Agenda item

This report will follow in an Additional Papers pack once the report has been published for consideration of the Executive Committee.

The Bereavement Services Manager delivered a presentation in respect of the New Cemetery Provision. In doing so the following was highlighted for Members’ consideration:

·       Redditch Borough Council operated three cemeteries and four closed churchyards. The three cemeteries were Plymouth Road Cemetery, Edgioake Lane Cemetery and Abbey Cemetery.

·       Plymouth Road Cemetery opened in 1855 and was closed to new burial space. The definition of a new burial space was clarified as a burial space that had not been pre-purchased or had been used before.

·       Edgioake Lane Cemetery opened in 1885 and had only five years left of burial provision available should the current demand for usage remain the same. This cemetery had been operational for 136 years.

·       Abbey Cemetery opened in 1937 and had approximately six months of new burial provision left. It was noted that once Abbey Cemetery no longer had provision for new burials then pressure would fall to Edgioake Lane Cemetery to accommodate new graves. However, if the number of current burials remained the same (approximately 120 new graves per year) then provision at Edgioake Cemetery would lessen considerably and provision would no longer be available after 12 months.

·       Discussions regarding new burial provision within the Borough had been ongoing since 2010 when a site at Brooklands Lane had been identified as a potential location for a new cemetery. After investigation, this site was proved to be unsuitable as it was located on an aquifer and therefore failed the initial ground water testing required by the Environment Agency.

·       Since 2014, a further 25 investigations had taken place at various locations across the Borough. The outcomes of the 25 investigations were detailed as follows:

­     16 sites were assessed and subsequently discounted.

­     5 sites were assessed, deemed suitable for further investigation, and were subsequently discounted.

­     4 sites were assessed, deemed suitable for further investigation, however, were not recommended for use.

­     1 site was assessed, deemed suitable for further investigation, and was then recommended for approval.

·       Historically, the layout of cemeteries was based on two traditional Victorian designs. One of the designs was for cemeteries that were built on a hill and curved pathways and trees were utilised as features.  The second traditional design was a much more formal layout that adopted a garden design.

·       When considering the design of new cemeteries, Local Authorities had more options than the more formal, Victorian layout used in previous years. It was noted that these types of new designs would enhance the local surroundings in respect of biodiversity and general ecology. An example of this could be seen locally at Westall Park Natural Burial Ground, which was presented as more of a memorial park rather than a traditional cemetery. The Council would aim to provide this kind of innovation in any cemetery proposals.

·       In addition to looking towards a new style of cemetery design, it was noted that Redditch Borough Council’s Bereavement Services had previously taken an innovative approach when looking at provision of services in the Borough. Most notably, a Green Apple Award winning scheme had been successfully implemented utilising waste heat from the crematorium to reduce energy usage at the Abbey Stadium.

·       The Council did not have a statutory duty to provide burial provision in the Borough. However, if this provision was not provided in the future, it would impact on the residents within Redditch. Those who were newly bereaved could potentially have to look further afield in order to bury their loved ones. In addition to this, not providing new burial sites could pose a potential conflict with Policy 45 within the Local Plan, in that there were not sufficient sustainable transport solutions to enable Redditch residents to access two of the closest cemeteries outside of the Borough, Bromsgrove Catshill Cemetery or Westlake Park Natural Burial Ground. The result of this would be that families would have to use private forms of transport in order to access these cemeteries. It was noted that, were it to be agreed that no future burial provision would be made available in Redditch, this might not prevent a private provider acquiring land and building a private cemetery as an alternative to Local Authority burial provision. If Members agreed there would be no new burial provision in the future this would not provide a significant amount of savings for the Council as the existing services, including staff and equipment resources, would still need to be maintained. 

