an unoccupied listed building, a local authority can serve an urgent works notice requiring the owner to carry out emergency repairs. If the owner fails to carry out the works, the authority can do so, and recover expenses from the owner.

The legislation also gives the Secretary of State powers that are broadly similar to those of local authorities. However, it is the Government's policy to treat them as reserve powers for use only in exceptional circumstances. I assure my hon. Friends that we will use the powers if we have to.

I understand that Bristol city council has considered serving an urgent works notice on the Bristol General Cemetery Company in respect of the listed buildings in disrepair for which the company is responsible. However, the city council has been reluctant to take that step, because of the potential costs. It considers that the company is not in a position to reimburse the council for the costs of any urgent works that are undertaken. That option remains open, and, if pursued, it may be possible for English Heritage to underwrite some of the risk as part of its buildings-at-risk programme. That programme includes advice to local authorities on how they can use their statutory powers effectively.

Following his meeting with the Indian high commissioner, the Secretary of State asked English Heritage to produce a report on the condition of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb. It has become clear, however, that that particular matter needs to be looked at in the context of wider issues concerning the present state and future options of the cemetery as a whole. The English Heritage report will therefore now look at all those issues. That is a sensible step, because individual problems of access, maintenance responsibility and public safety are closely interlinked, and cannot be dealt with in isolation. Any solutions to them must fit in as part of an overall package.

English Heritage is still producing its report, but I am pleased to say that it has indicated to us that good progress has already been made in dealing with a number of issues. It has held meetings with all interested parties, including Mr. Towner, and has discovered that the parties share a lot of common ground. As a result, it has agreed that a sensible first step would be to commission a conservation and regeneration study into the cemetery's future. That will include an appraisal of its heritage assets, its role as a local amenity and preparation of a business plan.

Clearly, any business plan will need to address several options. For example, I understand that there may be scope for some limited development, combined with increased public access to the open spaces, restoration and regeneration of the historic core of the cemetery—perhaps by a trust—and the retention of part as an active cemetery for conventional burials. A number of buildings on the site have viable reuse potential.

Bristol city council is prepared to underwrite part of the conservation and regeneration study, and other potential funding partners, both public and private, have declared a readiness to support that. English Heritage is also considering what financial support it can offer. The Indian high commission has also informally offered help in the restoration of the Raja Rammohun Roy tomb.

I know that the Heritage Lottery Fund has been approached by the city council to support the conservation and regeneration study. The fund has made it clear, however, that it normally requires applications to be made by the eligible owner. I hope that, in the light of recent developments, the company will be persuaded to co-operate with the city council to allow a proper application to be considered as quickly as possible.

However, the fund has assured me that it is aware of the urgency surrounding the case, and it is meeting shortly officials from the city council to review matters. My hon. Friends will appreciate that the Government have no role in the decision-making process of lottery applications. Decisions are made independently of Government by the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the body which is responsible for the Heritage Lottery Fund.

As a next step, English Heritage envisages that a wider meeting should be held, involving itself, the company, potential trust members, local politicians, officials from the city council and my Department and other agencies. It is hoped that such a meeting will be arranged in late June or July, and will reach agreement on the steps to be taken. English Heritage will then present its report and recommendations, which it is hoped will have the full support of all interested parties.

If agreement is reached on the way forward, the wider public will be consulted on what is being proposed. With good will and co-operation from all parties involved, it should be possible to agree a workable solution, which will not only regenerate the cemetery as a local amenity, but develop it into something that has a viable future. However, if it is not possible to reach agreement, the statutory procedures that I have referred to can be implemented.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important matter. I hope that she is able to take some reassurance from my comments. I am sure that I speak for everyone when I say that I hope that the discussions that are taking place will result in the long-term future of Arnos Vale cemetery being secured. The people of Bristol have a right to expect nothing less.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Nine o'clock.