Uncertainty Regarding Liability for Cemetery CCTV Planning Breaches

A local authority is facing difficulty in identifying the responsible party for legal action concerning planning violations involving CCTV cameras at a cemetery. Cheshire East Council has communicated via letters to both the Middlewich Town Council and the Middlewich Cemetery Board, stating its effort to ascertain accountability for these infractions. A protracted legal dispute exists between the town council and the cemetery board regarding the management authority of the cemetery. These violations pertain to the installation of two CCTV cameras on a listed structure, the removal of stone pinnacles, and alterations made to the railings and gate. Paul Douglas, an enforcement officer for Cheshire East, informed the town council in June that an application for retrospective planning permission was required within 28 days, failing which the unapproved development would need to be dismantled. In an email sent to the cemetery board on 25 October, he stated: “Obviously this is a breach of listed building consent and is also a criminal offence.” The Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) reported that he indicated a need to identify the owner of the building and gates, “as these breaches need to be rectified”. Questions were posed to the Cheshire East authority regarding the submission of retrospective planning applications and whether enforcement measures were being contemplated against the town council, the cemetery board, or both entities. A spokesperson for Cheshire East Council stated that commenting would be inappropriate given the active investigation. Middlewich mayor Simon Whittaker commented that the town council had neither performed nor sanctioned the work, but acknowledged that as the burial authority, it could potentially be held liable from Cheshire East Council’s perspective. A Middlewich Cemetery Board representative stated that the CCTV system was installed in January 2023, and no problems arose until July, when Cheshire East was contacted. He clarified that staff members had experienced attacks, including being punched, knocked over, and subjected to both verbal and physical abuse, and that the cameras were “only meant to be a temporary measure”. Nevertheless, he added, “certain people forced our hand to make it a permanent fixture.” A spokesperson for Cheshire Police indicated that concerns were brought to the attention of local officers several years prior, and CCTV was proposed as a solution.