Agenda item

5.1  The chair welcomed a deputation from Save Honor Oak Recreation Ground Campaign.  Matt Beale-Collins and Fran Swan said that they would not be commenting on the detail of the report.  They explained that they were pleased that the council had listened to the campaign’s views and that it now looked as though it would be twenty-eight years before the recreation site could be used.  The campaign members said that they would like the recreation ground to have a change of status so that it would be permanently protected and in order to secure investment and improve facilities.  They explained that a survey indicated that the Honor Oak Recreation ground was very highly used.  They reported that the space was particularly well-used at the weekend.

5.2  A member encouraged the campaign to put a bid into Cleaner, Greener, Safer, and commented that while funds were scarce there was support for bigger schemes.  The member went on to comment that he would support the recreation ground being protected in some way as metropolitan land.  This should not prohibit it being used as a burial land if it was needed in the future, as indicated in the action plan.  Another member recommended that the campaign submit evidence to the council’s Open Spaces Strategy consultation, which closed at midnight that evening.  He said that the consultation might well be able to be extended for a day or so.  Councillor Barrie Hargrove was the lead member.  The campaign asked if members would support this.

5.3  Members suggested that the campaign meet with the Friends of Burgess Park and Friends of Peckham Rye Park, as a catalyst for developing plans.  It was noted that Friends of Peckham Rye had received Cleaner, Greener, Safer funding that they had matched with Lottery funding.  A member suggested Village Green status, however  officers questioned whether the recreation ground would fit the criteria as Village Greens needed twenty-four hour access and the council had a need to keep cemetery land secure, which meant that the recreation ground was locked at night.

5.4  The chair thanked the Save Honor Oak Recreation Ground Campaign for their deputation.  She then invited Des Waters, Head of Public Realm and John Wade, Temporary Parks & Open Spaces Manager, to present the Cemetery Strategy.

5.5  Officers drew members' attention to the principles of the Mayor of London’s spatial development strategy that stated that boroughs should ensure that provision of burial space was based on proximity to local communities and was made for those groups where burial was the only option.  Officers also highlighted that burial space was green space, whether or not it was used for recreation.

5.6  Officers explained that the aim of the strategy was to use the minimal amount of land, and for this land to be utilised for as long as possible in order to be sustainable.  Officers explained that there were difficulties likely from 2045 and 2050.  Members responded that it seemed that the Honor Oak Recreation Ground was being put aside for this pressure point and officers concurred.

5.7  Officers explained that an initial report had been commissioned because of critical issues.  The council had taken some immediate steps to meet current burial needs and this included the ending of pre sales and setting aside £400,000 to provide more burial space.  It was anticipated that pre sales would start up again in 2013.

5.8  A longer report was then commissioned to look further into the future.  Over a thousand people had participated in the consultation and stakeholders such as faith groups and funeral directors had given their views.

5.9  The preferred options were to re-use public graves, utilise unused space in private graves and to introduce mausoleums.  There was also some support, but not a majority, for working with other local authorities to find a new site.  Private provision had not been popular as there was concern that the council might have to step in if a company went bust.

5.10  Officers reported that the cemetery service had been under huge amounts of stress.  Criminal activity on the site from fly-tipping had meant that unwanted material had to be removed offsite.  The quality of the service was not what the council would want it to be.  The new strategy was about improving the whole service from beginning to end.

5.11  Members asked if the strategy had considered the issue of fees and noted that the cabinet member decision on fees and charges had been called in recently.  Officers responded that this was part of the bigger picture and commented that Southwark’s burial fees were currently some of the lowest in London.  There was an expectation that they would need to rise and that this was picked up in the report.  The fees meant that the burial services were a net contributor to the crematory service.

5.12  Officers explained that the strategy contained short, medium and long-term options.  Short-term options, up until 2022, included using the remaining part of the Honor Oak Nursery site, which would mean adding two metres of soil over a concrete base.  There was some unused ground in Camberwell New Cemetery and some extra capacity around Camberwell Old Cemetery, which was currently used recreationally by local residents.  Officers said that some residents had indicated that they did not want to overlook graves so the council was considering putting up soft screening and releasing some ground for amenity.  The short-term strategy would provide 1600 new plots.

5.13  Officers then moved on to the medium term plans. They explained that  this primarily involved re-use of public graves, reclaiming of private graves and introducing mausoleums.  Officers explained that the Corporation of London had re-used graves for some time and that churches had been doing this for the last five hundred years. Mausoleums attracted a premium and had a twenty-five-year deed. The remains were then removed or the lease extended.  Officers indicated that they estimated that the medium term plan would provide 6500 spaces.

