Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Queens Head Inn
 
 
Friday, 3rd September 2010

Cemetery poll favours reopening gate

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 November 2007
IT is crunch time for Sleaford Town Council after campaigners celebrated a landslide victory in a parish poll in favour of reopening the controversial Millfield Terrace gate to the cemetery.
An emphatic 1,079 townspeople voted in favour of the question: "Do you want the Millfield Terrace gate to the cemetery opened immediately and for the Town Council to fulfil its duty to make the cemetery safe?"

There were 40 'no' votes and three papers rejected, meaning 96.2 per cent were in favour of reopening, although the turnout was low - just nine per cent of the electorate.

Support was fairly evenly spread, the most voters turning out in the Westholme Ward close to the cemetery, but the Mareham and Quarrington ward saw almost as many.

It was claimed a number of residents did not receive their polling cards in advance and were confused as to where to vote. But North Kesteven District Council insists all polling cards were delivered in time for people to vote.

Leader of the Council John Kyte said the matter would be debated tonight (Wednesday) at a special meeting of the full council where he has proposed to close the gate permanently and secure it with fencing.
He said: "If the council decides to vote against that, that is up to them and they can amend the motion." He said they would be able to make a reasoned decision when looking at the result of the poll, the comments of the insurers and the health and safety reports.

But clerk to the Town Council Ed Reilly said the authority was in an enormously difficult position.

He said: "If the gate is left open and there is subsequently an accident I am quite sure the council would be deemed negligent. The advice of the professionals says it is unsafe to be used as a thoroughfare and the council should close that gate." Otherwise they would not be insured and any claims would fall upon the tax payer.

He explained the special council meeting had been called to avoid waiting for the next scheduled meeting in January.

Mr Reilly added: "In the cemetery there can be subsidence, loose headstones and workmen with machinery. You would not allow your children to take a short cut through a building site."

He was hopeful there would be progress in January on plans for an alternative route to the William Alvey School.

Campaigner John Brickles of Linwood Close said the fact that the proposal had been published in the agenda ahead of the poll was deplorable, but said the campaign group were prepared: "We are grateful to people for voting. We are speaking on behalf of a lot of people and we will not stop." He estimated lightweight fencing to funnel people along the paths would cost no more than £5-6,000."

* The Town Council will meet to debate the issue tonight at 7.30pm in Carres Grammar School old hall.

* MILLFIELD Terrace gate campaigner Shirley Cheevers vowed she and her supporters would continue their fight, regardless of the Town Council's decision.

She was pleased with the turnout despite the confusion. She said: "Considering the obstacles in our way we are pleased."

Mrs Cheevers, who gathered a petition of nearly 2,000 signatures in support of her campaign, said: "The council don't like it that the people of Sleaford are standing up to them and saying enough is enough."

Another leading campaigner, Patricia Vere-Critcher said: "I hope the council will now fulfil its duty as we have asked. If not, they should shut the other gate on East Road as well and make it totally safe, otherwise they cannot back up their arguments on health and safety grounds."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 November 2007 3:20 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Sleaford
 
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.