b

WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date: Wednesday 11 February 2015

Time: 5.30 pm

Venue: Room 101, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW

Copies of agendas, reports, minutes and other attachments for the Council’s meetings are available on the Lambeth website. www.lambeth.gov.uk/moderngov

Members of the Committee

Archdeacon Representatives: Nicholas Long (Chair), Paul Barber, Reverent Ivelaw Bowman, J.E.C. Briant

Lambeth Council Representatives: Councillor Max Deckers-Dowber, Councillor Jane Pickard, Councillor Fred Cowell and John Whelan

Further Information If you require any further information or have any queries please contact: Gary O’Key, Telephone: 020 7926 2225183; Email: [email protected]

Members of the public are welcome to attend this meeting and the Town Hall is fully accessible. If you have any specific needs please contact Facilities Management (020 7926 1010) in advance.

Queries on reports: Please contact report authors prior to the meeting if you have questions on the reports or wish to inspect the background documents used. The contact details of the report author is shown on the front page of each report.

@LBLdemocracy on Twitter http://twitter.com/LBLdemocracy or use #Lambeth

Lambeth Council – Democracy Live on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ Digital engagement We encourage people to use Social Media and we normally tweet from most Council meetings. To get involved you can tweet us @LBLDemocracy.

Audio/Visual Recording of meetings

Everyone is welcome to record meetings of the Council and its Committees using whatever, non- disruptive, methods you think are suitable. If you have any questions about this please contact Democratic Services (members of the press please contact the Press Office). Please note that the Chair of the meeting has the discretion to halt any recording for a number of reasons including disruption caused by the filming or the nature of the business being conducted.

Persons making recordings are requested not to put undue restrictions on the material produced so that it can be reused and edited by all local people and organisations on a non-commercial basis.

Representation:

Ward Councillors (details via the website www.lambeth.gov.uk or phone 020 7926 2131) may be contacted at their surgeries or through Party Group offices to represent your views to the Council: (Liberal Democrats 020 7926 2028) (Conservatives 020 7926 2213) (Labour 020 7926 1166). AGENDA

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MAY BE CHANGED AT THE MEETING

Page Nos. 1. Welcomes and Introductions

2. Minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Scheme of Management 1 - 8 Committee (16.07.14) and Matters Arising

To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 16 July 2014

3. Minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Advisory Group (21.01.15) 9 - 16

To note the minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Advisory Group held on 21 January 2015.

4. Draft Asset Investment Management Report 17 - 82

5. Graves Re-use Feasibility Study 83 - 124

6. Status of the Horticultural Society Memorial

7. Project Officer's Update 125 - 128

8. Technical Officer Group (TOG) Update 129 - 130

9. Any Other Business This page is intentionally left blank Page 1 Agenda Item 2

WNCSOM b

WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Wednesday 16 July 2014 at 5.30 pm

Minutes

Present: Councillor Max Deckers Dowber, Reverend Ivelaw Bowman, J. E. C. Briant and Nicholas Long MBE (Chair) and John Whelan

Apologies: Councillor Max Deckers-Dowber (for lateness), Councillor Fred Cowell and Councillor Jane Pickard, Prof. Robert Flanagan, Alastair Johnstone, Shaffique Manson-Visram and Raj Mistry

Also present: Carolyn Dwyer (Delivery Director, Communities, Housing, Environment & Public Realm), Jeff Raggett (Cooperative Development Team Manager), Steven Wong (Project Manager) and Dick Tooze

Action required by

1. WELCOMES AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed everyone and noted that this was the first meeting of the West Norwood Cemetery Scheme of Management committee since the Council election, which had given rise to a change in the membership on the Council representatives’ side. Councillors Fred Cowell and Max Deckers-Dowber were new members and Councillor Jane Pickard was a returning member. It was also explained that former councillor John Whelan had been nominated as the Conservative member to fill the vacancy that existed and this had been approved.

Apologies for absence were noted.

In the absence of a quorum the meeting started on an informal basis. 2. MINUTES OF THE WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (07.05.2014) RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 May 2014 be approved as a correct record of the proceedings (NOTE: this resolution was passed later in the meeting after it became quorate). 3. MATTERS ARISING Page 2, item 3: It was reported that the planting in the front forecourt was complete and looked very good. The Chair thanked the team involved.

Page 4, item 5: Work had been done on the Robson Road wall following the concerns raised by Cllr Kingsbury. Page 2

Page 4, item 6: The Chair suggested that the election of a Council representative as Vice Chair be deferred until the next meeting in order that the new members of the committee could have time to settle in. This was agreed by all present. 4. MINUTES OF THE WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY ADVISORY GROUP (25.06.14) The minutes of the Advisory Group meeting held on 25 June 2014 were noted. 5. MATTERS ARISING There were no matters arising. 6. PROJECT OFFICER'S UPDATE An updated report from project officer Shaffique Mansan-Visram was circulated in hard copy at the meeting and is appended here.

Jeff Raggett, Cooperative Development Team Manager, made the following points:

 The advice from expert barrister Timothy Briden regarding the requirements the Local Authority must observe to achieve a scheme for the re-use of graves was broadly positive. He was of the view that a pilot project should be undertaken before any bigger plan was attempted. This had already been thought of and squares 6, 7 and 63 were being considered. Jeff Raggett would be taking this forward

John Whelan joined the meeting at this point

 A meeting had been held with operational staff to look at the records regarding the leases on various plots to ensure that any initial 25 year leases which had expired could be renewed if desired. This would ensure an income stream which would benefit the cemetery. It was thought the numbers involved were around 1000, which was considered manageable. A working group had been set up to look into this, which would report back to the Technical Officers’ Group (TOG)  The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) seminar at West Brompton Cemetery was interesting and informative. At their last meeting, the TOG had been briefed on the bid process by an officer who had put together a successful parks HLF bid and a steering group would be set up off the back of this. Shaffique Manson-Visram would remain the project officer responsible. It was noted that any money put in at this point did not count towards the 25% match funding; however, the Chair stated that he believed HLF were encouraging Lambeth to make a bid sooner rather than later since, unlike the rest of the magnificent seven cemeteries, much of the preparatory work had been done in West Norwood’s case. Bidding early would mean a clearer field. Jeff Raggett reported that bids of up to £7m could be made but these were likely to be turned down. If the bid could be kept under £2m it was less risky and more likely that it could be signed off quickly (though this would still mean around two years)  Colin Fenn, Friends of West Norwood Cemetery (FoWNC), on Page 3

behalf of the Scheme of Management committee, was involved in work to investigate how best to engage with the Greek cemetery  John Whelan reported that he had been concerned to observe damage to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission memorials in the cemetery. Some original features had been broken and they were quite overgrown. Though they related to WWII, he wished for these to be made fitting for the upcoming WWI centenary. The Chair stated that there was a group of four memorials in square 29 which were war grave markers that sat on public graves; on at least three of these, the public grave marker had been put aside. This did not look good and was a matter for the cemetery management. Jeff Raggett would take photos on his next visit

The Chair thanked everyone involved in the TOG, which had been established earlier this year and had achieved a great deal. Officers had demonstrated a real willingness to see progress and this was very encouraging.

Councillor Max Deckers-Dowber arrived at this point; the meeting thus became quorate.

Steven Wong, Project Manager, introduced his report, included under item 6 of the agenda pack at pages 25-26, and made the following points:

 There were two main elements to the report: structural works and the capital investment programme  Regarding the structural works, new benches had been installed and the laying of Fibredec, a non-permeable and aesthetically pleasing road surface which sat on top of the tarmac, would hopefully be done in August. The gate refurbishment works were now substantially complete and decorative lighting, which shone upwards on the arch and monuments, had been installed. The boundary wall repairs were due in August while the entry card system, which involved obtaining a fob from the cemetery office, had been completed  Regarding the capital investment programme, a huge scheme over multiple years looking at increasing awareness of prize assets and generating income was being looked at. This programme had a wider remit than just West Norwood Cemetery

In response to questions, the following points were raised:

 Three phases of civil engineering works were in process to renew the drains. It was vital that the cemetery was fully drained to avoid damage caused by flooding  Struts on the Robson Road boundary wall were pulling it back but the advice from structural engineers was that the wall was adequate  The Chair of the Advisory Group and the FoWNC had produced a provisional list of memorials to be put forward for listing. The criteria for listed memorials were partly architectural and partly historical  Officers were looking into a web-based and/or smartphone app to help people find their way around the cemetery. This was considered preferable to having physical markers for the 129 Page 4

squares  A structural engineer had been commissioned to see if anything could be built above the catacombs. If so, a detailed brief would be produced for architects to come up with ideas. The Chair explained that, at present, the catacombs and the gardens on top were shielded by scaffolding, for which temporary consent would expire in 2017. There had originally been a chapel on top, which was demolished and replaced by a memorial garden, but this had allowed water into the catacombs, causing damage to coffins. There was also a possible health hazard regarding lead lining, hence the restricted access. Since the garden had been covered, things had dried out and the environment was more stable, allowing for a possible way forward to be mapped out. Jeff Raggett explained that, while the consent for the scaffolding elapsed in 2017, a new structure did not have to be built by this time; the Council merely had to demonstrate its intentions and a business case. Early thinking included ideas for a building containing a central area which could be used for funeral services, with a lift link to the catacombs. There could also be visitor facilities, which could provide an income stream (for example, via the sale of refreshments). Steven Wong was working on the costing. John Whelan urged pre-consultation with planners at a very early stage as this would ensure a better chance of success. Dick Tooze asked whether it would be feasible to build a replica of the original chapel, which was erected in 1836, but it was thought the materials would be prohibitively expensive. The TOG was coordinating all activity related to this and the plan was that they would conclude by producing a report which would be consulted on before coming to this committee and finally being signed off by Cabinet  A WWI art exhibition called Wrenches, Trenches & Stenches, based on the artists’ families’ experiences, which had been at Nunhead Cemetery in May 2014, was planned for the Maddick Mausoleum. This was supported in principle but there were technical issues to work through which would be picked up by the cemetery office, including securing approval from the family who owned the mausoleum

7. DISCUSSION ON POTENTIAL HLF BID See discussion under item 6. 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business.

The meeting ended at 6.40 pm

Date of Despatch: Thursday 24 July 2014 Contact for Enquiries: Gary O’Key Tel: 07534 268634 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk

The action column is for officers' use only and does not form a part of the formal record. Page 5 Page 6

This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 160714 WNC SoMC update

West Norwood Cemetery – Scheme of Management Committee meeting Update 16 July 2014

Since the last Scheme of Management Committee Meeting, on 7 May 2014, the Technical Officers’ Group (TOG) have completed a number of tasks, for example:

1. On 20 May 2014, Nicholas Long, Steve Wong and Jeff Raggett have conducted a survey at the Cemetery so that a capital works investment programme can be prepared. 2. A conference with the expert Barrister, Timothy Briden, was convened on 5 June 2014 to discuss the graves re-use policy and to map out a way forward to return to the Consistory Court. 3. Representatives of TOG have attended a Heritage Lottery Fund seminar at West Brompton Cemetery, on 17 June 2014, which was also attended by representatives of some of the other magnificent seven cemeteries.

Lambeth Council are currently preparing a brief for the graves re-use policy which could lead to a re-use pilot in two areas of the cemetery. And, in the short term, the issue of expired plots and how we manage & regulate these is being investigated.

The Conference with the expert Barrister provided positive feedback in response to the paper tabled, initially jointly drafted by us. Lambeth Council’s Design & Conservation unit have provided comments on this graves re-use paper and a focussed session needs to be convened shortly with Elizabeth Martin and possibly including English Heritage.

The last TOG meeting, on 2 July 2014, highlighted the need of now progressing a range of other parallel work streams, for example: 1. Investigate applying for a Green Flag award for the cemetery. 2. Work up a Project Plan for a potential HLF bid and set up a Project Steering Group. 3. To Commission a structural study for the Catacombs. 4. Investigate how we now engage with the Greek Cemetery.

The capital investment elements are now being investigated in detail and costed ; and it is proposed that the emerging priorities are evaluated at future meetings.

Shaffique Manson-Visram WNC Project Officer 16 July 2014 Page 8

This page is intentionally left blank Page 9 Agenda Item 3

WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY ADVISORY GROUP

MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON

Wednesday 21 January 2015 at 5.30 pm

PRESENT: Jill Dudman, Dr Brent Elliott (Vice-Chair), Prof. Robert Flanagan (Chair) and George Young

ALSO PRESENT: Nicholas Long, Ann Kingsbury, Chair and member of the Lambeth Horticultural Society, Steven Wong, Trevor Uprichard, Raj Mistry, Alastair Johnstone

APOLOGIES: Councillor Max Deckers Dowber, Dick Tooze and Robert Holden, Kevin Crook, Noshir Patel, Jeffery Raggett

Action to be taken (For Officer use only – does not The minutes reflect the order in which items were considered at the meeting form part of the minutes)

1. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair welcomed all.

2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The Minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Advisory Group meeting held on 25 June 2014 were scrutinised and noted as a correct record of the proceedings.

3. STATUS OF THE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY MEMORIAL The Chair of the Lambeth Horticultural Society stated the following:

 A number of years ago it was decided that a memorial would be constructed by the Horticultural Society for people who had served Lambeth. Lambeth Council was approached and this was proposed to the then superintendent. As no objections were received the Legal Department of the Council was approached to formalise the arrangement. The conditions put forth by the Council were that it would have to be on unconsecrated ground with no burial or ashes. In due course a site was offered for the memorial opposite the office and the society was informed that they could erect a memorial as long as there was no cost to the Council.

 Since installation the society had kept the memorial very clean and Page 10

updated. It was maintained and it also had visitors. People visiting the cemetery understood that the memorial was for those who had done good work for the Horticultural Society.

 Recently the Chair was contacted by Colin Fenn who had asked about the position of the memorial as there was an option to move it around the corner. At that time it was concluded that it wouldn’t be moved although he understood that the cemetery evolved through time. The Pathway to the memorial was cleared and people had been visiting. One of the Friends of the Norwood Cemetery was also doing tours of the memorial and it had become a part of the cemetery fabric.

 The Chairman stated that they would not consider paying rent on the plot as that was not the original arrangement.

 He also acknowledged that there was nothing available in writing which stated that the memorial was officially considered by Lambeth Council.

The following observations were made by the officers and members:

 Jill Dudman stated that there was support for the memorial.

 Nicholas Long stated that part of the intention for future management was to have the cemetery run as business-like as possible and to do this there was a need to deal with anomalies from the past. Currently there was a lot of thought going into forward planning of the cemetery and the memorial was one of the anomalies as it was there without any visible authority and there was no formal consent for it. This was key for regularisation.

 Regarding the war memorial, Nicholas Long stated that that was erected following considerable negotiation in the 1920s at the time it was erected. Therefore there could not be any comparison made with it. It would have to be Alastair Johnstone who would have to authorise this memorial. At the point in time, there was no formal trail of authority. If there had to be a memorial, then the plot would have to either be paid for or there would have to be some formal consideration of it.

 He also stated that the officers would also need to flag the plot in memory of still born babies and foetuses. This would need to be investigated.

 The Open Spaces Operations Manager stated that regularisation was very important. As a member of the public who had received a letter from a Council officer in good faith, he understood the point made by the Chair of the Horticultural Society. Regularisation by way of permit was a good way to resolve this issue. Secondly, with regards to the location, the issue was around the aesthetics and design of the entrance. Moving the memorial could be considered. Page 11

 The Chair stated that consultation would be required to know more about the memorial and its position in the cemetery. It was in the setting of a grade 2 listed structure.

 Jill Dudman suggested that the memorial had been in the cemetery since 1990.

 Wrapping up the discussion the Chairman stated that he had no issue with the memorial remaining at its current location but noted that the status of the memorial would have to be regularised by the Open Spaces Operation Manager.

4. DRAFT ASSET INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP (AIMG) REPORT Steven Wong stated the following in support of the Draft AIMG report:

 The AIMG report will be submitted to the Asset Investment Management Group who make decisions around capital funds. The basis of the report was to eliminate the growing backlog in repairs and underinvestment in the cemetery, improve maintenance and also increase awareness.

 This was a nine year programme which was crafted to maximise opportunity for HLF funding success. The total capital requirement was under £4m. The HLF funding that the team was looking for was for approximately £5m from a Parks for People bid and a heritage bid for £4m. The Heritage bid would be utilised for restoration of the catacombs.

 There were a number of priorities including: flooding in the cemetery, outstanding repairs, footpaths, restoration, fixing of the boundary wall, railing, landscape and planting, signage, furniture, monument restoration, graves re-use and catacombs, play areas for children.

 The total amount of bid that was required for £12-13m for West Norwood Cemetery alone.

 It was important to note that this was a draft report and changes would be made to it.

The Officers and the Group made the following comments:

 The Programme Director: Environment stated that the reason all three cemeteries were included in the report was because the report was similar to the report submitted to AIMG and they wished to see all cemeteries included in one report.

 The Chair of the Scheme of Management Committee stated that it was good to see the bigger picture with all cemeteries included in the report as it indicated the context of policies that Lambeth was trying to pursue. However it was also important to focus on the West Norwood Page 12

Cemetery for the purpose of the meeting.

