A couple of days ago an article I wrote on grass cutting in St Remigius Churchyard was published in the Eastern Daily Press newspaper.
You can read that on the EDP24 website by following the link below:
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/fight-for-funding-hethersett-church-1-6851434
It was a difficult story to write, not because of the content but because of my belief that in all journalism a balanced account should be given with both sides of any argument being aired. I have always believed in life that nothing is black or white and most times there are many shades of grey. But the problem here was that, at the council meeting, many people spoke against the decision in the public forum part of the meeting but the council itself didn't comment as such simply because this was the part of the meeting given over to the public.
To set the context - At July's parish council meeting only eight of the 14 councillors were present. That was sufficient to make the meeting quorate and for decisions to be taken. The meeting discussed whether the council should continue to meet the cost of grass cutting of the churchyard as it has done since 1967.
It has emerged that for the past 53 years there has only been a gentleman's agreement in place for this. After a discussion it was decided that the annual payment of £3,300 should be withdrawn. Six councillors voted for this, one voted against and one abstained.
I didn't report on that at the time as the council wanted time to tell the parish church of their decision and that was something I respected. I didn't want the church to learn about the situation from something I had written.
Completely by chance at this time I was working on a story about the church's struggle to make ends meet, needing to find over £1,500 every week to keep the doors open. That was published in various places such as the Norwich Evening News, Wymondham Mercury and my own Hethersett Herald e magazine. The Rector and church officials were very generous with their time and ran me through the costs and finance in intricate detail.
I came away from that meeting wondering just how St Remigius could possibly continue to function when it has to raise over £75,000 a year. Then came the news that they would have to raise another £3,300 a year for grass cutting, adding another £60 a week or well over £200 a month to their bill. As I've said the cost of the grass cutting had been met by the parish council since 1967 and I'm not aware of any suggestion during that time that it should be stopped.
After the September council meeting I wrote the story about the decision to stop the payments providing there is no legally binding agreement - which quite plainly there isn't.
Between the July and September parish council meetings (there is no meeting in August) representation was made to the council by a number of people connected with the church and also residents with specific views.
And at the September council meeting one resident said he thought it morally wrong to withdraw the payments. The Rector of Hethersett, the Rev Derek McClean wrote a lengthy letter and also spoke at the meeting (on the zoom network). He pointed out that within a decade the burial ground will be full and, at that point, the churchyard will be handed over to the parish council which would then have the responsibility of providing additional burial space and maintaining it. In other words the council will be back to paying for grass cutting. In addition the council has £20,000 put aside to help with the purchase of additional burial space.
Soon the moral issue became more important than the financial one with Rev McClean being supported by the Rev Christopher Mallett and various others pointing out that to withdraw the finance would be insulting the memory of those buried there and those buried there included many leading Hethersett figures and also former councillors. Rev Mallett also said he felt it was disrespectful to village men killed in the two world wars and who are commemorated on the war memorial which is in the grounds of the church.
At this point the council were given the option of putting the matter on the agenda for their next meeting in October in order to discuss it again in light of the various comments and representations made. To achieve this would need at least 10 of the 12 present to vote in favour. This fell just short with nine voting for and three abstaining. Two councillors were absent.
This means that the matter cannot be discussed for six months from the time the decision was made (ie July) and that means January of next year. The matter will then be put on the agenda for further discussion. It seems rather strange, knowing that the matter will be discussed again, to leave people in limbo rather than dealing with the matter as soon as possible. Surely there can only be two outcomes - to confirm the original decision and withdraw funding or to reverse the decision and continue paying for the grass cutting.
So I had to try to write a balanced story which obviously had a lot of quotes from people against the decision but pretty much silence from those that made that decision.
And there comes the dilemma of being a journalist working within the village I love and where I have lived for over 40 years. It is very difficult for me not to have a view on village matters as anyone who knows me will understand.
When writing for newspapers and other publications I will continue to be as neutral as possible but when it comes to social media/blogs etc I will still be happy to nail my colours to the mast.
So for the record my views on the grass cutting situation. I find it incredibly sad that financial support for the church is being withdrawn when they are in desperate need of money. I was astounded to learn that it costs £1,500 a week just to keep the parish church functioning. So any withdrawal of funds heaps more misery on them and makes it more difficult to keep the historic building open.
The payments have been made for the past 53 years so why stop them now? The council agreed to increase its rate precept this year and promised the additional money will be used for the good of the village (knowing the council as I do I am convinced that this will happen) so why withdraw a vital service? The council isn't struggling financially so is there any need to claw back just over £3,000? If this is clawed back what will this money be used for and will it be something more important than keeping the churchyard tidy? I don't think so.
As was said it is important morally for the parish council to show respect for all those buried in the churchyard and also all those commemorated on the village war memorial. By paying for the grass cutting and upkeep of the churchyard this is a way the parish council can achieve this.
An important point was made that several parish councillors are buried in the churchyard. The names of just a few spring to mind - Bill Nairn, Humphrey Back, Tony Curson, Heather Williamson and many more. For me and my family the churchyard is an important place as our first grandson Oliver is buried there.
On a personal note I would be very upset if the financial support was withdrawn by the parish council. I am glad members will be discussing the matter again in January. I will of course report on that meeting with as much neutrality as possible.