MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CEMETERY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HELD ON
WEDNESDAY 17TH JUNE 2009 AT 7.00PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, SIMPSON CENTRE
Committee Members present:
Mrs J Hyde (Chairman)
B Collier
L Stoter
Mrs L Wilding
Also present:
Mrs M Cooper
D Savill
Mr Justin Smith – Cemetery Development Services, and the Clerk
3040. APOLOGIES
Apologies were received on behalf of Councillor Cooper.
3041. DISCLOSURE OF MEMBERS INTERESTS
There were no disclosures of Members interests.
3042. TO RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON EXTENSIONS TO CEMETERIES FROM JUSTIN
SMITH – CEMETERY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
The Chairman welcomed Mr Smith to the meeting and explained the current set up with the
Cemetery – parking, vehicular access, the current buildings, toilets, water supply, etc. He had
previously been advised that we are looking to extend the Cemetery, hopefully to one side of the
current Cemetery which would save putting in completely new services and road access.
Members were reminded that this is a fact-finding exercise and no decisions regarding the setting
up of a new extension will be taken at this meeting, to allow Members time to digest the
information before the next meeting.
Environment Agency – Environmental Audit
Mr Smith explained that the first matter to be dealt with when constructing a Cemetery extension
is to obtain the Environment Agency’s consent for the piece of land we are considering. This
requirement has been in force since 2006 and ensures pollution levels are controlled. Depending
on where the proposed site is, gaining approval can take a number of years. A contractor, such as
himself, would carry out a soil survey and the Environment Agency would advise if the area is a
pollution risk. If it were found to be a higher level of risk, bore hole testing would be done, which
would be costly.
They look at the soil type in the area concerned and whether there are nearby abstraction zones,
which are covered by Source Protection Zones (SPZ’s). SPZ1is a red area and means no burials
permitted, SPZ2 extends for some distance and depends on how long potential pollution would
take to go through the soil. SPZ3 means you can usually bury in this area. In our case, we are
right above an aquifer (layer of permeable rock, sand or gravel through which ground water flows,
containing enough water to supply wells and springs). The risks for pollution are scored, and the
higher the score the greater the risk. If we can manage the risks the more likely the Environment
Agency will grant approval. The proposal could then go to planning.
22/06/09
1
The application for Environment Agency approval should take between six to eight weeks, but if
they find an issue it could take up to two years. Mr Smith estimated that if all went well, we could
have a new Cemetery extension up and running in two years.
With regard to water in the soil, there are two types of problems – bottom water where the water is
rising up through the soil, and top water where ground surface water sits and ponds in one area. In
this chalky soil area there is a risk that there are strata spring layers and water can then come out at
any point along the strata. Top water can be dealt with by French drains, but if it is a spring line it
can become costly to deal with.
Design and layout (including water levels)
With regard to the design of a new Cemetery or an extension, the most expensive part of the
design is the first hectare as it usually includes providing a water supply and road access and cost
be in the region of £100,000 to £180,000. But as we would already have those services in the
neighbouring current Cemetery we would be able to make some big savings. Savings could also
be made if the roadways in the extension were a single lane 3.1m wide with passing bays rather
than having a wider two lane road.
Once the basic infrastructure is in place you can then add what is on your wish list. In terms of
layout, plot sizes used to be 4ft, and most recent ones are 4ft6, but they are now increasing to 5ft
centres as we are becoming bigger, but this would depend on the stability of the soil. He advised
that legally we should be using shoring when digging all graves at the Cemetery.
If we were looking at a 4ft6 plot size we would accommodate 700 plots per acre (new burials not
re-openers), which would also allow for a narrow roadway. 30% of people who die are buried,
70% are cremated. He calculated that 1% of a population of 12,000 people would die per year,
being 120 deaths. Of those deaths between 35 to 45 burials would take place per year, and over 50
years we would need a minimum of 2 acres.
Mr Smith explained that cremations are increasingly being seen as a less sensitive option and very
like a production line, and feels that cremations will therefore begin to loose favour and burials
may well become more popular again.
With regard to the actual construction of the extension, he advises doing a split contract rather than
use one contractor to do the whole project as breaking it down is much cheaper and we could
potentially save tens of thousands of pounds. The possible down side is that as there are more
contractors there would be more liabilities.
With regard to drainage of the current Cemetery and the proposed extension he advised that it is
illegal to put land drains in because of pollution of surface water. The best method for dealing
with excess water in cemeteries is to put in French drains.
If land drains are above burial depth there isn’t an issue, but if they are at burial depth there may
be a problem with pollution. He suggests putting in a soakaway in the extension to put the water
back into the soil, but away from burials.