 The Chair stated that it was necessary to consider Chapels as well. He also advised to correct the statement “Ground works to create new burial spaces through the use of virgin land, or public consecrated land…” to “.or public graves on consecrated land.”

 The Chair also stated that he felt that the document was confused between selling a plot and selling grave spaces as there could be several grave spaces on one plot. Additionally, if public grave spaces on consecrated land were considered, it would be useful if it was determined whether it would be sold as a public or a private land.

 He also stated that the catacombs should be incorporated as burial spaces. In addition he said that legislation might state that when remains were removed, the grave space would be re-used and the remains would be re-buried at the bottom. However the report suggested that it would be buried somewhere else. The Vice Chair responded that the grave was being deepened. The existing remains returned to the grave with freed up spaces above it.

 The Open Spaces Operations Manager Alastair Johnstone stated that he would look for further details on this matter.

 The Chair advised that there was no requirement for comparison with the City of London cemetery as it was in a very different location. It was only important to ensure that the maintenance of the cemetery was improved and that it was made more attractive.

 George Young stated that if the graves were dug deeper, then it would require physical labour to dig deeper as machinery might not be able to do the job.

 The Chair asked to check if, on the point on drainage on page 15 of the Agenda, and noted that water also ran eastwards.

 The Chair also pointed out an error in the report on page 17 of the agenda pack, where it stated that “feed electricity to the maintenance depot…” This should instead state “…feed electricity from the maintenance depot…”

 Vice Chair Dr. Brent Elliot stated that there could be problems with gravel paths on slopes as gravel tended to run off unless there was a lot of it. The Vice Chair and his team at Highgate were at the time experimenting with two types of paths and suggested that he would provide the outcome of the experiment to the project team for their planning.

 Nicholas Long stated that the ship path would have to go all the way through just opposite the old consecrated chapel. Due to past mistakes by the cemetery management the line of the path had been lost due to burials being inserted in it. However, the course of the Page 13

path in grass could be defined but there would not be any interference with the graves. It would be necessary to also consider any health and safety issues of people slipping on grass surfaces.

 He also stated that on page 22 of the agenda pack, with regards to the St Mary-at-Hill plot, it was not evidenced that it had fallen into disrepair to such a large extent that it was demolished to clear more space for further graves. Lambeth had inserted one more line adjacent to the plot but there was no further thinking or activity on those lines. It was now clear that Lambeth was responsible for demolition of the boundary wall to the plot.

 He also stated with regard to the underthrow at the main entrance, should any vehicle of any height damage the underthrow this would be a far less costlier option than if the arch were to be damaged. It was only a matter of time before something large hit the arch unless greater care was taken to ensure that large vehicles entering the cemetery use the Church Road Gate.

 With regards to re-use area, Nicholas Long also stated that the area defined and discussed for a reuse area was significantly larger than the pilot area that they had been discussing and that would be subject to some form of pilot faculty. It was dangerous to think of the whole area as a pilot. Considering the meeting that was recently held with the Council, the suggestion was of two pilot areas which were relatively small. To consider the wider area as the pilot itself would cause several risks and might bring the diocese against this idea as it would represent a very radical approach. The area would have to have been free of burials for 75 years. What was considered in the initial suggestion with the smaller area was that one would find more plots free of burial in the last 75 years. This was the starting criteria for this work. However, this also gave the scope to think outside the box and also the planning for the next 15-20 years.

 The idea of the bell tower in any building above the catacombs was appreciated.

5. GRAVES RE-USE FEASIBILITY STUDY Steven Wong presented the following:

 With regards to cast chambers, a terraced formation in the ground was suggested to stop slippage.

 With regards to build up, this was a relatively inexpensive method. Ground work and engineering work would be required.

 The only other option was the traditional re-use option. This was quite cost efficient and could be easily carried out. There could be issues on how to pass on the cost.

The members of the Group made the following observations: Page 14

 The Chair suggested that the options of cast chambers and build up were not feasible. The cost of the traditional re-use option could be passed onto customers by improving infrastructure and by making it more attractive for people to consider.

 The Chair also suggested that raising ground levels was not feasible as it was difficult to find out where it had to be done. Secondly, it could attract drainage issues.

 The Open Spaces Operations Manager stated that moving the quantity of material was difficult and it could be considered for a larger area. The benefit of exhumation was that it could be done on a smaller area. It was about identifying technical constraints in this process.

 George Young stated that it would be necessary to consult all and faculties would be required for the lift and deepen process.

 Dr. Brent Elliot stated that the height of the coffins in public graves tended to shift in a different way than private graves as they were less expensive graves. It could be less difficult to deal with the remains in the public graves.

6. PROJECT OFFICER REPORT  The Chair appreciated the work done by Steven Wong. He added that the various aspects such as the fibre deck and the lighting were appreciated.

 Nicholas Long stated that the work carried out by Steven Wong was commendable and it reflected the success brought to the cemetery.

 Jill Dudman added that as a result of the works being carried out the people were also very enthusiastic about the cemetery.

7. TECHNICAL OFFICER GROUP (TOG) UPDATE  Senior Project Officer Trevor Uprichard stated that the officers were planning to arrange a TOG working group meeting in mid-February 2015 but noted that the scheduling of this would need to take into account the date of the next Scheme of Management Committee meeting and the date of the AIMG presentation.

 Steven Wong stated that if the programme was a success and if the fund was received, it would lead to a significant amount of work. This would require increased intervention from the Technical Officers Group and the West Norwood Cemetery Advisory Group. There could be weekly discussions on the work being done.

 The Chair stated that the Group would be happy to consider spending more time to progress the work. Page 15

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS  Nicholas Long stated that another success story for the cemetery occurred two weeks prior to the meeting. The members of the Berens family had gathered to mark the completion of the restoration works on the Grade II* listed memorial. It was wonderful to see the work done. Secondly, he stated that though he was initially opposed to the way in which Lambeth allowed the mausoleum to go back to the family, he felt that it had turned out to be the best solution.

 The Chair stated that in consultation with Lambeth, English Heritage could consider assisting us with the project to reinstate the railings.

 Noted that the date of the next Scheme of Management Committee meeting was 11 February and the next Advisory Group meeting would be 22 April

The meeting ended at 7.15pm

Date of next meeting: Wednesday 22 April 2015 Date of Despatch: Friday 30 January 2015 Contact for Enquiries: Tel: 020 792 61961 Fax: (020) 7926 2361 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk This page is intentionally left blank Page 17 Agenda Item 4

Officer Delegated Decision Report

Report title Cemetery Capital Investment Priorities

Wards: All

Report Authorised by: Strategic Director - Sue Foster

Portfolio: Cabinet Member – Cllr Jane Edbrooke

Contact for enquiries: [email protected] Steven Wong, Project Officer, Environment , Delivery, 020 7926 0388

Report summary

1) The capital investment priorities aim to:

 Eliminate a growing backlog of repairs that has resulted from 40 years of under investment, bringing existing infrastructure into a ‘year one’ condition placing the Cemetery and Crematorium service into a position of becoming self sustainable.  Increase the awareness of the cemetery as a ‘place’, enhancing the cemetery’s infrastructure and prized assets to improve visitor experience and attract future burials.  Assist in creating value in the cemetery environment by building upon existing revenue streams and creating opportunities for new ones.

2) A detailed assessment of all three cemeteries has been undertaken to identify the key investment priorities for each, these include:

 Structural repairs to key infrastructural items at each site including drainage, roads, footpaths, railings and boundary walls.  New infrastructure items for each site including signage, watering points, seating and bins.  A significant amount of vegetation clearance and planting at all sites.  Making safe of dangerous gravestones and memorials.  Groundworks to create new burial spaces through the use of virgin land, or public consecrated land.  Heritage restoration repairs to Grade II listed monuments in West Norwood Cemetery including the catacombs, monuments and memorials of significance and the Greek Cemetery.  Introduction of a new visitors centre and natural play space at West Norwood Cemetery.

3) There are approximately 1,400 burial spaces available in Lambeth Cemetery and none in Streatham and West Norwood – it is anticipated that this will last 8 years (based on 177 burials per year).

4) With just under 50,000m2 of virgin / consecrated land the Council is well placed for future burial capacity. This report proposes to instigate approximately 18,000m2 of land for a combination of burial applications that will see capacity increase to between 2830 to 4785 burial plots (numbers will be confirmed once feasibility assessments are completed). This capacity will see Lambeth through for at least 15 further years.

5) A nine year capital investment programme is required for the West Norwood Cemetery that incorporates two HLF bids within that time frame. The total investment requirements are: Page 18

 Capital Receipts £3,939,521  HLF ‘Parks for People’ £4,995,900  HLF ‘Heritage’ £4,000,000

The HLF bid process takes two years at minimum. Expenditure has been programmed to minimise capital receipt expenditure to feasibility, design and urgent repairs so that the HLF opportunity can be maximised. The HLF will finance most identified priorities with the exception of making safe dangerous gravestones and memorials and re-use.

7) A five year capital investment programme is required for Lambeth Cemetery. The total investment requirement is £5,933,000.

8) A four year capital investment programme is required for Streatham Cemetery. The total investment requirement is £3,777,770.

9) This report recommends an initial year (2014/15) capital investment using capital receipts, totalling:

 West Norwood Cemetery £170,500  Lambeth Cemetery £302,000  Streatham Cemetery £55,000

The initial and second year costs are certain. Subsequent year figures are specific in some cases, but largely provisional subject to feasibility and assessment. For this reason it is recommended further that AMIG acknowledges the extent of works required for each cemetery and that it is consequently tabled as a rolling programme of work that needs to be reviewed by AIMG prior to the start of each financial year.

10) The capital investment works will largely reduce Lambeth’s outstanding maintenance liabilities for the infrastructural elements of the cemeteries and it is envisaged that the improvements will help facilitate a drive in demand for the use of them as public spaces and places for burial. Actual return on investment figures are difficult to quantify for improved infrastructure and a new play area (WNC only). Furthermore, revenues from a visitors centre and restored catacombs with community facilities are also difficult to quantify at this stage of the process where it is still undetermined what future uses they may bear. However, it is possible to quantify ROI on re-use and burial with initial projections are between £4.5m and £17.9m depending on what combination of burial type is introduced.

11) A separate piece of work are being undertaken to look at grave re-use – combined with feasibility studies of each site this will assist in firming up a return on investment.

12) A cemeteries business case is being compiled that will blueprint the services future in terms of self sustainability.

13) It is proposed that additional staffing will be required:

 1 x full time project officer for West Norwood Cemetery  1 x full time project officer for Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery  1 x full time programme manager to co-odinate the two HLF submissions and related work streams for West Norwood Cemetery  1 x contracted site construction manager to oversee West Norwood Cemetery works  1 x contracted site construction manager to oversee Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery works Page 19

It is assumed that these staffing costs can be recharged to capital – therefore they have been included in the overall project costs in the finance summary.

Finance summary

West Norwood Cemetery Financial Capital Receipt HLF – Parks for People HLF – Heritage Year Requirement Requirement Programme Requirement 2014-15 £170,500 2015-16 £489,971 2016-17 £715,500 2017-18 £272,500 2018-19 £464,800 £1,579,200 2019-20 £592,250 £920,000 2020-21 £242,000 £483,800 £1,000,000 2021-22 £992,000 £834,900 £1,000,000 2022-23 £1,178,000 £1,000,000 2023-24 £1,000,000 £3,939,521 £4,995,900 £4,000,000 All figures above include incremental RPIX indices of 3%

Lambeth Cemetery Financial Year Amount Plus RPIX (3%) 2014-15 £302,000 £302,000 2015-16 £809,000 £833,270 2016-17 £1,863,000 £1,974,780 2017-18 £1,375,000 £1,498,750 2018-19 £1,185,000 £1,324,200 TOTALS £5,534,000 £5,933,000

Streatham Cemetery Financial Year Amount Plus RPIX (3%) 2014-15 £55,000 £55,000 2015-16 £564,000 £580,920 2016-17 £1,800,000 £1,908,000 2017-18 £765,000 £833,850 2018-19 - - TOTALS £3,184,000 £3,377,770

The initial and second year costs for each cemetery are quite certain. Subsequent year figures are specific in some cases, but largely provisional subject to feasibility and assessment.

Re-use and Burial – Key Income and ROI Figures

Cemetery Investment Income ROI West Norwood Re-use £965,000 £1,800,000 £835,000 Lambeth New Burial – £25,000 £403,000 £428,000 redundant roadways Page 20

New Burial £2.5m - £7m £3.8m - £21.7m £1.3m - £14.7m Streatham Re-use £2.5m £4.4m £1.9m

Recommendations

1) That £170,500 is allocated to the West Norwood Cemetery in 2014-15 from capital receipts to fund:  Initial drainage feasibility assessment £23,500  Clearance of the Effra River culvert £22,000  Structural Assessment of the catacombs £15,000  Structural Design works of Boundary Wall £5,000  Landscaping and Gardening works £40,000  Essential railing work £25,000  Management and administration costs £40,000

2) That £302,000 is allocated to the Lambeth Cemetery in 2014-15 from capital receipts to fund:  Engineering scope for virgin burial site £5,000  Radar survey for virgin burial site £5,000  CCTV survey and gully clearance £40,000  Detailed design for granite paved entrance £10,000  Road resurfacing (inc kerb works) £242,000

3) That £55,000 is allocated to the Streatham Cemetery in 2014-15 from capital receipts to fund:  Engineering scope for virgin burial site £5,000  CCTV survey and gully clearance £40,000  Detailed design for granite paved entrance £10,000

4) It is recommended that AIMG acknowledges the extent of work and capital investment requirements for each subsequent financial year and that they are consequently tabled as rolling programmes of work that need to be reviewed prior to the start of each financial year. Page 21

1. Context

1.1 An assessment of all three cemetery sites (West Norwood, Lambeth and Streatham) has been undertaken in order to identify the current and future capital investment priorities of each. The investment priorities aim to:

 Eliminate a growing backlog of repairs that has resulted from 40 years of under investment, bringing existing infrastructure into a ‘year one’ condition placing the Cemetery and Crematorium service into a position of becoming self sustainable.  Increase the awareness of the cemetery as a ‘place’, enhancing the cemetery’s infrastructure and prized assets to improve visitor experience and attract future burials.  Assist in creating value in the cemetery environment by building upon existing revenue streams and creating opportunities for new ones.

Aspirations for the sites have been obtained through consultation with the Cemetery and Crematorium Service Team, the Scheme of Management and Friends of West Norwood Cemetery (West Norwood only). The Friends of Streatham Cemetery have been contacted, but no response has been received to date. Detailed visual assessments of all three cemeteries with the assistance of various consultants, contractors and service suppliers was undertaken to determine the key maintenance items required in the short to medium term. Lastly, discussions and research has been undertaken with other cemetery authorities to establish best practices.

1.2 West Norwood Cemetery and Crematorium was one of the first private landscaped cemeteries in London. This cemetery is one of the Magnificent Seven cemeteries of London, and is a site of major historical, architectural and ecological interest – arguably, it is one of Lambeth’s most prized historical assets. The cemetery has a Scheme of Management Committee (SoMC) that is the governing body for the management and infrastructural developments at the cemetery following a Consistory Court Ruling dated 8th March 1994.

West Norwood Cemetery has a unique typographical profile where it is built upon a hill predominately made of London Clay Formation. As clay is not very permeable and water flows in a north / east direction, the site has presented the Cemeteries and Crematorium team with a varying set of maintenance challenges that have proven difficult to overcome. Key infrastructure items such as the drainage, roads, footpaths, walls and railings are heavily impacted by the site typography – this is without even considering the 65+ listed heritage assets.

Recent improvements to the cemetery have been received positively by the Scheme of Management and Friends of West Norwood Cemetery and they greatly enhance the cemetery as place to visit. However, there is much more work to do to in order to unlock the potential of this prized asset – both in terms of retaining its national standard amongst other UK cemeteries and its sustainability as a place of burial. A list of capital investment priorities has been identified and is contained in next section 2.

1.3 Lambeth Cemetery is the largest of all three cemeteries and is located in the London Borough Wandsworth. It was developed by a parish burial board in 1854 following the Metropolitan Burial Act 1852, which was a response to the second cholera epidemic of 1848- 49.

The cemetery is organised as a rectangular grid of paths, has a few tress and is sited just east of the River Wandle in what was countryside in the 1850’s. There are two lodges beside the main gate in Blackshaw Road and a memorial chapel, all built in brick in a Gothic style. The cemetery was extended to the south in 1874. There is also a crematorium and Garden of Remembrance that was opened at the northern end in 1869. Lambeth Cemetery Page 22

is the only site currently with capacity for new earthen burials – furthermore, it is the site with the most potential in terms of virgin burial and re-use burial spaces. For this reason, it is a critical resource for the Council (and its citizens) that must be improved upon, where its clearly evident that the site has had minimal investment in its infrastructure for the past 40 years, resulting in an environment that does not give a positive visitor experience when mourners are likely to already be in a state of despair.

A list of capital investment priorities for Lambeth cemetery in section 3.

1.4 Streatham Cemetery, similar to Lambeth Cemetery was developed by a parish burial board in 1854 following the Metropolitan Burial Act 1852 in response to the second cholera epidemic of 1848-49. A Friends group for the cemetery exists that is made up of families of those buried there and neighbours of the cemetery. The Friends work to improve the condition of the cemetery as a burial ground, develop it as a place for quiet recreation and would like to see it re-imagined as a community resource.