·       Three further options were available to the Council and were detailed within the report. These were as follows:

­    Reuse of Plymouth Road Cemetery – this would require a change in the law through the passing of a private bill in Parliament in order to extinguish existing rights of burial, to gain the legal power to disturb human remains and to permit the moving and re-siting of memorials. Were this to be the preferred option for the Council in the future it could possibly result in 10 years of new burial provision. However, this process presented various challenges including conflict with the Local Plan and a protracted and potentially costly process in order to pass the private bill, which could take up to 5 years. In addition, Members were advised that an objection could be submitted by anybody at any time regarding the reuse of burial sites within Plymouth Road Cemetery. Were an objection to be received, then approval from the Secretary of State would be required in respect of the reuse of that specific grave. Depending on the outcome of that process this might result in the Council having to pay compensation to any interested parties. Finally, Members were informed that in order to reuse any consecrated sections on this site, legal permission would need to be sought from the Worcestershire Diocese by way of a Bishop’s Faculty.

­    Land off Ipsley Church Lane – This site had recently been granted permission for a change of use by the Planning Committee at Redditch Borough Council. The permission was subject to significant conditions to secure the biodiversity and enhance the ecology contained within the site, which, as detailed earlier in the meeting, was deemed to be an important factor when considering the building of a new cemetery at any potential site in the Borough. It was noted that this option would require the shortest implementation time of approximately two years and would not conflict with the Local Plan. The costs associated with this option would be the lowest of all of the options presented within the report and would provide multi-generational burial provision for up to 80 years. The land off Ipsley Church Lane would provide a large site that could be developed over a number of years in a phased manner and could result in over 50% of the site remaining unused, but ecologically enhanced, for the next 40 to 50 years.

­    Bordesley Abbey Extension – This site consisted of three parcels of land and no additional testing had been undertaken at this location. Members were advised that the bulk of this site was located within the boundaries of a Scheduled Ancient Monument, which, it was noted would create additional complexity were it to be developed, due the necessity of additional consent to utilise this land. Members were asked to note that this site provided limited burial provision for the future and conflicted with the Local Plan in terms of size for the smaller parcels of land and sustainable transport. In terms of the archaeology of this site, concerns had been raised. Discussions with Worcestershire County Council Archaeology department had been held and they had advised that even if the scheduled monument consent was approved and planning permission granted, the mitigating costs would be significant and would therefore deem the site unviable. Finally, it was reported that were this site to be agreed as the preferred option for the Council, the time required for implementation would be significant due to the extra approvals required in order to carry out any potential development. 

Following the presentation of the report, the Chair invited Councillor Evans in his role as Portfolio Holder for Environmental Services to comment on the report. In doing so, he noted that this was an emotive subject within the Borough, however it was important that all parties involved in the meeting remainedrespectful, particularly to officers who were in attendance.

Councillor Evans reiterated that this issue had been ongoing since 2010, with no decision having been made. Furthermore, it was important to note that were there to be any additional delay, the outcome would be that no new burial provision would be available in the Borough, resulting in a significant impact on Redditch and its residents. It was stated to the Committee that expert advice had been provided and that all of the options within the report had been thoroughly investigated and presented in great detail, including the challenges that would be faced at Plymouth Road Cemetery and at the Bordesley Abbey site and the benefits of the development of the land off Ipsley Church Lane. Councillor Evans added that were any other options to be presented at this stage, this would prolong an already delayed process and would result in additional costs for the Council whilst testing was carried out.

During his comments, Councillor Evans addressed the issue of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO). He explained that a CPO would not be appropriate in this instance as there was sufficient land owned by Redditch Borough Council which could be used to develop a new cemetery.

Prior to opening the debate, the Chair reminded the Committee that the planning application, previously considered by the Planning Committee, was not under scrutiny at this meeting as planning was separate process to Overview and Scrutiny.

During a detailed discussion by the Committee, it was noted that Arrow Valley Park was a large area and development had already taken place within the park. It was also confirmed that all faiths and religions would continue to be able to make use of any future cemetery provision within the Borough.

Members raised a number of questions regarding the officer’s report. These were as follows:

·       How many phases were there for the land off Ipsley Church Lane and what impact would this have on the development costs? – The £250,000 development costs that had been identified within the report for phase 1 referred to the cost of satisfying the specific planning conditions for the site and to develop the site. It was acknowledged that there could potentially be an increase in costs. However, the expectation would be that any additional costs would be self-funded once the cemetery was operational. Members were informed that there was no specific detail on the number of phases of development as these would be identified as part of the planning process. A clearer picture of any additional costs would also be more apparent as part of the planning process noting that additional conditions could potentially be part of any future planning permission regarding the site.

