A Uniform Standard of Maintenance
The Law Commission has proposed a statutory duty requiring all burial ground owners to maintain a uniform standard of upkeep. According to the proposal, “every burial ground owner should be required to maintain their burial ground in good order appropriate to its current use.”
This proposal raises several critical questions:
Who qualifies as the “burial ground owner”?
Does this include freeholders, leaseholders, licensees, or managing agents?
How will “burial ground” be defined?
Will it cover only burial plots, or will it extend to buildings, fences, hedges, and memorials?
What does “good order” mean?
Maintenance of natural burial grounds varies depending on the landscape. Land might support wildlife, serve as pasture, or grow as woodland. Visitors and inspectors could have conflicting ideas about what is “appropriate.”
What is “current use”?
Could burial ground owners redefine “current use” to reflect changing practices, such as transforming a burial site into a wildlife sanctuary? If so, what maintenance standards would apply?
Would standards evolve during disputes?
Could owners adopt a lower-impact standard during disagreements over maintenance to better align with environmental practices?
A uniform standard risks undermining the individuality of natural burial grounds. These sites focus on sustainability and environmental stewardship. Applying baseline rules might ignore their unique characteristics.
For example, the 1974 Local Authorities Cemeteries Order (LACO) illustrates this problem. It has encouraged a uniform approach, often resulting in local authority cemeteries dominated by imported granite headstones, plastic flowers, and closely mown lawns. Such sites lack wildlife and appeal little to environmentally conscious individuals or those seeking nature-focused burial options.
Private burial ground operators have pioneered alternative practices. These allow families more choice while embracing meaningful environmental approaches. Imposing one-size-fits-all standard risks stifling innovation, restricting options, and neglecting the needs of people seeking eco-conscious or aesthetic alternatives to conventional cemeteries.
Instances of poor maintenance remain rare. Adding more regulation could instead create unnecessary disputes and increase litigation costs.