Streatham is a beautiful cemetery built upon a wide-open site that is well planted and laid out. It has largely been unkempt for the past few decades where telling signs of under investment are prevalent in all facets of the cemetery environment. At the entranceway the cast iron railings are past the point of requiring basic treating and painting, roadways (in some areas) are potholed, all of the drains are either blocked, or slow running and vegetation has allowed to grow. In particular, no significant tree pruning appears to have taken place – worryingly a large tree fell almost two years ago, yet the trunk still remains resting over the carriageway which it landed on.

Again, a full list of the priorities for this site is contained in the section 4.

1.5 Burials at West Norwood and Streatham Cemetery are currently at full capacity for traditional earthen and cast chamber burials. Lambeth Cemetery is the only site that can accommodate traditional earthen burials and it is estimated that there are at least 1400 earthen burial plots left in the cemetery that will cater for an existing demand of about 180 burials per year for the next 8 years. With mortality rate predicted to hold steady for the foreseeable future, this suggests that Lambeth is at least able to provide burial services to its citizens in the short term. Further to this, there is approximately 8,700m2 of virgin unconsecrated land at the front of Lambeth Cemetery that could effectively be used immediately with some groundwork’s and landscaping. However, it may be prudent for the Council to invest in cast burial chambers at this location instead, given their potential to yield more burials per m2 than traditional earthen burial plots. More information on this site and its potential use is covered in section 3.8. A separate piece of work is being undertaken outside of this capital bid process to increase capacity with an additional 47 cast burial chambers at Streatham Cemetery. This piece of work will help to accommodate existing demand for chambers over the next 2-3 years, however once these are sold, more sites will need to be developed and optimised for future burial demands.

1.6 As noted above, Lambeth’s short-term capacity for earthen burials should suffice it over the next 8 years. However, planning ahead to meet future demand will be required and Grave re-use is seen as a way forward in terms of creating more space within the three cemeteries. Lambeth is not alone in this issue as many other cemeteries nationwide face the same problems of running out of space. There are two strands of re-use that can be applied – the re-use of public consecrated graves, or the re-use of private memorialised graves. Although all procedures relating to grave re-use are complex, relatively speaking the least-complicated procedures relate to re-use of graves, which are public, and on consecrated ground. It would be prudent for Lambeth to pursue this form of re-use now to cater for its medium term Page 23 demand. If granted across three sites, there is potential to free up as little as 7,980 or as much as 9,510 depending on whether earthen burials or cast burial chambers are used.

To reuse public consecrated graves consultation will be required with the Diocese of Southwark and an application for permission (known as a ‘faculty’) made to the Consistory Court. The Diocese of Southwark expects that grave space will in due course be reused and suggests doing so on a section-by-section rather than grave-by-grave basis. Whilst the process may take some time (est. minimum of 12 months to allow time for public consultation and the relevant legal processes) there is a high degree of confidence amongst officers that such a faculty would be granted.

Demand for re-use of private memorialised graves might only be considered for a site with prestige, such as West Norwood Cemetery. The reason being is that re-use of private graves has not seen a vastly superior uptake in other areas. City of London was granted re- use for private graves in 2006 and since then, approximately 55-60 such graves had been sold representing about 7 burials per year. Not significant numbers in terms of anticipated revenue generation.

Further reinforcing this, Southwark Council undertook a public consultation in 2012 on re-use and found that 14% of its respondents would prefer re-use of private graves as their first option for burial. In comparison, 44% said that they would consider burial in public graves as their first option, which formed the majority of their first choice options. This preference for public grave re-use is further backed up by evidence of Wands worth Cemetery’s re-use areas being hugely popular and at full capacity.

Any private grave re-use would be undertaken (assuming approval is granted) on a grave by grave basis. For this reason, whenever a request for re-use is made each burial would need to be priced individually (or some sensible banded rates applied) to ensure that the customer meets the cost of (A) removing the old memorial, (B) exhumation, (C) ground work preparation and of course (D) the new memorial and burial rights fees. Upon review of these ‘additional’ costs, there is little doubt they might factor heavily on a customer’s decision to choose re-use on a public gravesite over private grave re-use. However, there is ‘vanity in death’ and there will be customers that choose to re-use private space for a variety of reasons e.g.:

- Religion - Superstition - A grave site that is visible and accessible to visitors - A grave site that is large enough to cater for a large memorial monument with multiple burial plots

The fact of the matter is that there will be demand (however, low) for re-use of private graves, and it is recommended that it should be marketed as a ‘premium price point’ for customers who would need to pay to meet the full costs of burial as well as any retrospective costs that Lambeth incurs in its application for re-use through the Consistory Court.

There are public consecrated grave sections within all three cemeteries that could be prepared for re-use. However, it must be highlighted at this stage that there are principally two methods of preparation, both of which will require a significant amount of investment to make possible. Briefly, these are:

- Exhumation: public graves are exhumed and bodies buried elsewhere on site in a mass grave. - Building up: simply adding graded and compacted soil on top of the public grave to provide depth for further burials. Page 24

The groundwork’s team have helpfully undertaken surveys at each site to assist in determining the correct methods, but it is absolutely critical that a full engineering feasibility be undertaken for any re-use site, or burial site for that matter.

As noted above, the combined spaces could free up as little as 7,980 or as much as 9,510 depending on whether earthen burials or cast burial chambers are used, providing Lambeth with sufficient grave spaces for approximately 53 years.

More information on each site at each cemetery is detailed in sections 2,3 and 4.

Re-use is being applied for as a separate piece of work. This capital investment paper references this work and endeavours to facilitate the re-use strategy by outlining the capital investment work required to make re-use burials possible.

1.7 Income from each site has been promising, 2013-14 figures were as follows:

West Norwood Cemetery £299,540 Lambeth Cemetery £1,228,991 Streatham Cemetery £165,535

However, it is envisaged that these figures could rise due to a number of principle factors:

- Improved marketing - Increasing service costs (currently under review) - Hired usage of currently condemned buildings (see section 1.9) - Improved facilities and infrastructure - Improved aesthetics - Visitor Attractions – i.e.: West Norwood Cemetery catacombs - Enhanced monument and memorial management

A separate piece of work is being undertaken that deals with the cemetery business plan and will address the first three items on the above list. This report focuses primarily on last four items on this list, but references the business plan throughout. The business plan is scheduled for completion in January 2015.

1.8 A Cemetery Management Plan that outlines the long-term management of the cemetery’s ecology and landscape was drafted in 2009. It is in the process of being finalised for the West Norwood Cemetery in consultation with the Scheme of Management through a Technical Officers Group. This management plan is referenced within this paper.

1.9 Building Refurbishment and Repair Works are currently being proposed at all three cemeteries by the Valuation & Asset Management Services (VAMS) Team. The work will comprise of refurbishment and repair work to the following sites:

- Lambeth Cemetery grounds staff area; - Lambeth Cemetery chapel; - Lambeth Cemetery disused chapel; - Lambeth Cemetery offices; - Lambeth Crematorium; - Streatham Cemetery toilets; - Streatham Cemetery disused chapels; - West Norwood Cemetery lodge; - West Norwood Cemetery chapel and crematorium. Page 25

The VAMS team have initially priced the work at just under £2m and have an indicative programme start date of October 2014. This report references this work throughout and steps will be taken to co-ordinate our work stream with the VAMS team to ensure that the impact on members of public and the cemetery operation and staff is minimised.

1.10 It is envisaged that two Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) applications are made for the West Norwood Cemetery capital investment works. The two applicable programmes are:

HLF ‘Parks for People’ Nationwide Programme

- Awards for nationwide applications are from £100,000 - £5,000,000; - Nationwide applications are extremely competitive – with around 5 applications being awarded each decision round; - Applications are a two stage process that require a significant amount of detail from applicants, the HLF advise that it can take up to 24 months to develop; - Decisions are made twice a year (31st Aug for a decision in December) and (28th Feb for a decision in June). - Match funding of 10% is required for any grant application, however it is recommended to match up to 25% to increase chances of success. - Funding cannot be used to pay for retrospective works, nor do retrospective works count towards match funding.

HLF ‘Heritage’ Regional Programme

- Awards for these applications are from £100,000 - £2,000,000; - Although still competitive, there is a greater chance of success for these applications as they are subject to local (by region) approval only; - The two stage application and decision process is the same as the nationwide programmes. - Match funding of 10% is required for any grant application, however it is recommended to match up to 25% to increase chances of success. - Funding cannot be used to pay for retrospective works, nor do retrospective works count towards match funding. - The future use of any Heritage funded projects should be free for use and provide educational benefits for its users.

The two programmes give Lambeth an opportunity to bid for a significant amount of external capital monies. There is a risk that applications will be refused which reinforces that fact that the applications will need to be of substantial quality and detailed. More information on the HLF bids and how they will affect the West Norwood Cemetery programme are detailed in section 5.2. 2. Proposal and Reasons – West Norwood Cemetery

2.1 Drainage The topography of the cemetery causes water run off to the north and east of the site. This is evident by the way the ground ‘swells’ in these directions and the consequent effect it has on the road and footways, memorials and the north / east boundary walls. For this reason, it is absolutely critical that the water is drained from the site effectively. Atkins were commissioned in 2003 to conduct a flood risk assessment – specifically they were asked to mitigate the amount of flooding to 8 key areas in the cemetery (referenced in Page 26

Appendix 1), which were incidentally (for the majority) on the north / east side of the cemetery. During their feasibility they found that a majority of the existing ‘new’ drainage infrastructure was blocked and / or damaged. Further to this they were unable to access parts of the original Victorian drainage infrastructure due to the sheer amount of graves and depth of the connections.

The Atkins assessment outlined fairly small scale interventions aimed at reducing the amount of flooding at the 8 areas through the use of soak away drainage systems – the reason for the scale of interventions was because there was a budget restriction of £200,000 at the time. Atkins have since been asked to provide a quotation for revisiting their original proposal and to look at more ambitious drainage interventions for the site. It is envisaged that Atkins will be able to identify some of the original outfalls into the main sewer, or design new ones that will feed from existing infrastructure within the cemetery.

Atkins findings will largely inform the works that need to be done to the roads and footpaths in the cemetery, given that some of the existing drainage connections may well run underneath them.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Drainage – feasibility assessment £23,500 Culvert clearance £22,000 2015-16 Drainage detailed design £75,000

2016-17 Drainage Construction – Phase 1 £500,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 Drainage Construction – Phase 2 £500,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £1,120,500

2.2 Roads

Areas (1), (3) and (5) on the appended map (Appendix 2) outline the areas of road that will require resurfacing works as a part of a ‘next phase’ of capital works.

Area (1) is significantly potholed and requires urgent repair. It currently presents a health and safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicle users alike. Page 27

Area (1) – Road leading up the Greek Cemetery

Area (3) is a section of road that was resurfaced about 10 years ago. Subsequent to the resurfacing work some service ducting was installed to feed electricity to the maintenance depot in the northeast corner of the cemetery. To do this, contractors dug a 50m trench to install the ducting but their reinstatement work has since failed, consequently resulting in a 25mm trip hazard along the longitudinal length of the trench. This trip hazard will likely get worse if left over time.

Area (5) is a section of road directly outside the crematorium entrance. The road surface has been omitted from previous phases of work and for this reason, stands out as a section that is in a far greater state of disrepair than the adjoining roadway surfaces. The omission was likely made to impact less on visitor access. However, the surface is now potholed and crazed and requires resurfacing to enhance the visitor experience.

Lastly, it is proposed to lay a 3mm surface treatment on top of all of the roadways using a product called ‘Fibredeck’. This material both enhances the cemetery appearance as well as acts as a non-permeable surface layer that prevents frost and water penetrating the tarmac surface. This material is seen as a low priority ‘nice to have’ intervention.

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - -

2018-19 Kerb alignment and road resurfacing £258,500 Non permeable surface layer £240,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £498,500 Page 28

2.3 Footpaths

All remaining areas marked on Appendix 2 are footpaths requiring repair due to cracking / breaking up from vegetation growth and water ingress. These footpaths are still evidently well used and in their current state present a health and safety risk to pedestrians using them.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - -

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 Footway reconstruction 96,500 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £96,500

2.4 Boundary Wall

In 2012 a structural engineering firm were commissioned to undertake a condition assessment of the existing boundary wall structure. The report highlighted two areas of serious degradation, which are scheduled for repair in October 2014. The remainder of the report outlined a series of maintenance interventions that could be implemented over the course of five years. Upon initial review of the report, the work seemed generally cosmetic where it included pointing brickwork, capping and vegetation removal. However, all of this work would contribute heavily to the upkeep of the wall and prevent slight cracks exacerbating over time into large fissures requiring significant repair work, or as a worse case scenario – complete rebuilding of sections.

The structural engineers believe that there are no sections of wall that need to be rebuilt (with the exception of one of the area that is being repaired in October 2014). However, they have recommended that the north side of the wall be cleared completely of vegetation to allow them to inspect the struts that were installed 5 years ago.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Design profile & structural assessment £5,000 2015-16 - -

2016-17 - - 2017-18 Structural Maintenance (Phase 1) £150,000 2018-19 Structural Maintenance (Phase 2) £150,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £305,000 Page 29

2.5 Landscaping and Gardening

The structural engineers have also recommended that a significant amount of landscaping work be undertaken to protect the wall against the ‘ground swell’. This will entail a 45-degree ‘bank’ to stop further vegetation encroachment, whilst also providing maintenance staff with a ‘level’ in which to not discard further vegetation and spoil into this area. Other works will include:

- Planting - Tree pruning - Tree removal - In situ clearance work (predominately bramble and ivy)

Tree requiring removal

Vegetation over growth has been a significant problem in the cemetery where bramble and ivy has been allowed to grow to detrimental levels. It doesn’t just look untidy – it affects key sightlines to important pathways and monuments. It also impacts the structure of the cemetery’s infrastructure – from the boundary wall to the pathways, roadways and again, the monuments. A suggested capital investment injection to remove a lot of the overgrowth forms a part of this investment bid. However, the Cemetery service will need to ensure that growth is managed effectively thereafter through a concise cemetery management plan.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Clearance – northern boundary wall £40,000 2015-16 Clearance – eastern boundary wall £40,000

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 Clearance and landscaping £90,000 2020-21 - - Page 30

2021-22 - - £170,000

2.6 Monuments and Memorials

West Norwood Cemetery’s rich architecture amongst London cemeteries is in no way understated by its inclusion in the ‘Magnificent Seven Cemeteries’ of London. With some 65 Grade II listed monuments it is the final resting place of such public figures like Mrs Beaton, Sir Henry Doulton and Sir Henry Tate. It is these monuments that give West Norwood its character and reputation as an ‘upper echelon’ cemetery and it is these monuments that will need to be invested in so that Lambeth can continue to present the site as ‘premium’ burial space.

As stated in 2.1, poorly maintained drainage infrastructure, combined with over 100 years of existence and the consequence of two World War II bombs have resulted in a monuments and memorials being in desperate need of restoration and structural repairs. The Friends of West Norwood Cemetery have made significant headway in fundraising to restore monuments in the cemetery. However, it has not been enough to stem the rate of disrepair across all monuments in the site.

At present there are 16 grade II listed monuments on the English Heritage ‘at risk’ register. Disconcertingly, the site has not been reviewed by English Heritage for some time now and it is assumed that Lambeth’s ‘at risk’ register of monuments could grow.

- William Auffray Memorial (presently ‘at risk’)

Hundreds of monuments and memorials in the cemetery are in a similar condition where many them are in a dilapidated state of repair. Although many of them are not listed, their overall effect on the cemetery scape is still astoundingly negative, giving visitors an impression that the site is not well kept. Page 31

Looking east on Doulton’s Path – this path has 4 ‘at risk’ monuments on this short length of path – none of which are even pictured

By way of comparison, the Friends of Highgate Cemetery are dedicated to the restoration of its memorials and has a rolling ‘memorial restoration programme’. With limited funding the strategy they employ is simple – ensure that the front facing (to footpath) monuments and memorials are straight and aligned to give the visitor the impression that the whole of the cemetery is of the same standard. Their belief is that if a cemetery is kept at a quality standard, it encourages more people to visit resulting in more ticket sales and consequently more funding for the restoration of the entire cemetery. This is not to say that their site is perfect – where it is evident that less frequented areas of the cemetery have been given a fairly minimal treatment – basic cyclical vegetation clearance. However, the effect of this on the overall aesthetic works quite well – making parts of the cemetery appear as if nature were taking over.

Highgate Cemetery – ‘fronting’ with straight memorials and planting to give the appearance of a high standard of memorial management Page 32

Highgate Cemetery – off the beaten track where maintenance is restricted mainly to ivy and bramble clearance due to funding constraints

The Highgate model would be difficult to replicate. Their restoration programme has been running since the 1980’s and it is apparent that West Norwood Cemetery would have some catching up to do in terms of a monument repair backlog that would be a perpetual problem if limited funding were available.