·       How had officers arrived at the sum of 25 years’ future burial provision at the Bordesley Abbey site? – It was explained that the vast majority of the area would be discounted as it fell under the Scheduled Ancient Monument site within Bordesley Abbey. Further explanation was provided in respect of the plans for this site and officers confirmed that a local resident had brought forward some of the ideas for the site and therefore it was appropriate to refer to this within the report.

·       Were the initial costs of £90,000 contained within the report regarding the Bordesley Abbey extension an estimate? – It was confirmed that this was an estimated cost at Bordesley Abbey.

·       What were the costs of the ground water testing at the land off Ipsley Church Lane and did the sum outlined in the report include costs that had already been incurred? –It was confirmed that the sum of £70,000 within the report did not include any costs previously incurred. Officers undertook to provide Members with the figures for costs already incurred prior to the meeting of the Executive Committee due to be held on 15^th December 2021.

·       In what way did the Bordesley Abbey site conflict with policy 45 of the Local Plan? – The transport links provided served the Abbey Stadium and not Bordesley Abbey.

·       What did the process of the consent to utilise land on a Scheduled Ancient Monument entail? -  The process consisted of the application for Scheduled Ancient Monument consent and was initially straightforward. However, it was explained that although there was no cost associated with the initial application, it was clear, after discussions with Worcestershire County Council Archaeology Department, that in order to mitigate any archaeological concerns associated with the development of the Scheduled Ancient Monument site, the costs would be so significant as to render the site unviable.

There was agreement among Members that it was imperative that the Council continued to provide new burial provision within the Borough and that funds must be available in order to achieve this. However, some Members raised concerns that there had not been a sufficient amount of consultation regarding this decision and that this should be addressed. It was also queried whether the historic investigations that had taken place would still be relevant given that they were carried out several years ago. The Committee was informed that the previous investigations had been re-visited by officers and tested against the most recent version of the Local Plan.

After considerable discussion, Councillor Fogg proposed that the report be delayed and re-visited in order to provide more detail in respect of costings and times of implementation of each development. This proposal was not seconded and therefore not taken forward as a potential recommendation. 

Reference was also made to the potential for Members to vote on Councillor Brunner’s proposal, detailed in her speech to the Committee.  However, Members were advised that, as Councillor Brunner was not a member of the Committee, she could not propose a recommendation and her suggestion could only be takenforward if it was proposed and seconded by Members of the Committee.  This did not occur.

A robust debate continued, and Members were given further information regarding aquifers, ground water testing and its importance in the provision of burial services, public consultation regarding future cemetery preferences and the expectation of how a new cemetery would operate and co-exist in a public open space, such as the land off Ipsley Church Lane.

Councillor Fry proposed an amendment to the recommendations proposed within the officer report.  This amendment was seconded by Councillor Fogg.

 The amendment was as follows:

1)    “Redditch Borough Council continue to provide new burial provision;

2)    that the New Cemetery Provision report be deferred until such time as a short public consultation be undertaken by officers prior to its consideration by Executive Committee in order for them to better understand what the views of the local residents are; and

3)    a sum of £320,000 be budgeted to progress new burial provision.”

In discussing the amendment, Members commented that this issue had been delayed for a significant amount of time.  It was further noted that Councillor Dormer, as Leader of the Council, had provided opportunities for residents to contact him should they have wished to provide feedback on these proposals.

On being put to the vote the amendment was lost.

The Committee returned to the substantive recommendation, with the vote on each recommendation taken in turn rather than on block. On being put to the vote the recommendations were endorsed by the Committee.

RECOMMENDED that

1)       Redditch Borough Council continue to provide new burial provision;

2)       Ipsley Church Lane be progressed as the preferred option to provide new burial provision; and

3)       a sum of £320,000 be budgeted to progress new burial provision