A MEMBER of the Traveller community has been given permission to install a memorial in the form of an open book in a churchyard in Southampton, despite objections that the design was “ostentatious”.

The Traveller, Sammy Cooper, sought a faculty for the memorial over the grave of his father in the churchyard of the Grade II listed church of St John the Evangelist, Rownhams. The design of the proposed memorial was not one that was permitted within the terms of the current churchyard regulations.

The Consistory Court of the diocese of Winchester granted the faculty. Both the PCC and the Diocesan Advisory Committee (DAC) objected, however.

The PCC was initially supportive of Mr Cooper’s proposals on the understanding that certain modifications were made. Mr Cooper accepted some of these modifications, but not all. The PCC then objected to the proposals which Mr Cooper put before the Consistory Court. The DAC also recommended refusal.

On 18 October, a hearing was held in the church before the diocesan Chancellor, the Worshipful Matthew Cain Ormondroyd. The Rector, the Revd Graeme Dixon, appeared for the PCC. Canon Jonathan Herbert, chaplain to the Travelling community in the diocese of Salisbury, was called as a court’s witness to assist the Chancellor on any particular pastoral or theological issues that he should consider, given the status of Mr Cooper and his family as Travellers.

Mr Cooper confirmed that the whole memorial would not extend outside of the plot, that the open book would not be wider than the ledger stone and would not extend over the path and outside of the plot, and that there would be no picture or photograph on the book. He explained that, on various points, his proposals represented a compromise on what he and his family would ideally have liked.

The Chancellor said that the “mere fact that the memorial is different to the norm did not make it harmful or objectionable”, and that an “objection based simply on the fact that it falls outside the churchyard regulations [could not] be sustained”.

The memorial had “clearly been designed with care to respond to the needs of a grieving family”, and drew on “elements that are common in churches and churchyards”. The design was, however, “undoubtedly more elaborate than many of the memorials found in the churchyard”, the Chancellor said, although he did not agree with the PCC’s use of the term “ostentatious”. Mr Cooper had “forcefully pointed out” that it was considerably less elaborate than certain other memorials in the churchyard, in particular certain memorials from the Victorian period.

The plot on which the memorial was proposed to be located was close to the church, a factor which was important to the DAC. But the plot was to the rear of the church, and not visible to many public views.

The Chancellor found that the introduction of the memorial would cause a very limited degree of harm to the experience of some users of the churchyard, who would find it out of keeping, and a very limited degree of harm to the significance of the adjacent building.

In regard to “the particular pastoral issues” arising from the “cultural background of Mr Cooper and his family”, the Chancellor accepted the “helpful evidence” of Canon Herbert that, for Travellers, the grave bore a special cultural and religious significance. It was the only permanent “home” in a traditionally nomadic culture; and it was the focus of grief in a culture of large and tightly knit family groups. The memorial was particularly important as a sign of respect to the deceased, to protect the sacred space of the grave from incursions, and to identify the final resting place in a culture where not everyone was literate.

The Chancellor observed that Mr Cooper’s proposals could be seen to respond directly to those considerations, and also to compromise on what the family would naturally have wanted, for example by not including a picture of the deceased.

Canon Herbert had also observed that Gypsies and Travellers had faced centuries of persecution and discrimination, which, in some instances, had originated in the Church. But, in general, Canon Herbert said, Travellers retained more trust in the Church than in other institutions.

In that context, the Chancellor said, “It was incumbent upon the Church, if it is to participate in God’s mission to all of his creation to make space for Travelling communities.” That “should include making appropriate allowances for the particular cultural traditions of those communities when it comes to memorials, whilst also bearing in mind the needs of the settled community”.

The Chancellor was persuaded that there was clear justification for the grant of a faculty which outweighed the very limited harm that Mr Cooper’s proposals would cause.