This capital bid therefore proposes to repair the 16 ‘at risk’ monuments, as well as some of the more important areas of the cemetery where there is (A) a higher frequency of pedestrian footfall and (B) monuments of interest. The following areas are suggested:

St Mary-at-Hill Plot

The Parochial Church Council of the Parish of St Mary-at-Hill owns this plot section. There are arguments that it fell into disrepair during the late 70’s – 80’s – so much so that it was at one stage demolished to clear more space for further graves by Lambeth Council. In any case, it was a remarkable piece of architecture could act as a desirable attraction for visitors to the cemetery. This capital investment bid proposes to re-construct the plot, restoring it back to its original layout and utilising like for like materials.

Ship Path

The Ship Path is named after the monument to Captain John Wimble, whose monument includes a fine model of the hull of a merchant ship. The Ship Path runs perpendicularly north-west from the central point of the Anglican Chapel before curving westward to join Steep Hill. Early illustrations suggest that the path was once gravelled, which would have enhanced its garden like character and prestige. The path itself is mainly kept clear of scrub, but outside of the main desire line the area remains largely impenetrable due to scrub and tree growth, which covers and presumably damages them. Incidentally, Ship Path has a number of the ‘at risk’ monuments on it – arguably the most impressive is the mausoleum of Otto Adolph Victor Alexander Berens. It also has the monuments of Henry Grissell, Captain John Wimble and Christopher Pond. Berens is already in the process of being repaired by a private contractor, but it is proposed that the remainder of the monuments be repaired, at the same time clearing much of the scrub and ‘formalising’ the route once again with a gravel finish. Page 33

Greek Cemetery

The Greek Orthodox cemetery located at the northeast quadrant of the West Norwood Cemetery reflects two centuries of Anglo-Helenic connections. The chapel of St Stephen and 18 monuments within the site are Grade II and II* listed by English Heritage. This secluded area of the cemetery sits on a plot a half acre in size and was acquired by the Hellenic community in 1842 for the purpose of burying their most distinguished members of their community.

The Greek Cemetery

The Greek Cemetery suffers the same fate as the rest of the WNC, uneven and dangerous monuments with the railing enclosure having failed over time requiring urgent repairs and restoration work. If this site were to be restored it is anticipated that it would be one of the most frequented attractions at the cemetery.

Unsafe and ‘at risk’ – monument in the Greek Cemetery Page 34

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Investigatory work – St Mary at Hill £15,700

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 ‘At Risk’ memorial restoration (6 £150,000 memorials) Restoration – St Mary at Hill £200,000

2020-21 ‘At Risk’ memorial restoration (4 £100,000 memorials) 2021-22 ‘At Risk’ memorial restoration (4 £100,000 memorials) Restoration – Ship Path £300,000 2022-23 ‘At Risk’ memorial restoration (2 £50,000 memorials) Restoration – Doulton’s Path £300,000 Restoration – Greek Cemetery £500,000

£1,715,700

2.7 Catacombs

The loss of the towering Anglican Chapel, the centrepiece of Sir William Tite’s design, from the cemetery skyline has changed the landscape’s historic character significantly. Although demolished in the 1960’s, the catacombs below survived and are now Grade II listed. The listing includes a rare surviving hydraulic lift, which brought coffins down from the catafalque in the chapel interior.

The catacombs are a potentially interesting selling point for the Cemetery. However, with over 100 years of existence and the consequence of two World War II bombs the catacombs have suffered damage and severe water ingress over time. This resulted in having to close the catacombs and constructing a temporary roof structure over them to protect the site from further water ingress. The planning consent for this roof runs out in 2017 and Lambeth will have to (at minimum) have a strategy in place for permanently repairing the roof.

Much discussion has been held between Lambeth Council, the Scheme of Management and the Friends of West Norwood Cemetery about the catacombs and its potential as a visitor attraction. It’s clear from all parties that the catacombs need to be restored, but to what level and at what cost is still largely undetermined. Some of the following ideas have been put forward:

 Restoration of the catacombs;  Building on top of the existing structure to create ground level catacombs, or;  A visitors / education centre (increasing floor levels to two + catacombs)  A community hub with meeting rooms (increasing floor levels to two + catacombs)  A chapel;  A bell tower that provides visitors with expansive views across London. Page 35

Commissioning an architect to lead on shaping and developing the site for one, more or all of these ideas would seem like the most logical first step to take. However, Lambeth will need some assurances about the soundness of the structure and it is envisaged that prior to any formal commissions a structural engineering firm is employed to undertake a detailed assessment of the site to ensure that is safe to build upon and provide some basic design principles that the architect will need to adhere to in order to ensure the safety of the site.

Once a future use and design is established, it is envisaged that Lambeth will apply for a Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) Grant to help fund the improvement works. Discussions with the HLF to date have been mostly positive thus far, with a verbal acknowledgement from them that a bid for the catacombs would be warmly received. However, they have set out a caveat that any Heritage funded assets should be a free resource for its users providing educational benefits – this will present a challenge for the lead architect / working group and will need to be scoped out more with the HLF through the application process. More information about how the bid will integrate with the wider West Norwood Cemetery programme is detailed in section 5.2.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Structural Assessment £15,000 2015-16 Architectural Design £120,000

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 - - 2020-21 Restoration Works £1,000,000 2021-22 Restoration Works £1,000,000 2022-23 Restoration Works £1,000,000 2023-24 Restoration Works £1,000,000 £4,135,000

2.8 Railing and Entrance Gates

Approximately 350m of railing along the Northern and Western sides of the cemetery have been assessed. Most of the railing is in an acceptable structural condition (some minor repairs required) and is adequate from a security point of view. However, a lot of the paint has worn away – particularly on some of the Victorian railings through weathering and ivy growth. It would be prudent to treat and paint these railings now as some of the original iron is exposed to the elements and there is a risk it could lead to rust and consequently full or part replacement (see Streatham Cemetery – Railings section 4.7). Page 36

Example of railings peeling away at West Norwood Cemetery

Aesthetically, these improvements will dramatically enhance the appearance of the cemetery where the railings are the first things that people notice when they visit.

It has also been identified that approximately 50m of new railing will need to be fabricated in order to protect the cemetery from entry between the library site and the main entranceway of the cemetery. The current fencing is inadequate for security purposes and ruins the aesthetic of the recently completed works at the entranceway.

The SOMC has suggested an under throw at the main entrance of the cemetery. This could be quite a costly item to have and it is recommended that this be placed as a low priority item once a core programme of works is agreed to move forward with.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Railing and Gates (security fencing) £25,000 2015-16 - -

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - -

2019-20 Railing and Gates (Phase 1) £150,000

2020-21 Railing and Gates (Phase 2) £150,000 2021-22 Railing and Gates (Phase 3) £150,000 £475,000

2.9 Signage

The original way finding system in the West Norwood Cemetery was based on a grid overlay (appendix 3). All of the individual quadrants were once physically referenced with stone markers giving visitors a very detailed and clear navigation system around the cemetery. Suffice to say, finding graves during Victorian times was very simple, though given the way Page 37

finding systems deterioration over time it has become increasingly difficult and increasingly frustrating for visitors – especially tourists, to find specific grave sites.

An improved way funding system – not necessarily requiring the marking out of every quadrant will need to be a part of the future capital investment plan at the cemetery if it is to become a visitor attraction. It is proposed that any physical way finding system is augmented with a tech solution using GPS Smartphone technology to bring the cemetery into the 21st century.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 Web based way finding system £25,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £25,000

2.10 Graves – General

In July 2000 a tragic and fatal incident occurred at Harrogate Cemetery (North Yorkshire) where a six year old child was instantly killed after a 5ft gravestone collapsed on him. As a result of this the HSE closed Harrogate with no notice and then served an improvement notice on the cemetery to risk assess every grave. Harrogate’s reaction to this notice was swift where they started laying gravestones down flat. Although their intentions were good, Harrogate was heavily criticised for being insensitive to mourners and unfortunately, this did not stop other Local Authorities from following suit with similar ‘knee jerk’ reactions.

The Local Government ombudsman published a report on the issue and subsequently the Ministry of Justice produced guidelines for Local Authorities to make it clear that cemeteries should be safe places to visit and work in and that a proportionate risk based approach to safety should be adopted.

Pertinent to these guidelines is the emphasis on risk based condition assessments and their requirement to be carried out once at least every 5 years. As with most other authorities, Lambeth commissioned some condition assessments that were undertaken from 2004 – 2007. As a result of the assessment a number of graves were ‘made safe’ with stabilisers and a note attached to the headstone detailing to owners the reasons for the stabilisers and contact details for making more permanent repairs. This has not necessarily been the most aesthetically pleasing way of grave management as for the majority; most tend not to initiate any permanent repair. Page 38

Example of stabilised graves (Streatham Cemetery)

All graves will now need to be re-assessed and a sensible risk based ‘make safe’ programme pursued in order to ensure that the Council discharges its health and safety responsibilities in accordance with the Ministry of Justice guidelines.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Condition assessment & make safe £15,000 programme (phase 1) 2016-17 Condition assessment & make safe £15,000 programme (phase 2) 2017-18 Condition assessment & make safe £15,000 programme (phase 3) 2018-19 Condition assessment & make safe £15,000 programme (phase 4) 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £60,000

2.11 Re-Use and Burial Capacity

As outlined in section 1.6 grave re-use is seen as a way forward in terms of creating more space within the three cemeteries. In the medium term it would be prudent for a section of public consecrated graves to undergo ground preparation for re-use in the West Norwood Cemetery. An area located in the south east of the cemetery measuring 4800m2 could accommodate about 500 new earthen burials. The area of land proposed for this is marked in hatched yellow (Appendix 2). Page 39

Category Location Size Yield Potential Income Public Consecrated Yellow 4,800m2 500 earthen burials £1.8m hatched area (Appendix 2)

The 500 additional earthen burials will then give Lambeth some time to apply concurrently for re-use of private memorialised graves. Both forms of re-use will require a number of dependencies to be met, notably:

Public Consecrated Re-use:

- Consultation with the Diocese of Southwark; - Application for permission (known as a ‘faculty’) made to the Consistory Court. - Area of land must be sufficiently drained; - Area of land requires improved access for vehicles; - Area of land must either be exhumed, or built upon to enable further burials.

Private Consecrated Re-use

- Identification of grave owners and current proprietorship; - Digitisation of records; - Identification of a section of land to be utilised for re-use where proprietorship has expired (after 75 years); - Apply for extinguishment of rights to private graves and the proposed disturbance of graves (faculty); - Public notification period (6 months); - Gravesite must be re-worked to enable burial.

The above only provides a brief summary of the key stages in the re-use process. To see the full process, it is documented well in the LEDNET Re-Use Technical Guidance Document (Oct 2013). See figure 3.1 – Legislative Process.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Engineering Assessment £5,000 2016-17 Re-use burial site design £60,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 Access improvements £400,000 2019-20 Groundwork £500,000 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £965,000

2.12 Street Furniture

As a part of the recently completed phase of works the street furniture – seating, water points and bins were upgraded. The water points have proven to be very popular allowing people to rest buckets on the tap fixtures whilst they are being filled. It is proposed that the Page 40

remainder of West Norwood Cemeteries street furniture is upgraded in order to maximise the appeal of the site and keep these items consistent across the cemetery.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 Street Furniture £70,000 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £70,000

2.13 Visitors Centre

One of the aspirations of the Scheme of Management and Friends of Group is to have a visitors centre within the cemetery that would serve as an initial muster point for guided tours, while also being a valuable educational resource for cemetery visitors. The centre could hold various displays and exhibits relating to the history of the cemetery as well as (for example) advise on heritage restoration programmes that the Council is leading on. Discussions about where this could be placed has been a key topic of conversation – with a number of options to choose from:

- Above the catacombs; - Within the Nettlefold Hall site, or; - At the top floor of the cemetery office.

The HLF advised that this will be an essential part of Lambeth’s submission, noting that the application would need to demonstrate it encourages learning and development about the site through activity planning and visitor facilities. It is proposed at this stage that Lambeth will need to drive discussion with relevant groups to agree a scope and location of the centre, with a subsequent commitment in capital receipts to fund a design that integrates with any one of the three options.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Design £80,000 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 Construction – Visitors Centre £800,000 £880,000

2.14 Natural Play Area

This item is not an aspiration of the Scheme of Management, or Friends of Group – neither is it something that the officers had thought of through their assessments. However, it is a large part of what the HLF require in terms of qualifying criteria for the Parks for People programme. Their view is that cemeteries should become places for people to visit – with an Page 41

emphasis on increasing users and attracting families to come and use the space for education, or play. Natural play does not involve specifically made play equipment, but rather focuses on utilising natural materials for climbing, hiding and navigating, for instance, a series of hedges could be made into a maze for children to play in. It is proposed at this stage that Lambeth will need to drive discussion with relevant groups to agree a scope and location of the play space, with a subsequent commitment in capital receipts to fund a design that would be presented to the HLF as a part of our submission.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Design £25,000 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 Construction – Play Area £200,000 £225,000

3. Proposals and Reasons - Lambeth Cemetery

3.1 Drainage

Unlike the West Norwood Cemetery, Lambeth Cemetery site does not suffer from a range of complex drainage issues that affect the sites infrastructure and monuments. However, there is evidence of blockages throughout the site that is a typical consequence of no regular maintenance and densely planted areas. If left blocked the site could suffer problems in the short term where connections to the drainage system could crack and lead to sub structural failures. For this reason, it is proposed to clear all of the gullies and connections in the cemetery and undertake a CCTV survey of the infrastructure to ensure that there are no major breakages in the system.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Gully Clearance and CCTV survey £40,000

3.2 Roads

As noted in section 1.3 the condition of the existing road network within Lambeth Cemetery is extremely poor. It is apparent that the roads have been resurfaced once using an ‘overlay’ (process by which a thin layer of tarmac is laid on top of the original surface layers) of tarmac about 10 years ago. The overlay and the original surface layers are breaking up – particularly on the highly trafficked areas. The roadways are a highly visible part of the cemetery aesthetics. Once visitors enter the main entrance by vehicle they are met with a disproportionate number of potholes – a vast number of which would be legally unacceptable on public highway. It portrays the cemetery negatively – people want to know that the place in which their deceased loved ones are laid to rest is well taken care of. It would also be right to assume that aesthetics play an important role in visitors determining whether or not they, or their relatives might one day decide to be buried there. Page 42

Example of Lambeth Cemetery roadways that require urgent repairs

All of the areas highlighted in blue on Appendix 4 are being proposed for resurfacing – a total of 14,000m2. The resurfacing work would require excavation of 100mm of the existing surface course, re-grading of the sub base and then resurfacing. Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Kerb alignment and road resurfacing £242,000 (5000m2) 2015-16 Kerb alignment and road resurfacing £526,000 (9000m2) 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £768,000

3.3 Cemetery Entrance

The main entrance is seen as the most critical point of reference for visitors. As seen in the works to the West Norwood Cemetery it increases the appeal of the site, enhancing the visitor experience by providing them with a sense of arrival. The existing entranceway is not inviting – partly due to the condition of the crossover between the public highway and the cemetery grounds.

Furthermore, upon entry there is a sparsely planted roundabout feature in the middle of the carriageway – the potential of this feature is an obvious draw for visitors where it is easy to envisage it acting as the primary gateway point into the cemetery with improved planting and / or a piece of sculptured art. Once at the roundabout visitors are able to see and access the two mirrored chapels looking northwest and southwest. These two condemned chapels are being restored (see section 1.9) and could potentially yield a number of revenue generating uses including cemetery services, community hub’s and the like. It would be prudent at this stage to then enhance the areas leading up to them to ensure that the sites are maximised in terms of being attractive for incoming trade. Page 43

Existing entranceway to the Lambeth Cemetery

It is proposed that the area highlighted in orange on Appendix 4 is reconstructed using a high specification material such as light grey granite. The cost of such materials is obviously higher than that of the existing tarmac surface. However, it is envisaged that the use of such materials would heighten the arrival experience for visitors and attract future uses for the currently condemned chapels.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Detailed Design – Entranceway £10,000 2015-16 Detailed Design – Entranceway £7,000 (continuation) 2016-17 Entranceway Construction £900,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £917,000

3.4 Landscaping and Gardening

Vegetation growth is much more sporadic and less dense than it is in West Norwood Cemetery – it could be argued that the growth gives the cemetery a more naturalistic aesthetic. However, this does not mean it hasn’t affected the site in terms of damages to structures and monuments. The back of the cemetery has been largely unkempt for decades and it is evident that it’s affecting the structural integrity of the boundary railings (see section 3.5) to the point where there is clear evidence that people have been accessing the site from the back out of hours leading to antisocial behaviours.

- Planting - Tree pruning - Tree removal - In situ clearance work (predominately bramble and ivy)

A suggested capital investment injection to remove a lot of the overgrowth forms a part of this investment bid. However, the Cemetery service will need to ensure that growth is managed effectively thereafter through a concise cemetery management plan.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Landscape and Gardening work £40,000 2016-17 Landscape and Gardening work £70,000 2017-18 - - Page 44

2017-18 - - £110,000

3.5 Railing and Entrance Gates

A significant amount of work is required to the perimeter railing and entrance gates of Lambeth Cemetery. Approximately 184m of railing (highlighted yellow in Appendix 4) are beyond basic treatment, painting and repair – it will need full replacement as it currently presents a security risk for the cemetery. The remaining 1470m of railing (highlighted red in Appendix 4) predominantly requires basic treatment, paint work and minor repairs – these should all be completed now to ensure that the railings do not need to be fully replaced in the short-medium term.

