This is an attempt to set the record straight and to give the public a chance to assess the situation and the difficult decision facing members. During the meeting, there were four alternative scenarios for consideration, namely:

• Ignore the building and leave it to fall down all by itself;
• Restore the chapel fully for use as a chapel;
• Refurbish the chapel sufficiently for use as cemetery staff accommodation;
• Demolish the chapel and make alternative use of the plot.

The cemetery staff and equipment need to be accommodated in compliance with the Offices Shops and Railway Premises Act and subsequent legislation, including health and safety requirements. Historically, the council has not observed this with the necessary diligence. We have therefore decided to use the bungalow for this purpose, at least on a temporary basis. Last year, the council secured planning permission for the change of use but this was granted subject to minimum disturbance so that the bungalow can go back to residential use when no longer required for the workers (and some storage).

There is therefore pressure on us to provide some alternative accommodation. This makes Option 1 the least attractive. It means we would have to find another solution, at the same time as paying to fence off the chapel for safety reasons. There would remain the possibility of injury or damage arising from fabric falling from the chapel, and the sure prospect of having to pay to clear up the mess when it finally does disintegrate.

Many of the problems with the chapel historically have arisen from the design and construction of the building. The foundations are not very deep. The Collyweston roof is too heavy for the walls and foundations and slate of a Cumbrian disposition would have been a better option. It was built from material which was seemingly recycled from elsewhere. In particular, the doors and window frames have seen service elsewhere and the window frames are none too robust. It is rather smaller inside than it looks from outside. The nature of the building is such that it is unlikely to be accepted for listing, even if the attitude in municipal circles were in favour of preserving buildings (it is not). A listed building is eligible for some grants very often but an unlisted one is not, apart from installing disabled toilets in some instances. The Lottery Heritage Fund is one source of grant aid. The cemetery chapel at Boston recommended for salvation is a listed building. Any repairs would have to be fully paid for (+ VAT @17.5%).

Any continued use of the chapel would need two major repairs, extensive reinforcement and underpinning of the foundations and replacement of the roof with a lighter alternative. There is no future use of the chapel as a chapel: the funeral directors in the town have their own chapels of rest and bereaved families prefer to use the churches or the crematorium at Marholm, near Peterborough, for their services. This effectively rules out Option 2. Using the building as workspace would require a similar level of refurbishment, if we are to comply with the legislation. The cost could be as much as £200,000. In order to fund this, the council would almost certainly need to raise a loan, and charge the council taxpayers. The only alternative is a philanthropic benefactor but there does not seem to be one of those lurking in the bushes.

It is reasonable to assume that the cost of providing an alternative building will be less than the cost of refurbishment, which makes Option 3 less attractive. It is quite possible that had the council been as conscientious as it should have been twenty, thirty years ago, we might even so be in exactly the same position, due to the structural inadequacies of the building.

The council has had discussions with a funeral company which was interested in basing their operations in the town at the cemetery, including using the chapel as their own chapel of rest. Unfortunately, they were unable to proceed, due to uncertainties elsewhere in the town. At the committee meeting last Tuesday, the time had come to make a firm decision. We received four letters about the chapel, including one from Rex. No one was proposing that we use the council tax to fund the refurbishment of the chapel and we have received no letter making such a proposal. They all made the point that it is reprehensible to consider removing the chapel, but we know that already, iteration does not move matters any closer to a solution. I therefore moved the resolution that we demolish the chapel.

It is a deplorable situation to be in, but we have no choice. What the replacement will be is up for discussion. We will have to build some form of accommodation, so it is unlikely to become entirely a car park, if at all. I cannot be seen to be proposing any particular course of action, as this will rule me out of discussions in council. The possibility exists for us to come up with a use which will be at least as good for the town as retaining the old chapel. We have been talking about the cemetery chapel for far too long, it is time for decisive action which does not incur the risk of ongoing indeterminate expenditure. There are more serious cemetery issues which are getting larger than the size of a man’s fist and rather more damaging, and so we need to concentrate on those.

We did not budget for a 30% increase in council tax to pay for demolition of the chapel. The guiding principle of local government finance is that if it is possible that a council might reasonably incur expenditure, then it should budget taking this into account. The alternative is to be taken by surprise and having to issue a supplementary council tax demand. There are a number of items which might necessitate expenditure in the coming financial year. We have to handle the chapel. More importantly, we have to look to the future of burial accommodation in the town. Any land has to be suitable, which means surveying in advance, to avoid water problems like they have had in Peterborough. The problem of inadequate town council accommodation will need addressing.

We have been in (unsatisfactory) discussion with South Kesteven District Council about our accommodation at the Town Hall. By contrast with Stamford, the Town Hall was stolen from us when Bourne Urban District Council was dissolved in 1974 and handed to Lincolnshire. It is let to SKDC and the Court Service and we are sub-tenants of SKDC. The accommodation of town and parish councils is not SKDC’s problem. However, they are intent on setting up a one-stop shop for all local government services, county, district and town, using the banking hall at the Town Hall, which will cause us problems.

Fair enough from their point of view, but the chief executive envisages our town clerk with a desk in an open plan office with all of our computers networked into theirs. This is not an acceptable way for the town clerk to do business, and it does not address the problem of disabled access, particularly as we have difficulty using the magistrates’ court for council meetings. The possibility might arise that the town council has to make alternative accommodation arrangements and we need the cash in the budget to do this if the necessity arises.

WRITTEN JANUARY 2007