One option that is sometimes considered where the water table is very high is a chamber burial.
The initial costs are very high, but you can have more burials in an acre using this method of
burial.
22/06/09
2
Mr Smith advised that 1 acre would usually cost about £30,000 to develop, so the 4 acres we
would looking to purchase would cost over £100,000 to develop, but we would bring the costs
down if we break the contract into separate bits, and use separate contractors for each part.
Another option available to burial authorities is to sell the Cemetery as a commercial venture. It
would then be run as a private business. The sort of companies that would be interested in this sort
of venture would only look to cemeteries burying 50 to 100 per year.
Cemetery charges
When discussing costs for the project he referred to charges made by other burial authorities for
plot purchase and interment, and was very surprised to hear what we charge, even though we have
made a recent increase to the charges. He felt that our charges are extremely low and we could
probably think about charging in the region of £1,000 for a plot purchase, not the £105 we
currently charge for a double plot. He explained that the burial services as a whole need to reeducate the public about the fact that burials, etc are a choice and a personal decision, and not a
given thing. They need to be encouraged to plan and put money aside for their burial costs.
When asked what he thought we should consider changing our charges to he felt that £600 to
£1,000 is a reasonable price for a plot purchase, £400 for interment, and to reduce our charges for
memorial rights to £30 to £50.
He suggested considering reducing the burial rights to 30 or 50 years rather than the current 100
years. If a double plot is only used as a single plot, and the family don’t want to renew the burial
rights, we are able to bury someone else in the second space in that plot.
With regard to the purchase of the new piece of land for the extension, he felt that we should be
looking somewhere in the region of £15,000 to £20,000 per acre. Therefore, with the purchase of
the land and the work to set it up, we should be looking at spending about £200,000 on the
proposed cemetery extension.
He again reiterated the serious need to review our charges as we are running at a massive loss.
Looking at the income we receive for the Cemetery and the high expenditure costs, it is currently
costing in the region of £1,000 per person buried per year. However our income nowhere near
covers this as we charge £150 for a plot purchase. If we don’t want to make a profit, we should
look to at least break even, because although residents may baulk at the increase in charges, they
are still paying the deficit each year through their Council Tax. Funeral Directors shouldn’t be
making money out of our very low charges.
Types of burials
As well as burial of ashes, or scattering, we could consider constructing a columbarium outside or
even inside the Chapel of Rest if it were not being used by a tenant funeral director. We could
charge about £400 per niche in which ashes would be placed. But we would have to make sure
there was a real need for this sort of provision.
The same goes for woodland burials. Private companies have set up their own woodland burial
sites and are very profitable. However these are very professionally laid out and he felt that we
would be unlikely to sell many plots in a woodland site at our new extension, as we would have to
22/06/09
3
spend a lot of money on proper pathways through the wood, provide a service area, have some
existing trees and put in large trees rather than small saplings to make the area more attractive.
You would also only fit in a third of burials and if we hadn’t sold very many we would have great
losses. Woodland burials have very high maintenance costs. With regard to scattering of ashes
within a woodland setting we wouldn’t be able to charge anywhere near enough to cover the
maintenance costs. A good woodland burial site would charge in the region of £2,000 to £3,000 to
be buried, but these are stunning sites and there is lots of value added service. People will travel
vast distances for such good sites and it would be very difficult to compete. These sites usually
use existing woodland as it will take a long time for the wooded area to become established and
therefore attractive.
Memorial ‘topple testing’
Mr Smith advised that new guidance has just been released from the Ministry of Justice about
testing of memorials and headstones. The new advice is that routine use of mechanical test
instruments is not recommended, as the results from these instruments are liable to overestimate
the actual risk, and there is some thought that they may aggravate any potential movement risk.
He advised that anyone is able to carry out visual and hand tests but we would need to assess the
risks, and insurance.
After discussion, Members felt that this matter needed further investigation, and that the previous
decision to carry out a five yearly mechanical test by an outside contractor should be looked at
again, in the light of this new Government advice.
Resolved that the consideration of whether to employ a company to carry out
‘topple tests’ on a five yearly basis or to carry out visual and hand tests ‘in-house’
be put on the agenda for the next meeting of this Committee.
Mr Smith concluded by confirming the order in which we should now be looking at undertaking a
project to extend the Cemetery:




Carry out the required Environment Agency geological surveys,
If all goes well, submit a planning application for change of use of the land,
Purchase the land,
Design the layout of the new extension.
The Chairman thanked Mr Smith for attending the meeting and giving such a detailed and useful
presentation.
3043. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY
There were no items for information.
There being no further relevant business the meeting was declared closed at 8.48pm
CHAIRMAN
22/06/09
DATED
4