Redundant railing at Blackshaw Road side being reinforced with temporary heras fencing

There are five entrance gates into the cemetery – two of which are in operation, being the entrance to the crematorium and the main entrance into the earthen burials sections. The remaining three gates are historic entrances along the length of Blackshaw Road. These are inoperable and it is highly unlikely that they would be used in the future. For this reason, it is suggested that minimal work is done to them i.e.: treatment and painting works. Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 1 £86,000 2016-17 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 2 £228,000 2017-18 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 3 £260,000 2018-19 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 4 £125,000 £699,000

3.6 Graves – General As per section 2.10 under West Norwood Cemetery, all graves in Lambeth Cemetery will now need to be re-assessed and a sensible risk based ‘make safe’ programme pursued in order to ensure that the Council discharges its health and safety responsibilities in accordance with the Ministry of Justice guidelines. Page 45

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2016-17 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2017-18 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2018-19 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme £60,000

3.7 Re-Use and Burial Capacity Lambeth Cemetery has a vast quantity of land that could be used for earthen burials. These are classified under the following five categories:

Category Location Size Yield Potential Income Virgin Various Unknown 1,400 at various £5.1m Unconsecrated / Locations locations that will consecrated yield about 8 years of burials based on current demand. Redundant Road 3 Locations 384m2 110 earthen £403,000 areas (marked pink Appendix 4) Virgin Area 1 8,700m2 1,020 earthen, or £3.8m, or Unconsecrated (Appendix 2,975 cast chambers £21.7m 4) Public Consecrated Area H3, I3 12,654m2 3,722 earthen £13.6m – Re-Use Earthen Area S3, 3,072m2 N3 (Appendix 4) Public Consecrated Area 2 8,000m2 1,020 earthen, or £3.8m, or – Re-use ‘Boggy’ 2,975 cast chambers £21.7m land Potential income figures – earthen burials based on the cost of an adult grave + internment = £3,668. Cast chamber figures based on existing fee of £7,306.

The existing capacity of 1,400 burial plots will see Lambeth Cemetery, and by proxy Streatham and West Norwood cater for burial demand in the short term. Further to this, the redundant road areas could add to this with very little design / planning and at a negligible cost where the existing roads would just need to be excavated to soil level and topped off with fresh topsoil (areas marked in pink on Appendix 4).

Looking at the service medium term, the section of Virgin unconsecrated land (Area 1) would appear to be the most logical solution to press forward with because (A) the Council would not need a Faculty permission, or Environment Agency approval and (B) the area is close to the entrance of the cemetery which is generally regarded as a more popular plot area for Page 46 customers. The difference in the potential income figures of earthen burials vs. cast concrete chambers is astounding, but there are some caveats to consider:

- Burials are much more popular and cost effective for customers. This difference in numbers over the past 5 years is 177 earthen burials to 26 cast chamber burials, a ratio of about 6:1. - For the above reason, the potential income figures for earthen burials would be fully realised within a period of six years versus 114 years for cast burial chambers. - The financial outlay of designing and constructing a cast chamber site is vastly higher than making provision for earthen burials, estimated at about £7m (Aug 2014) versus £1m.

Catering for a demand of 114 years would seemingly be an over reaction on Lambeth’s part. For this reason is it recommended that this area be used for a combination of both burial types. Three things need to be commissioned initially:

- An electrical cable / duct allegedly runs through the site that will need to be traced and mapped – if the duct runs through the whole of the site, the section of land may be restricted to the number of burials unless the duct is diverted. A ground penetrating radar survey will be required.

- Depending on the results of the survey, an engineering assessment will need to be undertaken in order to asses what level of work is required. This is particularly relevant for a cast chamber site.

- The solution will need to be designed i.e.: burial plots / chambers, roadways, footways and landscaping.

Provided the above pre-requisites are met, the area of land could be developed within 18 - 24 months time and be ready for burial shortly thereafter.

Following on from this the 15,726m2 of public consecrated ground provides the cemetery service with a compelling long-term option for earthen burials. The four main areas include:

Area H3 and I3 (Appendix 4)

These sites are suitable for ‘building up’ land on top of the existing levels, then re-use.

Area S3 and N3 (Appendix 4)

These sites are suitable for exhumation, then re-use.

As per 2.11 the Council will need to initiate the process of applying for grave re-use. If successful, this vast quantity of land would yield up to 3,722 burials. The costs of these long-term interventions are not within the scope of this capital investment bid. However, they will need to be picked up in the separate piece of work dealing with the overall re-use strategy as mentioned in section 1.6. It is not intended to pursue this area of land for re-use as a part of this capital investment, but to record it as a viable option should the need arise in the future.

The remaining 8,000m2 of public consecrated land is another interesting site with potential but requires a high level of investment in order to bring it into use. The site acts as a natural flood storage site for the nearby River Wandle, therefore prior to any work taking place a ground water assessment would need to be undertaken in order to obtain any necessary approvals from the Environment Agency. Concurrently, the site would need an engineering feasibility assessment carried out that will determine how this site could be re-worked for re- use in the future, these re-work options include: Page 47

1) Concrete burial chamber installation 2) De-watering the site to allow for standard earthen burials 3) Building up on top of the site to allow for standard earthen burials

Further to this work, the area of land is isolated in terms of access via road / footway. It is assumed that this work would also need to be picked up as a part of any capital investment. It is understood that this option might not be required in the short to medium term, but it should be recorded that it could be an option in the long term. It is not intended to pursue this area of land for re-use as a part of this capital investment, but to record it as a viable option should the need arise in the future.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Engineering Scope £5,000 GPR Surveyance £5,000 2015-16 Virgin Burial Site – Detailed Design £60,000 Redundant Roadway Conversion £25,000 2016-17 Virgin Burial Site – Access Improvements £400,000 2017-18 Virgin Burial Site – groundwork’s £1,000,000 2018-19 Virgin Burial Site – groundwork’s £1,000,000 £2,495,000

Note that the figures above are largely dependent upon the results of the engineering feasibility assessment and GPR surveys. Furthermore, the groundwork’s figures are indicative in the sense that no decision has been made regarding the ratio of cast chamber burials to earthen burials. This will need to be picked up as a part of the grave re-use strategy.

3.9 Street Furniture

All street furniture – seating, water points and bins are proposed to be upgraded. The water points in West Norwood Cemetery have proven to be very popular allowing people to rest buckets on the tap fixtures whilst they are being filled. Also, the taps are button operated so cannot be left running by users. In terms of seating, these not only provide visitors with a chance to rest and enjoy the tranquillity of the cemetery, they provide the Council with a revenue opportunity to ‘dedicate’ benches for individuals (currently £933 each). It is proposed to create a ‘Lambeth Walk’ running through the cemetery (green line in Appendix 4) where the existing footpath is edged with benches and trees (which might also be dedicated in future).

It is also proposed to review all of the signage – both informational and way finding. This will enhance the cemetery as well as provide visitors with basic instructions that they might otherwise need to ask staff for. Page 48

Leaking watering points in the Lambeth Cemetery

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 Street Furniture £120,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £120,000

3.10 Grounds Maintenance Compound

The grounds maintenance compound of the cemetery where operatives store all of their excavated material is inadequate at present. Stores were constructed in previous years, but it is strongly felt that the area needs financing to (A) clear it and (B) rationalise it so that it has more storage space and is easily accessible for grab lorries and dumpers. These areas are often forgotten as critical spaces of resource within the cemetery environment. A part of this capital bid will be to invest in the site to bring it into an operating resource for the grounds staff.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 Grounds Maintenance Compound £80,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £80,000 Page 49

4. Proposals and Reasons - Streatham Cemetery

4.1 Drainage

Streatham Cemetery is the ‘driest’ of the three and does not suffer from any complex drainage issues that affect the sites infrastructure and monuments. However, there is evidence of blockages throughout the site that is a typical consequence of no regular maintenance and densely planted areas. If left blocked the site could suffer problems in the short term where connections to the drainage system could crack and lead to sub structural failures. For this reason, it is proposed to clear all of the gullies and connections in the cemetery and undertake a CCTV survey of the infrastructure to ensure that there are no major breakages in the system.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Gully Clearance and CCTV survey £40,000

4.2 Roads

The road conditions in Streatham Cemetery are not altogether bad compared to the others two sites. There are in situ parts of the cemetery that will require resurfacing, but it is not anticipated that these will require any form of deep excavation work for sub structural repairs. All of the areas highlighted in blue on Appendix 5 are being proposed for resurfacing – a total of 4,500m2. The resurfacing work would require excavation of 100mm of the existing surface course, re-grading of the sub base and then resurfacing.

An example of one of the worst areas of roadway in Streatham Cemetery

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - -

2015-16 Kerb and road resurfacing (4452m2) £225,000 2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - Page 50

£225,000

4.3 Cemetery Entrance

Similar to Lambeth Cemetery the main entrance is seen as the most critical point of reference for visitors. As seen in the works to the West Norwood Cemetery it increases the appeal of the site, enhancing the visitor experience by providing them with a sense of arrival. The existing entranceway is not inviting – partly due to the condition of the crossover between the public highway and the cemetery grounds, the rusted entrance gate and disused security hut to the left of the entrance.

The current entranceway to Streatham Cemetery

The sites architectural character is similar to Lambeth Cemetery where there is a large roundabout feature (with burials) and mirrored chapels on either side of it. Of these two chapels, one is being used for services and the other one is condemned. Both are being restored (see section 1.9) and could potentially yield a number of revenue generating uses including cemetery services, community hubs and the like. It would be prudent at this stage to then enhance the areas leading up to them to ensure that the sites are maximised in terms of being attractive for incoming trade.

It is proposed that the area highlighted in yellow on Appendix 5 is reconstructed using a high specification material such as light grey granite. The cost of such materials is obviously higher than that of the existing tarmac surface. However, it is envisaged that the use of such materials would heighten the arrival experience for visitors and attract future uses for the chapels.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Detailed Design – Entranceway £10,000 2015-16 Detailed Design – Entranceway £7,000 (continuation) 2016-17 Entranceway Construction £790,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £807,000

4.4 Footpaths

Streatham is criss-crossed with a number of 1.5m wide footpaths spread across the whole of the cemetery. Page 51

The areas highlighted in orange (Appendix 5) provide some indicative lengths of footpath measuring 1350m2 that might be considered for about an additional 100 burials. It is thought that removing footpaths for burial use is considered controversial and should form a part of a wider consultation programme for the whole cemetery before any works are started.

This intervention is not considered a high priority – it might provide a quick stopgap for burials should Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery come under dire capacity issues. However, it interferes with the original architecture of the cemetery and does not really align with the aims of making the cemetery a ‘place’ for people to enjoy. This paper outlines these works as an option for consideration in the future only.

4.5 Boundary Wall

The perimeter of Streatham Cemetery is made up of three types of wall. - Low retaining wall with cast iron decorative railing at front of cemetery; - High brick boundary wall at the northwest perimeter; - Concrete slat boundary walls at all other perimeter locations.

The low retaining wall is in a good condition and requires no work other than to the cast iron decorative railing – this is covered in section 4.5. The high brick boundary wall is in an excellent condition, where no notable defects were identified. The concrete slat boundary wall has vast amount of ivy growth and is damaged in intermittent areas, presenting a security risk to the cemetery grounds. At one point along the back of the cemetery a tree has felled due to inclement weather. The tree will need to be removed and wall repaired. The area of work required is highlighted in pink (Appendix 5).

Intermittent damages and the felled tree have caused breaks in the boundary wall that require repair

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Concrete slating repair work £25,000

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £25,000 Page 52

4.6 Landscaping and Gardening

As noted in section 4.5 there is a lot of work required to remove the ivy growth from the boundary walls to ensure that the perimeter walls are kept structurally sound. Other than that, there is not too much clearance work required in terms of bramble and ivy in other areas. Despite this, Streatham Cemetery should be seen as an example of what might happen if trees are not pruned cyclically and then collapse under their own canopy weight with the help of high winds. The cemetery has seen two examples of trees falling over – one onto the boundary wall and one onto the middle of a roadway, which is an indictment to the environmental conditions of the site – generally a wide open plain that can see excessive wind gusts during inclement weather events. The trees were not small – one measuring over 25m in height - the worst case scenario for the Authority would be for a tree of this, or any size for that matter to fall onto a member of public.

A suggested capital investment injection to undertake tree pruning and remove overgrowth forms a part of this investment bid. However, the Cemetery service will need to ensure that growth is managed effectively thereafter through a concise cemetery management plan.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Landscape and Gardening work £30,000 2016-17 Landscape and Gardening work £30,000 2017-18 - - 2017-18 - - £60,000

4.7 Railings and Entrance Gates

Although the cast iron railings are relatively small in quantity (about 300m in length, but short in height) compared to the other sites, their condition is relatively poor (length marked in red on Appendix 5). The entrance gates and railings are severely rusted with component parts of them unsalvageable in terms of basic treatment and painting works. New parts will need to be fabricated and welded onto the existing structures. Again, this is an example of where some fairly low level interventions i.e.: painting could have prevented these issues and should set a precedent for a place like West Norwood Cemetery, where railings are currently exposed to the elements and would be at risk of rust and consequently permanent damage.

The railings are beautiful, ornate and the first thing that a visitor will notice upon entry. If they are kept in a good condition, it gives visitors the impression that the cemetery is a well-kept place that might be suitable as a final resting place for their loved ones. Page 53

Front entrance gates – rusting and close to being unsalvageable. Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 1 £162,000 2016-17 Railing & Entrance Gates – Phase 2 £45,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £207,000

4.8 Graves – General

As per section 2.10 under West Norwood Cemetery, all graves in Streatham Cemetery will now need to be re-assessed and a sensible risk based ‘make safe’ programme pursued in order to ensure that the Council discharges its health and safety responsibilities in accordance with the Ministry of Justice guidelines.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2016-17 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2017-18 Condition Assessment and Make Safe £15,000 programme 2018-19 - - £45,000

4.9 Re-Use and Burial Capacity

There is currently no capacity for traditional earthen burials at Streatham Cemetery – nor are there any cast chamber burial spaces left at Streatham Cemetery. However, as mentioned in 1.5 a separate piece of work is being undertaken outside of this capital bid process to place an additional 47 cast burial chambers at Streatham Cemetery. This piece of work will help to accommodate existing demand for cast chambers over the next 2-3 years. In terms Page 54

of traditional earthen burials, it stands to reason that re-use must be initiated in the short term so that burials can resume in the next 2-3 years after some planning and preparatory ground works.

Approximately 11,475m2 of public consecrated ground has been identified by the service that could be re-used, potentially yielding up to 3,310 traditional earthen burials. It must be noted though that areas C, D and V (Appendix 5) have previously been ‘built up’ on, meaning that the more cost effective option of building up cannot be done again. Instead these sites would likely need to be exhumed requiring a higher initial investment cost by the Council.

It is recommended to therefore investigate areas 4 and 5 as re-use options with an engineering assessment of the sites. These will then need to be referenced in the wider re- use paper.

Category Location Size Yield Potential Income Public Consecrated Area C 2672m2 776 earthen £2.8m – Re-Use Earthen (Appendix 5) Public Consecrated Area D 1673m2 534 earthen £2m – Re-Use Earthen (Appendix 5) Public Consecrated Area V 2190m2 800 earthen £2.9m – Re-Use Earthen (Appendix 5) Public Consecrated Area 4 & 5 2500m2 1200 earthen £4.4m – Re-Use Earthen (Appendix 2440m2 5)

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 Engineering Scope £5,000

2015-16 - - 2016-17 Re-use site – detailed design £50,000 2017-18 Re-use site – groundwork’s £750,000 2018-19 Re-use site – groundwork’s £750,000 £1,555,000

4.10 Street Furniture

All street furniture – seating, water points and bins are proposed to be upgraded per West Norwood Cemetery and Lambeth Cemetery.

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 Street Furniture £120,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £120,000 Page 55

5 Finance

5.1 The financial capex implication for each cemetery is tabled below for each financial year up to 2021-22. As stated in section 1 the aim of the report is for approval of a 2014-15 budget only, with a further updated report required at the end of 2014-15 to approve the next financial years allocation.

5.2 Each financial year has been broken down into its project components in Appendix 6 (West Norwood), Appendix 7 (Lambeth Cemetery) and Appendix 8 (Streatham Cemetery).

5.2 West Norwood Cemetery

Financial Capital Receipt HLF – Parks for People HLF – Heritage Year Requirement Requirement Programme Requirement 2014-15 £170,500 2015-16 £489,971 2016-17 £715,500 2017-18 £272,500 2018-19 £464,800 £1,579,200 2019-20 £592,250 £920,000 2020-21 £242,000 £483,800 £1,000,000 2021-22 £992,000 £834,900 £1,000,000 2022-23 £1,178,000 £1,000,000 2023-24 £1,000,000 £3,939,521 £4,995,900 £4,000,000 All figures above include incremental RPIX indices of 3%

The key points to the above programme are as follows:

- The HLF grant submission and approval process takes a minimum of two years. - Initial investment period from 2014/15 – 2017/18 will be required by Lambeth to carry out: . Feasibility Studies; . Design; . Management of the two HLF bids; . Essential maintenance work that needs completing in the short term.