5.14  Officers explained that the longer-term plan was about further reclamation of private and public graves.  Some of these could not be re-used as they were on wooded ground.  However many of these options would not become available until 2045.

5.15  Officers explained that there were some legal problems as Southwark was excluded from being a burial authority, but this was probably because of poor drafting of various acts.  This meant that the council would probably need to seek an amendment and this could be done yearly.

5.16  Officers spoke about other options for the five-year gap between 2040 and 2045.  The council had been exploring options with Lambeth Council, which included looking at funding and forming an appropriate legal vehicle.  The council had been approached with an opportunity to purchase spaces in Sidcup, however, if pursued this would need to go through the usual procurement process.

5.17  A member asked how much capacity there was to meet the burial needs of the Muslim population and officers responded that there was a year’s capacity for Muslim burials in area B, however many people in Southwark were using burial facilities in North London.  A member requestedthat the strategy meet the needs of other faith groups with particular practical requirements, such as Roman Catholics, Eastern Europeans or the Jewish community.

5.18  Officers were asked about emergency planning in the event of a disaster.  Officers explained that the crematoria had the capacity to meet this need, and that there was some burial capacity.  In an emergency, burial was not a statutory requirement and different local authorities had different plans according to their local conditions.

5.19  A member asked about the consultation process and noted that most people expressed a preference for local burial sites.  Officers were asked if a specific question was asked about how far people were prepared to travel.  A member asked about  the ownership status of the Sidcup option.  Officers responded that a question about travel was not included and that Sidcup would be privately run.

5.20  Officers confirmed that they had spoken to the local diocese about re-using burial plots.  Church authorities were supportive and had highlighted this on their webpage.

5.21  A member noted that that the strategy talked about heritage assessments and indicated that local organisations might well want to assist with this process.

5.22  A member asked if all the sites in Camberwell Old Cemetery had been consulted on.  She said that she thought that some sites had not been identified initially but had emerged during the consultation process.  In particular, the member raised concerns that Ryedale residents were not initially identified as stakeholders.  The member reported that Ryedale residents were subsequently written to, however she raised concerns that a scheduled meeting had not taken place.  The member also queried consultation with residents from Underhill and Forest Hill Road and asked whether residents were aware of the consultation.  She reported that residents were concerned about the risk to mature planting.

5.23  Officers confirmed that the meeting with Ryedale residents had not taken place and explained that this was because there had not been much to say about the implementation at this stage.  Officers said that all of these sites had risks, which might result in some tree loss.  They assured members that there would be a consultation to mitigate biodiversity loss and consider residents’ concerns.  This would be about how to best implement the plan rather than the nature of the plan.  Officers indicated that the sites in question were all part of the cemetery and as such part of land set aside for burials.

5.24  Members raised concerns that the community had not formally been given details of these site options.  Members said that while the general area had been discussed, residents would want details on the plans for specific areas.

5.25  Members asked if there was any risk of a judicial review if consultation had been insufficient with residents in Ryedale and the surrounding areas.  The legal officer commented that if further options were added after the start of the consultation then there could be a risk, however this depended on whether the changes were significant.  This was something that might warrant a closer look, but there was a balance to be struck.  The judicial process was expensive and time consuming and therefore a risk that needed to be managed. A member noted that a judicial review was potentially an expensive process for the council but could be instigated by an individual for a small fee.

5.26  Members asked what would happen with the remains from mausoleums and officers explained that these might go to crematoria, a bone yard for crushing or be stored.  Officers were also asked about the concrete substrata of one site and whether it might be better to dig this up rather than put soil on top.  Officers explained that provision for drainage needed to be made, however this was the most efficient way as it could be very expensive to remove physical obstructions from the earth and there was a risk of contamination.

5.27  Officers were asked about provision for more natural and environmental burials, for example in woodland and with natural caskets.  Officers explained that in the short term, more space was needed for these types of burials, but they needed less long-term management, as decomposition was faster.  Officers explained that there were no sites in Southwark that were suitable for woodland burials, however this was indicated as an option to explore in the longer term strategy.

RECOMMENDED:

The committee noted that three additional potential sites for burial in Camberwell Old Cemetery had been identified after the main consultation was under way, and that residents closest to these sites might not be aware of this.  The committee therefore recommended that the cabinet request officers to carry out a risk assessment on the consultation process and consider whether any additional work was required in respect of these particular sites.