Agenda item - Memorials Policy

71.1    This item was presented by Cllr Jacob Allen, Cabinet Member for Customer Services and the Public Realm, and Ian Baird, Outdoors Events Development Manager. Cllr Allen said that this is pre-decision scrutiny and the Memorials Policy has been drafted to bring clarity to a situation where there is very little. It is looking at both temporary and longer-term memorials and that an application is required for those lasting longer than 14 days. He gave the example of flowers left at a bus stop after a road traffic accident that was there for years, which upset some people. There needs to be due diligence and accountability. They go via the Tree Trust Fund for those wanting to plant a tree and they need to plan properly for those wanting a memorial bench, to ensure the proposed location is appropriate. The application process asks for the design, location and materials for the memorial, a plan to fund ongoing maintenance and evidence of community support. For much longer-term memorials, the policy says they need to wait for 20 years to ensure the longevity and relevance of memorialising something. For any public gathering or vigil, the Safety Advisory Group needs to be involved. Ward councillors are also involved, particularly if the memorial is divisive. The subject of memorials needs to be approached sensitively, compassionately and inclusively and meet the needs of the public realm.

71.2    Cllr Evans said she wasn’t sure about asking someone who has just had a bereavement to go online and complete a form within 14 days. 28 days might be better.

71.3    Cllr Fowler said there was a memorial in her ward for a baby and lots of people left flowers and teddy bears but after a while it looked bad with dying flowers. It will hopefully now be replaced with a nice tree. She said a resident wanted a bench in a park as a memorial but was told “no”. In Telscombe Cliffs, there is a park with a memorial area with lots of butterflies and insects; it is a wooden post in a circle with people’s names on it. Cllr Allen said there is some wider work being done in cemeteries, which is more of a reflective space. There is no tension there because people are generally sombre and respectful in a cemetery.

71.4    Michael Creedy (OPC) said that longer standing memorials, such as in the Peace Park in Patcham are very run down. Cllr Allen said that there are some very old monuments around the city that are in a sorry state. There are lots of heritage assets in the city and the Grade 1 listed sites take priority over the others which tend to miss out on funding.

71.5    Mark Strong (CVS) said this policy was catalysed by the memorial in Palmeira Square which was incredibly important to people; it is not mentioned and should be acknowledged, to recognise people’s strong feeling to commemorate an event. 20 years is too long. They should differentiate between local, national and international memorials and the waiting period should be somewhere between 14 days and 20 years. An authorised semi-permanent memorial could be there for a year. Expecting someone to apply for a memorial is difficult. He gave the example of ghost bikes laid where cyclists have died. He said that the Southampton Memorials policy is clear and well-defined with a 10-year period rather than 20 years. Cllr Allen said they are discussing the policy, not past events; that there maybe be exceptions to the 20-year rule which will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and with locals. It has been built into the policy that there maybe cases where the 20-year rule may not apply. Memorials pop up in conservation areas and there are planning considerations and listed building consent to consider. Ian Baird said that public spaces need to be maintained for everyone who moves through them and there is an impact when things are put in the public realm.

71.6    Cllr Goddard said he was conflicted and was this bureaucratising something that shouldn’t be, he asked what other Local Authorities did. He expressed concern over the 14 days and that 20 years was too long; what would happen if the Council didn’t get back to the applicant after 14 days, which wouldn’t be humane. He wasn’t sure if this was something the Council should get involved in and was the policy needed. Cllr Allen said the policy was solving a problem where ward councillors and council officers are put in a difficult situation, such as with Palmeira Square and had no clarity. It’s not fair for them to make decisions on this and a policy is needed to have a process to follow and have clarity for everyone. Staff had been put under stress and the Council has a duty of care for them.

71.7    Cllr Winder said there should be a policy and was in support of SAG getting involved to make sure it’s safe. However, the rules are restrictive and could be toned back. She asked when the application comes in, who makes the decisions and suggested there could be a standing committee that comes together in difficult situations to give more of an independent view, not necessarily involving the ward councillors because they might know the person who died. It needs more consultation. Cllr Allen liked the idea of a standing committee but explained that they included the ward councillors because they know their area best. There are pros and cons with the idea but it is worth considering. Ian Baird said they do need to make sure the right decision makers are in that group and that ward councillors are best placed to get the right people in the room. The SAG is there to provide support for gatherings of people, not to make decisions; they will give resources and advice. It is the police’s remit to say whether a vigil can go ahead or not.

71.8    Cllr Meadows said there needs to be a middle ground and gave the example of the Hillsborough disaster where people wouldn’t have waited 20 years to memorialise. 28 days is still a tight timescale for people who are grieving. Ward councillors understand the sensitivities of issues and have more of a background context as to why flowers may be placed in certain areas. Cllr Meadows thought it was a good idea to formalise this but it needs discretion and respect.

71.9    Cllr Shanks wanted clarification on whether people were being asked to apply to put flowers on a lamppost following the death of a loved one and agreed that the memorial at Palmeira Square had been problematic. Cllr Shanks said you can get a dead person’s name on a bus fairly quickly and didn’t understand why people couldn’t put a plaque on an existing bench, especially if it was their favourite place to sit. She wasn’t sure what the point was with the policy and felt it was heavy handed. It makes sense for a permanent memorial but not a temporary one. Cllr Allen said the application was for memorials present for more than 14 days.

71.10  Cllr Earthey said he is also conflicted and would prefer 28 days over 14, but wouldn’t want to interfere in spontaneous outbursts of grief. He has a lot of older people in his ward having road accidents as well as people sadly jumping off the cliff. There are issues with long-term monuments as yesterday’s heroes are today’s villains and to be careful about celebrating people who turn out to have done wrong. Memorialising conflict is difficult because there are always two parties involved and he wouldn’t want to be a referee in a situation like the Palmeira Square memorial and felt the Council should either let people commemorate what they want or say no and memorialise in your own way but not in a public place. Mark Strong said the whole point was for others to realise that these things happened. He said that they would need to be really careful about removing anything they saw as “politically divisive”.

71.11  Cllr Fowler asked if flowers would be removed after 14 days following a road traffic accident. Cllr Allen said the flowers will have probably withered by then. If they were being refreshed then the Council needs to know about it so they don’t accidentally remove them. Cllr Fowler said there are sites where flowers are being constantly refreshed and have been there for years, it would feel wrong to tell them to stop.

71.12  Cllr Goddard said that the reasoning for the policy has not been articulated clearly enough. He gave his own personal example of the solace gained from visiting a tree memorial and how profound it is. He wasn’t sure if this is something the Council should be involved in and that the language in the policy needs re-working.

71.13 Cllr De Oliveira said the underlying premise is grief which is complex, it comes and goes, and this policy is pigeon holing grief.  

71.14 RESOLVED – that the report is noted.