- Capital receipts will be required in 18/19 and 19/20 to progress re-use in West Norwood as the HLF will not fund this. - Capital receipts will be required in 2020/21 – 2021/22 in order to match fund the HLF award (25%). - If successful, HLF ‘Parks for People’ funding would be made available for use at the start of 2018-19. - A significant amount of procurement would be required once the HLF is approved in 18/19, for this reason the scope implementation works in 18-19 can be completed through existing highways contracts that the Authority can use immediately. - This programme seeks to minimise capital receipt investment and maximise external funding sources (HLF). Page 56

It is envisaged that the submission / approval process for the HLF bids will follow the timelines set out below:

Parks for People (up to £5m): Cemetery General

Stage One Submission February 2015 Stage One Decision June 2015 Stage Two Submission June 2017 Stage Two Decision February 2018

Heritage (up to £2m): Catacombs

Stage One Submission June 2015 Stage One Decision February 2016 Stage Two Submission February 2018 Stage Two Decision June 2018

The HLF have informally advised that Lambeth could apply for a heritage grant twice – in effect making an initial application for development and first phase construction costs. A subsequent application for the remainder of the construction could then follow. However, there are further meetings scheduled with the HLF to scope out how this process will work.

5.3 Lambeth Cemetery

Financial Year Amount Plus RPIX (3%) 2014-15 £302,000 £302,000 2015-16 £809,000 £833,270 2016-17 £1,863,000 £1,974,780 2017-18 £1,375,000 £1,498,750 2018-19 £1,185,000 £1,324,200 TOTALS £5,534,000 £5,933,000

5.6 Streatham Cemetery

Financial Year Amount Plus RPIX (3%) 2014-15 £55,000 £55,000 2015-16 £564,000 £580,920 2016-17 £1,800,000 £1,908,000 2017-18 £765,000 £833,850 2018-19 - - TOTALS £3,184,000 £3,377,770

5.7 Revenue

Most of the project streams in this report have been indentified due to a lack of maintenance expenditure over the past 40 years. All three sites desperately need a capital injection in order to cull an escalating backlog of maintenance repairs that the Council has not been able Page 57

to stay on top of. The aim of this proposed programme is to bring infrastructure items such as roads, pathways, drainage, walls, railings and street furniture to a ‘year one’ condition level so that the Council is then in a better position to manage them more effectively going forward. A robust maintenance plan will be required going forward and will form a large part of the Cemetery Management Plan (section 1.8).

The grave, monuments and memorials do not present the Council with any revenue implication (in terms of maintenance) – these are actually privately owned. However, attempts by the Friends of West Norwood Cemetery to get owners to maintain these memorials has been historically difficult and research with other cemeteries egg: Highgate, suggest that this is a near fruitless exercise. The issue is that Lambeth must take duty of care for its cemetery visitors – as in the case of Harrogate Cemetery (section 2.10) or it faces severe consequences (both reputationally and financially) should a grave, monument or memorial cause personal injury or death. As a side to this, repairing the cemetery aesthetic by having a monument / memorial repair programme in place generally enhances the site overall and it is envisaged that it will help to drive future business (and revenue) in the future. The West Norwood Cemetery catacombs will also play a key role in driving future business to the site. However, it is much too early to calculate the financial impact it will have in terms of annual maintenance or revenue until a decision is made on what the site will be able to accommodate.

Monument / memorial repairs, the catacombs and other visitor attractions within the West Norwood Cemetery will prominently feature in the services overall business plan, being completed as a separate piece of work. However, due to the added costs of maintaining such assets it’s highly doubtful that West Norwood Cemetery will ever be able to sustain itself - being ever reliant on the income streams of Lambeth and Streatham cemeteries. This being the case, it is critical that grave re-use and new burial spaces for all sites are instigated now, as they are something that can be quantified and therefore planned as future income within the services forecasting. A summary of the figures is per below:

Cemetery Investment Income ROI West Norwood Re-use £965,000 £1,800,000 £835,000 Lambeth New Burial – £25,000 £403,000 £428,000 redundant roadways New Burial £2.5m - £7m £3.8m - £21.7m £1.3m - £14.7m Streatham Re-use £2.5m £4.4m £1.9m Note that existing burial space of 1,400 and associated income projections are not included above.

6. Legal and Democracy

6.1 MANDATORY: DO NOT DELETE OR AMEND TITLE OF THIS SECTION. COMMENTS REQUIRED FROM ENABLING: INTEGRATED SUPPORT: HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES (OR RELEVANT LAWYER). This paragraph helps ensure the Council operates within the legislative framework and safeguards against costly legal challenges. Specific legal powers and advice provided by the) on how to exercise them. Depending on the subject of the report Page 58

it will need to be cleared by the relevant lawyer (see Section G of Making and Reporting Decisions) 6.2 FOR ALL REPORTS TO BE PUBLISHED, COMMENTS ALSO REQUIRED FROM ENABLING: CORPORATE AFFAIRS: DEMOCRATIC SERVICES: [email protected]. Comments will include Forward Plan, pre-decision publication arrangements. 7. Consultation and co-production

The Strategic Delivery Director and Delivery Director have been consulted on this report/project. Aspirations for the sites have been obtained through consultation with the Cemetery and Crematorium Service Team, the Scheme of Management and Friends of West Norwood Cemetery (West Norwood only). The Friends of Streatham Cemetery have been contacted, but no response has been received to date. It is envisaged that some informal public engagement is undertaken locally for all three sites to determine if the improvements are aligned with public desire. Should elements of work not align with local aspirations all efforts should be made to include them within the design process.

8. Risk management

8.1 A full risk assessment for each cemetery is included is Appendix 9.

9. Equalities impact assessment

An EIA has not been carried out, as this is the continuation of an existing service and not a new project. There is no change to the existing service.

10. Organisational implications Management costs have been included in the overall programme to reflect the need to oversee all of the projects across the three sites. It is assumed that these costs can be recharged against capital. Generally, costs are proposed as follows:

West Norwood Cemetery

Role 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 PM £40,000 £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 HLF - £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 Officer Constructi - £40,000 £40,000 £20,000 £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 on Manager

As the West Norwood Cemetery site may undergo a significant capital investment programme it is intended that the scheme needs a dedicated PM and Construction Management Officer (where required). The HLF officer would support the PM in the HLF bidding process. Page 59

Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery

Role 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 Project - £60,000 £60,000 £60,000 £20,000 Manager Construction - £40,000 £40,000 £40,000 - Management Officer

Lambeth and Streatham will need a single dedicated PM and Construction Management Officer for both sites. Note that in 18-19 the WNC PM role would oversee all three cemeteries for the remainder of the programme.

11. Timetable for implementation

Anticipated start date for the 2014-15 programme is October 2014.

Audit trail

Name of consultee Department or Organisation Date sent Date Comments response appear in report received para:

Raj Mistry Environment Delivery 27/8/2014

Andrew Maynard Capital Tax and Major Projects

David Thomas Legal

Natalie Finance Woodcock/Paul Badiani

Christina Thompson Director Integrated Support

Jane Edbrooke Councillor

Bharadia Hamant Business Partnering

Alastair Johnstone Open Spaces Operations 27/8/2014 Manager Neil Fenton Customer Experience 27/8/2014 Manage Jeff Ragget Co-operative Development 27/8/2014 Team Manager Page 60

Consultation See Above

Report history Original discussion with Cabinet Member N/A Report deadline 9th Sept 2014 Date final report sent XX.XX.14 Report no. /14-15 Democratic Services to complete Part II Exempt from Disclosure/confidential No accompanying report? Key decision report No Date first appeared on forward plan N/A Key decision reasons N/A

Background information N/A

Appendices None. Page 61

APPROVAL BY CABINET MEMBER OR OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEME OF DELEGATION

I confirm I have been consulted on this report:

Signature ______Date ______

Raj Mistry

Programme Director Environment Delivery

I approve the above recommendations:

Signature ______Date ______

Guy Ware

Strategic Director of Enabling

I confirm I have consulted the relevant Cabinet Members, including the Leader of the Council (if required), and approve the above recommendations:

Signature ______Date ______

Councillor Sally Prentice

Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure

Any declarations of interest (or exemptions granted): Issue Interest declared Page 62

Appendix 1 – Worst Areas of Flooding Page 63

Appendix 2 – West Norwood Cemetery Page 64

Appendix 3 – Grid Map (West Norwood Cemetery) Page 65

Appendix 4 – Lambeth Cemetery Page 66 Page 67

Appendix 5 – Streatham Cemetery Appendix 6 – West Norwood Cemetery Financial Breakdown

HLF - CAPITAL PARKS FOR HLF - RECEIPT PEOPLE HERITAGE FINANCIAL CATEGORY ITEM DETAIL LOCATION SIZE (£) (£) (£) TENDER TYPE YEAR Feasibility Drainage Drainage Assessment Whole Site n/a £23,500 £0 £0 Waiver 2014-15 Clearance - Effra Drainage Drainage Culvert Beneath cemetery n/a £22,000 £0 £0 3 Quotes 2014-15 Structural Catacombs Catacombs Assessment Catacombs n/a £15,000 £0 £0 3 Quotes 2014-15 Design profile of bank area and Structural Direct Boundary Wall Boundary Wall Assessment Boundary Wall n/a £5,000 £0 £0 Commission 2014-15 Landscaping Clearance - northern Highways and Gardening Vegetation boundary wall Various Locations n/a £40,000 £0 £0 Contract 2014-15 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £40,000 £0 £0 n/a 2014-15 Page 68 Railing and Installation of new Southern entrance Entrance Gates Railing standard type railing retaining wall 54m £25,000 £0 £0 3 Quotes 2014-15 £170,500 £0 £0 Framework Drainage Drainage Detailed Design Whole Site n/a £75,000 £0 £0 Contract (TFL) 2015-16 Catacombs Catacombs Architectural Design n/a n/a £120,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Visitor Centre at Visitors Centre Site Office Design TBD TBD £80,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Natural Play Creation of new play Area New Play Space area(s) TBD TBD £25,000 £0 £0 3 Quotes 2015-16 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £40,000 £0 £0 n/a 2015-16 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £60,000 £0 £0 n/a 2015-16 Landscaping Clearance - eastern Highways and Gardening Vegetation boundary wall Various Locations n/a £40,000 £0 £0 Contract 2015-16 Initial Site Monuments and St Mary at Hill investigation and Memorials Plot Clearance works St Mary at Hill plot n/a £15,700 £0 £0 3 Quotes 2015-16

Re-Use of public Engineering scope Re-Use & Burial consecrated and financial Yellow hatched area Capacity graves modelling on map 4800m2 £5,000 £0 £0 Direct Tender 2015-16 Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any Graves - Programme - gravestones that are General Phase 1 a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2015-16 £475,700 £0 £0 Drainage - Drainage Highways Drainage Phase 1 construction works Whole Site n/a £500,000 £0 £0 Contract 2016-17 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £40,000 £0 £0 n/a 2016-17 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £60,000 £0 £0 n/a 2016-17 Re-Use & Burial Design new burial Yellow hatched area Capacity New Burial Site site on map 4800m2 £60,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2016-17 Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any Graves - Programme - gravestones that are General Phase 2 a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2016-17 £675,000 £0 £0 Repairs - Phase Structural Highways Boundary Wall 1 Maintenance Various Locations n/a £150,000 £0 £0 Contract 2017-18 Page 69 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £40,000 £0 £0 n/a 2017-18 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £60,000 £0 £0 n/a 2017-18 £250,000 £0 £0 Drainage - Drainage Highways Drainage Phase 2 construction works Whole Site n/a £0 £500,000 £0 Contract 2018-19 Repairs - Phase Structural Highways Boundary Wall 2 Maintenance Various Locations n/a £0 £150,000 £0 Contract 2018-19 Road Full road o/s Crematorium(5) Highways Roads Reconstruction reconstruction App 2 400m2 £0 £16,000 £0 Contract 2018-19 Full road Lower Road (1) App Highways Roads Road Repairs reconstruction 2 1560m2 £0 £182,500 £0 Contract 2018-19 Road 100mm plane and o/s Greek Cemetery Highways Roads Resurfacing surface (3) App 2 900m2 £0 £60,000 £0 Contract 2018-19

2-3mm non permeable surface course over all of the Non-permeable existing roadways in Highways Roads Road Layer the cemetery Whole Site 8000m2 £0 £240,000 £0 Contract 2018-19 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2018-19 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2018-19

Construction Client Side Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2018-19 Way Finding Web based way Way Finding Signage finding system n/a n/a £0 £25,000 £0 3 Quotes 2018-19 Footway 100mm plane and Narrow Road (8) Highways Footpaths Reconstruction surface App 2 210m2 £0 £20,000 £0 Contract 2018-19 Footway 40mm plane and Various (2,9,10) Highways Footpaths Overlay surface App 2 1400m2 £0 £76,500 £0 Contract 2018-19

Re-Use of public Implement access Re-Use & Burial consecrated improvements to Yellow hatched area Highways Capacity graves new burial site on map 4800m2 £400,000 £0 £0 Contract 2018-19 Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any Graves - Programme - gravestones that are General Phase 3 a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2018-19

£415,000 £1,410,000 £0 Page 70 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2019-20 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2019-20

Construction Client Side Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2019-20 Monuments and Monuments - Six of the 16 'at risk' Memorials Phase 1 monument repairs Various Locations n/a £0 £150,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2019-20 Railing and Railing and Treating, repair and Entrance Gates Gates - Phase 1 painting works Various Locations 120m £0 £150,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2019-20 Monuments and St Mary at Hill Reconstruction Memorials Plot works St Mary at Hill plot n/a £0 £200,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2019-20

New planting Landscaping scheme at various Highways and Gardening Planting points in Cemetery Various Locations n/a £0 £50,000 £0 Contract 2019-20 Landscaping Clearance - various Highways and Gardening Vegetation location Various Locations n/a £0 £40,000 £0 Contract 2019-20

Re-Use of public Reworking of the Re-Use & Burial consecrated land to enable Southeast Area Highways Capacity graves reburial (yellow) App 2 4,800m2 £500,000 £0 £0 Contract 2019-20 Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any Graves - Programme - gravestones that are General Phase 4 a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2019-20 Highways Street Furniture Seating New seating Various Locations n/a £0 £30,000 £0 Contract 2019-20 Highways Street Furniture Bins New Bins Various Locations n/a £0 £20,000 £0 Contract 2019-20 Highways Street Furniture Watering Points New watering points Various Locations n/a £0 £20,000 £0 Contract 2019-20 £515,000 £800,000 £0 Railing and Railing and Treating, repair and Entrance Gates Gates - Phase 2 painting works Various Locations 120m £0 £150,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2020-21 Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2020-21 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2020-21 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2020-21

Construction Client Side Page 71 Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2020-21 Four of the 16 'at Monuments and risk' monument Memorials Monuments repairs Various Locations n/a £0 £100,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2020-21 Natural Play Creation of new play Area New Play Space area(s) TBD TBD £200,000 £0 £0 2020-21 £200,000 £410,000 £1,000,000 Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2021-22 Railing and Railing and Treating, repair and Entrance Gates Gates - Phase 3 painting works Various Locations 110m £0 £150,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2021-22 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2021-22 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2021-22

Construction Client Side Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2021-22 Four of the 16 'at Monuments and risk' monument Memorials Monuments repairs Various Locations n/a £0 £100,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2021-22 Monument repair Monuments and and pathway Memorials Ship Path formalisation Ship Path n/a £0 £300,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2021-22 Visitor Centre at Visitors Centre Site Office New Visitors Centre TBD TBD £800,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2021-22 £800,000 £690,000 £1,000,000 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2022-23

Construction Client Side Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2022-23 Two of the 16 'at Monuments and risk' monument Memorials Monuments repairs Various Locations n/a £0 £50,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Monument repair Monuments and and pathway Memorials Doulton's Path formalisation Doulton's Path n/a £0 £300,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Monuments and Further monument Memorials Greek Cemetery repair Greek Cemetery n/a £0 £500,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2022-23 £0 £950,000 £1,000,000

Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2023-24 Page 72 £0 £0 £1,000,000 GRAND TOTAL £3,501,200 £4,260,000 £4,000,000 Appendix 7 - Lambeth Cemetery Financial Breakdown

FINANCIAL CATEGORY ITEM DETAIL LOCATION SIZE COST TENDER TYPE YEAR Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site Engineering scope and financial Capacity investigation modelling Area 1 on map 8700m2 £5,000 Direct Tender 2014-15 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site GPR Surveys to identify Capacity investigation electrical ducting Area 1 on map 8700m2 £5,000 Direct Tender Highways Drainage Drainage CCTV / Gully survey - clearance Whole Site n/a £40,000 Contract 2014-15 Granite Paved Entrance area Highways Roads Entranceway Detailed Design (Orange on map) n/a £10,000 Contract 2014-15 Kerb Reconstruction - Kerb reconstruction at edge of Highways Roads Phase 1 c/w Various Locations n/a £42,000 Contract 2014-15

