Liverpool Council rejects All Saints Church's plans to build on its graveyard.....

When the gavel went down on the Planning Meeting to refuse the Planning Application, it was a shock to us all.

We, (myself, Church Parishioners, Grave Tenders and local residents) were taken aback by the situation and it did not sink in for a number of hours. Was it a victory? Not in that sense. It was simply retaining the views of many who wanted their Church untouched, their family grave accessible, and to maintain the views of the postcard image of Childwall.

There was no 'cheer' of winning, nor was there any 'we have won' because for some people, it had been a personal campaign to keep their family grave respectfully clear to tend. 'I feel like collapsing' said one person, 'because the threat of losing my family grave for the last two years has come to an end'.

Before the meeting, the Vicar and I spoke and joked about it being 'us and them', but naturally we agreed that we had different views and that we both wanted a different outcome, but respectfully agreed that we hoped that any proposals/objections were kept to the business in hand, and not vented on a personal view and shook hands. I could not have asked for a nicer gesture from the Vicar and that summed up the tone for the meeting, that we were there for a reason, but there was little point in getting personal.

Many people spoke for the need for the Rotunda and we listened to their view. They made some excellent points and there were some personal touches from members of the Church who welcomed the change with the Rotunda. There were excellent views on the need for the Rotunda and the need for disabled access. I don't think anyone could have disagreed with that subject.

Sadly, one image soured a talk when two school children were made to stand behind one of the speakers. We do not know what the reason was to take two school children out of a day's schooling and made them sit in a Planning Application for 3 hours, but it was supposed to make some visual point in which the subject of school children had to be brought in to view'. One neutral person in the meeting quoted to me that it was that uncomfortable to see, it reminded them of when Saddam brought out a small child in front of the TV camera's and stated that 'you cannot bomb us as these are real children'. It was a very very poor choice to bring two school children to a Planning Application of which it had no bearing at all whether they stood up behind the speaker or not as they did not speak themselves or bring anything to the table apart from visual needs'.

There were also many people who spoke against the Planning Application, myself included. But it was perhaps the older generation who got up to speak, made the most impact. They had worshipped in the Church for 40+ years and felt that while everything else was changing in the world, the one place they could go to get away from it all was then being altered for the new world. It must have taken some real courage to get up and speak about your own Church and be 'against' the application.
We also heard views that the disabled access for the Rotunda was sadly at the rear of the Rotunda which separated the abled and disabled bodies by having to traverse around the rear of the Church to gain disabled access.

We heard from young and old, Parishioners, Heritage people and we all put our points across in our own way. But perhaps it was the most touching of speeches from a Gentleman whose family grave was last interred in to only a couple of years ago. I believe that this Gentleman had the most right to be there knowing that a family member's loss was still fresh in their mind.

After the Meeting ended, there were many tears of joy and relief. And they were from the people who at an advanced age, should have been winding down in their life, not spending the last two years fighting for the right to tend to their own family grave. There was a shock moment for us all when rarely Jo Public will oversee a Planning Application for good reason, but it was also a sense of dismay that it had to come to a 'for and against' party.

Could the Church's funds have been put to better use by a greater public relations effort from day one? We say that it could well have been. Although the Church proposed the plans to many, it wasn't hitting the right ears or finding the right people who lived in Childwall but technically outside of the Parish. Could the situation have been bettered at the start by a global South Liverpool or Childwall wide campaign to propose the views well before a Planning Application was submitted? In hindsight, every Planning Application will upset and divide people. But could we have had a greater imput from the start? Were we submitted our own thoughts for toilets and the need for disabled access by other means?

We hope that the plans for disabled access and toilet facilities are never crossed off the plans for Childwall Church, else it would be an incredible waste of money all for nothing. We believe that there are many avenues which can be explored and offered and we believe that this should still happen. I am sure that the PCC would welcome any thoughts on how this can be addressed in the future, after all, this has gone back ever since the 1980's from Church leaflets and will continue to be an issue for the future.

Lastly, there are many people who have served the Church for many years in their own way. They got up to talk against the proposed plans because of their views on the situation and may feel uncomfortable in visiting the Church at a later date, whether for a service or for an open day. For our 'Open for All' policy, I would naturally expect that they receive the same welcome given to them exactly the same as a 'for' parishioner receives on a weekly visit and never be made to feel uncomfortable or ever labelled as the 'opposition' simply for their personal views on a subject close to all our hearts.