Road Resurfacing - Highways Page 73 Roads Phase 1 100mm plane and surface Various Locations 5000m2 £200,000 Contract 2014-15 £302,000 Granite Paved Entrance area Highways Roads Entranceway Detailed Design Continuation (Orange on map) n/a £7,000 Contract 2015-16 Road Resurfacing - Highways Roads Phase 2 100mm plane and surface Various Locations 9000m2 £400,000 Contract 2015-16 Kerb Reconstruction - Kerb reconstruction at edge of Highways Roads Phase 2 c/w Various Locations n/a £126,000 Contract 2015-16 Railing and Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 1 Replacement Blackshaw Road side 184m £86,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site - Capacity design Detailed Design Area 1 on map 8700m2 £60,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Re-Use & Burial Excavate redundant roadway to Redundant road Highways Capacity Redundant roadways make use for burial (pink on map) 384m2 £25,000 Contract Landscape and Highways Gardening Vegetation General Clearance Work Various Locations n/a £40,000 Contract 2015-16 Management Project Management Client Management of Scheme n/a n/a £30,000 n/a 2015-16 Construction Project Client Side Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2015-16 Graves - Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any gravestones General Programme - Phase 1 that are a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 £809,000 Road Reconstruction - Entrance area Highways Roads Granite sets Construction Works (Orange on map) 256m2 £900,000 Contract 2016-17

Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site - Implement access Highways Capacity works improvements to new burial site Area 1 on map 8700m2 £400,000 Contract 2016-17 Railing and Treating, repair and painting Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 2 works Blackshaw Road side 720m £228,000 Full EU Tender 2016-17 Highways Street Furniture Seating New seating Various Locations n/a £50,000 Contract 2016-17 Highways Street Furniture Bins New Bins Various Locations n/a £40,000 Contract 2016-17 Highways Street Furniture Watering Points New watering points Various Locations n/a £30,000 Contract 2016-17 Ground Maintenance Ground Maintenance Expansion of dividers and Highways Compound Depot optimisation of space £80,000 Contract Landscape and New planting at various Highways Gardening Planting locations Various Locations n/a £70,000 Contract 2016-17 Management Project Management Client Management of Scheme n/a n/a £30,000 n/a 2016-17 Construction Project Client Side Construction Page 74 Management Management Management n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2016-17 Graves - Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any gravestones General Programme - Phase 2 that are a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2016-17 £1,863,000 Railing and Treating, repair and painting Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 3 works Back of Cemetery 750m £260,000 Full EU Tender 2017-18 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site - Reworking of the land to enable Highways Capacity works reburial Area 1 on map 8700m2 £1,000,000 Contract 2017-18 Management Project Management Client Management of Scheme n/a n/a £60,000 n/a 2017-18 Construction Project Client Side Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £40,000 n/a 2017-18 Graves - Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any gravestones General Programme - Phase 3 that are a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2017-18 £1,375,000 Railing and Treating, repair and painting All 5 gates at Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 4 works Blackshaw Road 40m £125,000 Full EU Tender 2018-19 Re-Use & Burial Highways Capacity Pathways Make redundant for burial Various Locations 1100m2 £25,000 Contract 2018-19 Graves - Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any gravestones General Programme - Phase 4 that are a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2018-19 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site - Reworking of the land to enable Capacity works reburial Area 1 on map 8700m2 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2018-19 Management Project Management Client Management of Scheme n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2018-19 £1,185,000 GRAND TOTAL £5,534,000 Page 75 Appendix 8 - Streatham Cemetery Financial Breakdown

FINANCIAL Category ITEM DETAIL LOCATION SIZE COST TENDER TYPE YEAR CCTV / Gully survey and Highways Drainage Drainage clearance Whole Site n/a £40,000 Contract 2014-15 Granite Paved Entrance area (Orange Highways Roads Entranceway Detailed Design on map) 3059m2 £10,000 Contract 2014-15 Re-Use & Burial Engineering scope and Capacity New Burial Site financial modelling Areas 4 & 5 on map 4,940m2 £5,000 Direct Tender 2014-15 £55,000 Granite Paved Detailed Design Entrance area (Orange Highways Roads Entranceway Continuation on map) 3059m2 £7,000 Contract 2015-16 Highways Roads Road Resurfacing 100mm plane and surface Various Locations 4452m2 £180,000 Contract 2015-16 Kerb reconstruction at Highways Roads Kerb Reconstruction edge of c/w Various Locations n/a £45,000 Contract 2015-16 Page 76 Railing and Treating, repair and Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 1 painting works Facing Garrat Lane 270m £162,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Making safe any Graves - Cemetery Make Safe gravestones that are a General Programme - Phase 1 H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Concrete slating repair Highways Boundary Wall Boundary Wall Repairs work Back of cemetery n/a £25,000 Contract 2015-16 Client Management of Management Project Management Scheme n/a n/a £30,000 n/a 2015-16 Construction Project Client Side Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2015-16 Landscape and Highways Gardening Vegetation Clearance - general Various Locations n/a £30,000 Contract 2015-16 Re-Use & Burial Re-use site detailed Capacity design Detailed Design Areas 4 & 5 on map 4940m2 £50,000 Full EU Tender £564,000 Road Reconstruction - Entrance area (Orange Highways Roads Granite sets Construction Works on map) 3059m2 £790,000 Contract 2016-17 Two gated entrances & Railing and Treating, repair and Pedestrian accesses on Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 2 painting works Garrat Lane 25m £45,000 Full EU Tender 2016-17 Highways Street Furniture Seating New seating Various Locations n/a £50,000 Contract 2016-17 Street Furniture Bins New Bins Various Locations n/a £40,000 Highways 2016-17 Contract Highways Street Furniture Watering Points New watering points Various Locations n/a £30,000 Contract 2016-17 Landscape and New planting at various Highways Gardening Planting locations Various Locations n/a £30,000 Contract 2016-17 Making safe any Graves - Cemetery Make Safe gravestones that are a General Programme - Phase 2 H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2016-17 Client Management of Management Project Management Scheme n/a n/a £30,000 n/a 2016-17 Construction Project Client Side Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2016-17 Re-Use & Burial Re-Use of public Reworking of the land to Highways Capacity consecrated graves enable reburial Areas 4 & 5 on map 4940m2 £750,000 Contract £1,800,000 Making safe any Graves - Cemetery Make Safe gravestones that are a General Programme - Phase 3 H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2017-18 Page 77 Re-Use & Burial Re-Use of public Reworking of the land to Highways Capacity consecrated graves enable reburial Areas 4 & 5 on map 4940m2 £750,000 Contract 2017-18 £765,000 Grand Total £3,184,000 Appendix 9 – Risk Assessment West Norwood Cemetery

RISK CATEGORY RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES COMMENTS ASSESSMENT SCORING Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk

H&S H&S SCORE ID Commercial Commercial Maintenance Maintenance Reputational Reputational Performance Performance Environmental Environmental RISK COMBINED

If the drainage system is left its current state of repair, the Ground movement affecting cemetery will see an increase in ground water flooding that roads, footpaths, graves, could lead to part closures of the site and irreparable monuments, boundary wall / damages to the drainage infrastructure, roadways, footways, 1 Drainage Flooding railing. H H VH VH H VH 4 4 5 5 4 5 27 monuments and the boundary wall. Pedestrian trip or The remaining roads to be resurfaced are in a poor state of road traffic Council liability for accident or repair. In particular, Lower Road is worst and should it cause accident, road death, part closure of a trip or traffic accident resulting in injury or death the

2 Roads collapse cemetery H L M M M VH 4 2 3 3 3 5 20 Council will be liable. Page 78 Many of the footpaths have longitudinal cracks along the lengths of them presenting pedestrians with 25mm trip Council liability for accident of hazards (at worst). Should they cause a trip resulting in 3 Footpaths Pedestrian trip death M L M M M H 3 2 3 3 3 4 18 injury or death the Council will be liable. Vegetation has been allowed to overgrow in many areas of Perpetual damages to the cemetery, causing damage to the boundary wall, roads, Structural structures leading to escalating footpaths, railing and monuments. If left, the vegetation - Landscape & damages, tree maintenance costs. Council particularly ivy, will cause structural damage that can 4 Gardening falling liability for accident of death H VL M H H VH 4 1 3 4 4 5 21 exponentially increase if left unkempt. Paint on railings is peeling off - with some panels exposed to the elements. If the railing is not treated ans painted the Sections of railing fail requiring damages can become far removed from simple maintenance 5 Railing & Gates Rust full replacement M L H H VL VL 3 2 4 4 1 1 15 and require full replacement.

The planning permission for the catacombs runs out in 2017. If a permanent solution is not identified for its restoration the asset will remain closed to the public, leaving the Council open wide to scrutiny over its management of it and reducing Remain closed to Poor reputation for LBL, loss of the WNC's opportunity to being a visitor attraction / revenue 6 Catacombs public income and a valuable asset VH VH L H VL VH 5 5 2 4 1 5 22 generating asset.

The English heritage 'at risk' register is highly visible in the public domain and is currently a reputational negative for LBL. If left, the list will grow as it has been some time since Monuments Poor reputation for LBL, loss of the entire site was reviewed by EH. Further to this, should 16 At Risk damaged beyond valuable assets, Council one of the monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or 7 Monuments repair liability if accident or death VH H L H VL VH 5 4 2 4 1 5 21 death the Council will be held liable. There are 3 English heritage 'at risk' register monument in the Greek Cemetery that require urgent repair. If left, the list will grow as it has been some time since the entire site was Monuments Poor reputation for LBL, loss of reviewed by EH. Further to this, should one of the damaged beyond valuable assets, Council monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or death the 8 Greek Cemetery repair liability if accident or death VH H L H VL VH 5 4 2 4 1 5 21 Council will be held liable.

The St Mary at Hill plot was a listed structure and if it is not restored, Lambeth will be continually scrutinised for its mismanagement when it allegedly demolished the site illegally to make space for further grave plots. The Poor reputation for LBL, loss of restoration of the site would improve upon LBL's reputation as 9 St Mary At Hill Not restored valuable assets VH M L VL VL VL 5 3 2 1 1 1 13 well as encourage more visitors to the WNC.

There are 4 English heritage 'at risk' register monument in the Greek Cemetery that require urgent repair. If left, the list will grow as it has been some time since the entire site was Not formalised as reviewed by EH. Further to this, should one of the a pedestrian Poor reputation for LBL, loss of monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or death the 10 Doulton's Path thoroughfare valuable assets H M L H VL H 4 3 2 4 1 4 18 Council will be held liable. There are 3 English heritage 'at risk' register monument in

the Greek Cemetery that require urgent repair. If left, the list Page 79 will grow as it has been some time since the entire site was Not formalised as reviewed by EH. Further to this, should one of the a pedestrian Poor reputation for LBL, loss of monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or death the 11 Ship Path thoroughfare valuable assets H M L H VL H 4 3 2 4 1 4 18 Council will be held liable. There is currently no capacity for earthen burials at WNC. No further burials in WNC will Unless re-use is initiated now, the WNC will increasingly Re-use investment result in no income for earthen become reliant on Lambeth Cemetery (and Streatham) to 12 Grave Re-use not made burials VH VH VH VL M VL 5 5 5 1 3 1 20 fund its maintenance.

Council liability for accident of If graves are left in their current condition, they may cause 13 Graves - General Pedestrian trip death VH VL L VH VL VH 5 1 2 5 1 5 19 an injury or death resulting in the Council being held liable.

Appendix 9b – Risk Assessment Lambeth Cemetery

RISK RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES ASSESSMENT SCORING COMMENTS CATEGORY Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk

H&S H&S SCORE ID Commercial Commercial Maintenance Maintenance Reputational Reputational Performance Performance Environmental Environmental RISK COMBINED

Groundwater ponding issues The drainage system at Lambeth Cemetery is in a good condition and in situ flooding, damages based on visual inspection. However, if the infrastructure is not 1 Drainage Flooding drainage infrastructure M L H H H L 3 2 4 4 4 2 19 cleared and inspected there is a risk of irreparable damages.

Pedestrian trip

or road traffic Almost all of the roads in the earthen burial section would meet Page 80 accident, road Council liability for accident or complete renewal requirements on the public highways. If left, they 2 Roads collapse death, part closure of cemetery VH M H H M VH 5 3 4 4 3 5 24 might cause injury or death that the Council would be liable for.

Perpetual damages to Vegetation has been allowed to overgrow in many areas of the Structural structures leading to escalating cemetery, causing damage to the boundary wall, roads, footpaths Landscape & damages, tree maintenance costs. Council and railings. If left, the vegetation - particularly ivy, will cause 3 Gardening falling liability for accident of death H M L M M VH 4 3 2 3 3 5 20 structural damage that can exponentially increase if left unkempt. Paint on railings is peeling off - with some panels exposed to the elements. If the railing is not treated and painted the damages are irreversible and require replacement - as is evident with about 25% Sections of railing fail requiring of the perimeter railing at Lambeth Cemetery. Lose railing also 4 Railing & Gates Rust full replacement H M VH VH L VL 4 3 5 5 2 1 20 causes a security risk for the site.

No further burials in Lambeth There is currently 8 years worth of burial space available at Lambeth Graves - New investment Cemetery will result in no Cemetery. Plans to create more space should be made now to 5 Burials not made income for earthen burials VH VH VH VL M VL 5 5 5 1 3 1 20 ensure that future demand is catered for.

Graves - Council liability for accident of If graves are left in their current condition, they may cause an injury 6 General Pedestrian trip death VH VL L VH VL VH 5 1 2 5 1 5 19 or death resulting in the Council being held liable.

Appendix 9c – Risk Assessment Streatham Cemetery

RISK RISK EVENT CONSEQUENCES ASSESSMENT SCORING COMMENTS CATEGORY Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk Risk

SCORE ID H&S H&S RISK Commercial Commercial Maintenance Maintenance Reputational Reputational Performance Performance COMBINED Environmental Environmental

Groundwater ponding issues The drainage system at Streatham Cemetery is in a good condition and in situ flooding, damages based on visual inspection. However, if the infrastructure is not 1 Drainage Flooding drainage infrastructure M L H H H L 3 2 4 4 4 2 19 cleared and inspected there is a risk of irreparable damages.

Pedestrian trip or road traffic Many sections of roadway within the Streatham Cemetery now accident, road Council liability for accident or require repair. If left, they might cause injury or death that the 2 Roads collapse death, part closure of cemetery VH M H H M VH 5 3 4 4 3 5 24 Council would be liable for.

Perpetual damages to Vegetation has been allowed to overgrow in many areas of the Page 81 Structural structures leading to escalating cemetery, causing damage to the boundary wall, roads, footpaths Landscape & damages, tree maintenance costs. Council and railings. If left, the vegetation - particularly ivy, will cause 3 Gardening falling liability for accident of death H M L M M VH 4 3 2 3 3 5 20 structural damage that can exponentially increase if left unkempt.

All of the railing at Streatham Cemetery has gone beyond basic Sections of railing fail requiring treatment and painting works. The railings now need to be 4 Railing & Gates Rust full replacement H M VH VH L VL 4 3 5 5 2 1 20 completely removed, with rusted pieces removed and replaced.

No further burials in Streatham There is currently no capacity for earthen burials at Streatham. Graves - Re- investment will result in no income for Unless re-use is initiated now, it will increasingly become reliant on 5 Use not made earthen burials VH VH VH VL M VL 5 5 5 1 3 1 20 Lambeth Cemetery to fund its maintenance.

Graves - Council liability for accident of If graves are left in their current condition, they may cause an injury 6 General Pedestrian trip death VH VL L VH VL VH 5 1 2 5 1 5 19 or death resulting in the Council being held liable.

This page is intentionally left blank Page 83 Agenda Item 5 This page is intentionally left blank Page 85

Capability House Building 31 Wrest Park Silsoe BEDFORD MK45 4HR

T: 01525 864387 W: www.cemeterydevelopmentservices.co.uk E: [email protected]

A report to London Borough of Lambeth on the site conditions for a proposed extended re-use burial provision within the West Norwood Cemetery

authors: Justin Smith Dr Mike Hann

December 2014 E1.0.01

Company Directors: JJ Smith J Prentis S Sheridan

Registered Office: 46-48 Rothesay Road Luton, Bedfordshire, LU1 1QZ

Registered No: 5048077

Vat No: 0836 4504 25

Customer Ref: CDSL/1117-1

Page 86

London Borough of Lambeth

A review of soil and drainage conditions at West Norwood Cemetery for a further burial provision

Page 87

Contents

1 Executive Summary

2 Introduction

3 Background

4 Site Investigations

5 Pollutant Risk

6 Depth of Burial

7 Archaeology

8 Risk Evaluation

9 Mitigation

10 Conclusion

Page 88

1.0 Executive Summary

The site at West Norwood has a number of engineering constraints further complicated by the number of peripheral burials around the site.

The soils of the site are recorded as being made ground sitting over London Clay. The made ground sits on a significant slope of between 11% and 10% this has the potential to create an elevated risk of slippage or slide in both translation and rotation.

As a result of this risk the use of burial chambers and imported fill for raising ground levels will have to be engineered in such a way that this risk is minimised and this requires a construction of a series of terraces specifically on the southern extents of the proposed site.

The inclusion of burial chambers adds a further complication with regard to drainage.

The infiltration to the sub-base will be rapid and therefore there is a possibility of sub surface flow and consequentially cavitation below the chambers .

To reduce this risk a proper drainage design is essential and this will require sufficient outfall which there does not appear to be currently within the locals of the area.

This requires further examination before this option is considered.

Should an outfall be established and chambers considered an option then the following comparisons can be made for development cost as illustrated in the table 8 below.

Table 8 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Re-use Chambers Raising ground levels Number of Graves 600* 900 650 Development costs £400 £1000 £500 per grave/chamber Total site costs £240K £900,000 £325K Gross return @ £1,800,000 £2,700,000 £1,950,000 circa £3k per burial Net return £1,560,000 £1,800,000 £1,625,000

*May be significantly less due to constraints on ownership etc.

The option for chambers looks the most financially favourable initially; however the risk element is high as marginal increases in unit construction costs could rapidly erode the margin.

Raising ground levels has possibly the least financial risk as the final cost item is of a known quantum, even when compared to re-use which as discussed may have many political and logistical constraints.

1 Page 89

2.0 Introduction

Cemetery Development Services carried out a desktop soil and water survey in December 2014 for the proposed development site shown in Figure 1a and b below. During this survey, the site general area was surveyed in order to establish the degree of variation in the type and condition of the soil, its hydraulic properties and the potential risk to groundwater contamination.

The site is currently full

The design scope would look at pollution management and drainage and base infrastructure design.

2 Page 90

2.1 Location

The proposed development area is assessed on a centroid of a 500 metre area of influence, grid reference 532521,171946. The areas to be reviewed is highlighted yellow) The site area is calculated as being 0.55 ha.

Figure 1a Figure 1b

Figure 1c

3 Page 91

This report will systematically review the site proposed for use as a burial facility on the basis of desktop studies in accordance with the requirement of the Environment Agency’s Tier 1 survey.

3.0 Background

New cemetery developments or extensions to existing cemeteries can be very emotive. However, these emotive concerns are often disproportionate to the actual associated environmental risk.

Whilst the Local Planning Authority is the principal controlling body in determining approval for new sites or site extensions, significant information is required to ensure that the environmental risks are examined and that the Environment Agency’s views are considered. Therefore, measures to prevent pollution must be undertaken and reported. Any regulatory decision-making is based on sound scientific knowledge. On this basis, a review of potential pollution from cemeteries was undertaken by the Environment Agency in collaboration with the British Geological Survey.

The aim was to review old and new cemeteries and measure the effects of contamination from viruses, bacteria and other microbiological pathogens and to assess the potential of chemical contaminants affecting groundwater supplies from decomposition processes. Preliminary results showed that the operating cemetery examined in the study, (25 years old), did show some evidence of bacterial contaminants in groundwater derived from corpses. However, no viruses were detected and the overall contaminant loading was found to be low. The studies found that degradation and attenuation was occurring, indicating that potential risks were low. Whilst the outcome of this research found contaminant risk to be low, it should be reviewed in the context that natural attenuation processes may have been optimum at these sites. Therefore, to optimise natural attenuation and reduce the risk of possible groundwater contamination, a series of guidelines have been drawn up that are directly applicable to cemeteries.

Failure to manage and reduce any environmental risk to a minimum may result in action being taken under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 and the Anti-pollution Works Notice Regulations 1999.

3.1 Groundwater Protection Policy Burials have the potential to pollute ground and surface waters. The (European) Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD) and the Groundwater Daughter Directive (GWDD) stipulate that pollution from certain substances must be reduced or prevented. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (EPR 2010) enact these directives and certain types of installations or activities with potential to pollute require an Environmental Permit (EP) from the Environment Agency (EA). At the time of writing burial grounds do not require a Permit.

Passive discharges from old cemeteries are covered by Part 2A of the Environment Protection Act 1990, and Anti-Pollution Works Notices under Section 161A of the Water Resources Act 1991. If groundwater/surface pollution incidents were to occur (and/or be foreseen as likely to occur), then the EA could take action under this legislation and/or the EA may use its powers under the EPR 2010 to control or prohibit the burial.

Initial risk screening would start with the tools contained in the Agency’s publication, Principles and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater in cemeteries and in the latest GP3 guidance notes.

Tools include Groundwater Vulnerability and Source Protection Zone (SPZ’s) maps. These maps highlight where there are likely to be particular risks posed to groundwater from surface activities. Groundwater Vulnerability (GWV) Maps show the damage from pollution to groundwater and the relative importance of the aquifer to water supplies. Risk assessment is made with reference to soil leaching potential and the levels of water tables above major and minor aquifers.

4 Page 92

Source Protection Zones are delineated areas around groundwater abstractions used for public consumption and defined by travel time of biological or chemical contaminants.

The zones are classified in three groups:

Zone 1 - High risk Zone 2 - Intermediate to high risk Zone 3 - Intermediate risk

The agency would be opposed to large graveyards within Zone 1 of an SPZ.

Whilst groundwater is a major part of policy concerns, other water point sources are also considered as requiring an evaluation of risk. These sources include surface water in the form of ditches, spring lines and surface run-off.

The factors influencing the risk of groundwater vulnerability include:  Soil nature and type o Physical, mechanical and chemical properties  Geomorphology o Depth to water table and or height above aquifers o Groundwater flow mechanisms o Aquifer type  Abstractions  SPZ’s  Proximity to water courses, ditches and drains

Therefore, prior to any consent being given by the Environment Agency, an assessment of risk should be undertaken. The degree of assessment is measured through a series of stages namely:

 Hazard identification  Identification of consequences  Magnitude of consequences  Probability of consequences  Significance of risk

3.2 Tiered Risk Assessment

There are 3 Tiers of Risk assessment - the associated size and position of the site will, in part determine which Tier is appropriate.

Tier 1 Desktop study of all appropriate documentation including GWV and SPZ maps, topographical, hydrological and geomorphologic maps. After adopting a systematic approach to the assessment of risk, a weighting can be given which is assessed as low, medium or high. If the overall risk is low, the proposal may be accepted by the Agency without further detailed assessment. However, the following practical guidelines would be recommended as appropriate controls to minimize pollution risk:

 250 m distance from groundwater supply  30 m minimum distance from groundwater or spring

5 Page 93

 10 m distance from field drains  No burials in standing water.

Tier 2 Should the risks not be clearly defined by the desktop study then further “ground truthing” might need to be undertaken. This may include field studies and monitoring of groundwater within the proposed area, comprising of the installation of up to three boreholes.

Tier 3 If the risk is considered high, i.e. the number of yearly burials exceeds 1,000 then a full audit will be required. This would include, but not be limited to, a detailed site investigation including boreholes and monthly monitoring.

3.3 Water Resources Act 1991 – S161A Anti Pollution Works Notices

The EA has powers under s161A of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Anti-Pollution Works Regulations 1999 allowing Works Notices to be served to prevent or remedy pollution of controlled waters, and under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 to prevent pollution of groundwater.

3.4 Groundwater Regulations 1998

The burial of human corpses can result in discharge of listed substances to groundwater. They are therefore covered by the requirements of the Groundwater Regulations. Individual burials spaced out over time will only release trivial amounts of listed substances.

These are considered to fall under the de minimis exemption. Large numbers of burials (>100 per annum) in a short time, or the cumulative effects of many individual burials may cause groundwater pollution. In this case the EA will, where appropriate, use their powers under the Groundwater Regulations to control or prohibit the burial. This has specific relevance to policy P12-2 but will apply more generally.

6 Page 94

4.0 Site Investigation

BGS and the Soil Survey of England and Wales hydro-geological departments were consulted for the construction of this report.

4.1 Topography and Surface Drainage

The site falls from 62 m AOD to 51 m AOD over a linear distance of 104 metres giving a fall averaging 10%.

This fall increases to 11% in places.

Area for development

Figure 2

7 Page 95

4.2 Soil Type

The Soils Maps of England and Wales map the site at west Norwood to be of predominantly of the London Clay formation – there is little recorded superficials or drift however there are significant recordings of made ground within the area with specific reference to the cemetery site.

4.3.1 Artificial Ground

This is ground at or near the surface that has been modified by man. It includes ground that has been deposited (Made Ground), landscaped, disturbed, excavated (Worked Ground) or some combination of these.

Figure 3

The area proposed is known to be infilled ground

8 Page 96

Figure 4

4.3.2 Superficial Deposits These are relatively young geological deposits formerly known as ‘Drift’, which lie on the bedrock in many areas. They include deposits such as unconsolidated sands and gravels formed by rivers and clayey tills formed by glacial action. They may be overlain by landslide deposits or by artificial deposits, or both.

Figure 5

The area of the site is not known to have any superficial deposits

9 Page 97

4.3.3 Rockhead Depth The nearby borehole (TQ37SW471) proves rockhead at approximately 2m depth below the made ground. However, rockhead beneath the site specifically may vary due to the made ground from previous burials.

4.3.4 Bedrock Geology Bedrock forms the ground underlying the whole of an area, commonly overlain by superficial deposits, landslide deposits or artificial deposits, in any combination. The bedrock formations were formerly known as the ‘Solid Geology’

Figure 6 Key to Bedrock geology

Coal, ironstone or other mineral vein Fault

Note: Faults are shown for illustration and to aid interpretation of the map. Because these maps are generalised from more detailed versions not all such features are shown and their absence on the map face does not necessarily mean that none are present. Coals, ironstone beds and mineral veins occur only in certain rock types and regions of the UK; if present here, they will be described under ‘bedrock’ below.

Key to Bedrock Geology Computer Map colour Code Name of geological unit Rock type

LC-CLSI LONDON CLAY FORMATION CLAY AND SILT

The London Clay mainly comprises bioturbated or poorly laminated, blue-grey or grey-brown, slightly calcareous, silty to very silty clay, clayey silt and sometimes silt, with some layers of sandy clay.

It commonly contains thin courses of carbonate concretions (‘cementstone nodules’) and disseminated pyrite. It also includes a few thin beds of shells and fine sand partings or pockets of sand, which commonly increase towards the base and towards the top of the formation. At the base, and at some other levels, thin beds of black rounded flint gravel occurs in places.

10 Page 98

Glauconite is present in some of the sands and in some clay beds, and white mica occurs at some levels.

4.4 Additional Considerations

Explanation of hazards (explanations highlighted red are relative to this site).

Mining Hazard The voids created by underground mining activity may pose a potential hazard to both life and assets, and the associated risk of ground movement can reduce property values. Further, spoil from mineral workings can present a pollution hazard.

Shrinking and Swelling Clays Hazard A shrinking and swelling clay changes volume significantly according to how much water it contains. All clay deposits change volume as their water content varies, typically swelling in winter and shrinking in summer, but some do so to a greater extent than others. Most foundations are designed and built to withstand seasonal changes. However, in some circumstances, buildings constructed on clay that is particularly prone to swelling and shrinking behaviour may experience problems. Contributory circumstances could include drought, leaking service pipes or tree roots drying-out the ground. Shrinkage may remove support from the foundations of a building, whereas clay expansion may lead to uplift (heave) or lateral stress on part or all of a structure; all such movements may cause cracking and distortion.

Landslide Hazard A landslide is a relatively rapid outward and downward movement of a mass of rock or soil on a slope due to the force of gravity. A slope is under stress due to the force of gravity but will not move if its strength is greater than this stress. If the balance is altered so that the stress exceeds the strength, then movement will occur. The stability of a slope can be reduced by removing ground at the base of the slope, increasing the water content of the materials forming the slope or by placing material on the slope, especially at the top. Property damage by landslide can occur through the removal of supporting ground from under the property or by the movement of material onto the property.

The assessment of landslide hazard refers to the stability of the present land surface. It does not encompass a consideration of the stability of excavations.

Ground Dissolution Hazard Some rocks are soluble in water and can be progressively removed by the flow of water through the ground. This process tends to create cavities, potentially leading to the collapse of overlying materials and possibly subsidence at the surface.

Compressible Ground Hazard Many ground materials contain water-filled pores (the spaces between solid particles). Ground is compressible if a building (or other load) can cause the water in the pore space to be squeezed out causing the ground to decrease in thickness. If ground is extremely compressible the building may sink. If the ground is not uniformly compressible, different parts of the building may sink by different amounts, possibly causing tilting, cracking or distortion.

Collapsible Ground Hazard

11 Page 99

Collapsible ground comprises certain fine-grained materials with large pore spaces (the spaces between solid particles). It can collapse when it becomes saturated by water and a building (or other structure) places too great a load on it. If the material below a building collapses it may cause the building to sink. If the collapsible ground is variable in thickness or distribution, different parts of the building may sink by different amounts, possibly causing tilting, cracking or distortion.

This hazard is likely to be encountered only in parts of southern England.

Running Sand Hazard (None found in any pits but may be localised) Running sand conditions occur when loosely-packed sand, saturated with water, flows into an excavation, borehole or other type of void. The pressure of the water filling the spaces between the sand grains reduces the contact between the grains and they are carried along by the flow. This can lead to subsidence of the surrounding ground.

If sand below a building runs it may remove support and the building may sink. Different parts of the building may sink by different amounts, possibly causing tilting, cracking or distortion.

4.5 Hydrogeology

In lowland areas of the UK with little topographic variation, groundwater is likely to be found at shallow depths of only a few metres. Water table fluctuations will be small as they will be constrained by the ground surface and the base level of the local perennial streams and rivers.

In upland areas, precipitation is usually high and the dominantly metamorphic and igneous rocks often have relatively shallow groundwater levels. This is due to preferential groundwater storage in near-surface weathered and fractured zones with limited drainage into the underlying unweathered lower permeability rock. Exceptions can occur where higher permeability rocks, such as sandstone or limestone, allow faster through flow of groundwater towards the nearest stream or other discharge point. Perched water tables occur where a less permeable horizon (e.g. a clay layer) in an otherwise permeable sequence retains a body of groundwater above the level of the regional water table. They usually occur at shallow depths in alluvial and glacial sediments and can be difficult to identify or to delimit.

An aquifer becomes confined when it is overlain by a less permeable horizon that restricts the upward movement of groundwater. When this less permeable horizon is penetrated (e.g. by drilling), the groundwater level rises above where struck to a level controlled by the hydrostatic pressure. If this is above ground level, overflowing artesian conditions will be encountered. Confined conditions should be anticipated, where possible, in order to plan for the problems they can generate.

In boreholes TQ37SW471, TQ37SW243 and TQ37SW242 west of the site location by approximately 80 metres all found made ground to 1.8 metres over London Clay.

There were no water strikes in any of the profiles

From these data it would appear that there is no water within at least 6 metres of the ground level of the site

With regard to the hydraulic properties of the site, BGS data define the site as Figure 7a-7c below

12 Page 100

Figure 7a

Figure 7b

Figure 7c

13 Page 101

4.5.1 Groundwater Vulnerability

The section below reviews all components of hydrology, geology and top soil surface water drainage to assess risk notably to groundwater.

4.5.2 Source Protection Zones Source Protection Zones (SPZs) provide an indication of the risk to groundwater supplies that may result from potentially polluting activities and accidental releases of pollutants. Generally the closer the activity or release is to a groundwater source the greater the risk. Three zones (an inner, outer and total catchment) are usually defined although a fourth zone (zone of special interest) is occasionally defined.

The map below (Figure 8) illustrates the position of the proposed cemetery relative to current ground water protection zones.

Figure 8 Area of site.

Inner Zone Outer Zone Total Catchment Special Interest

The Agency has subdivided groundwater source catchments into four zones. Two of these are determined by the travel time of potential pollutants, the third by the source catchment area itself and the fourth is a "Zone of Special Interest". This fourth zone highlights areas where known local conditions mean that potentially polluting activities could impact on a groundwater source even though the area is outside the normal catchment of that source.

 Zone I (Inner Protection Zone) - This zone is defined by a travel time of 50-days or less from any point within the zone at, or below, the water table. Additionally, the zone has, as a minimum, a 50-meter radius. It is based principally on biological decay criteria and is designed to protect against the transmission of toxic chemicals and water-borne disease.

 Zone II (Outer Protection Zone) - This zone is defined by the 400-day travel time, or 25% of the source catchment area, whichever is larger. The travel time is derived from consideration of the minimum time required to provide delay, dilution and attenuation of slowly degrading pollutants.

14 Page 102

 Zone III (Total catchment) - This zone is defined as the total area needed to support the abstraction or discharge from the protected groundwater source.

 Zone of Special Interest - For some groundwater sources an additional Zone of Special Interest may be defined. These zones highlight areas (mainly on non-aquifers) where known local conditions mean that potentially polluting activities could impact on a groundwater source even though the area is outside the normal catchment of that source.

The proposed development site falls outside any source protection zones.

15 Page 103

4.5.3 Aquifer Vulnerability

The Groundwater Vulnerability maps are produced at 1:100,000 scale. They show, by means of colour coding, those areas of the country where water-bearing rocks (aquifers) are present. They also show the vulnerability of groundwater to pollution. The aquifers are classified into major, minor and non-aquifers according to their physical properties and their consequent value as a resource.

The classification of the land surface reflects the ability of contaminants to leach through the covering soils and pose a potential risk to groundwater at depth. The maps also indicate areas where the presence of low permeability drift may provide additional groundwater protection.

These maps can therefore be used for an initial screening assessment of the vulnerability of groundwater to contaminants applied to the surface of the ground. They do not provide all information relevant to the determination of vulnerability, such as the depth to water table or nature of the drift deposits. Site-specific information would always be needed for a detailed assessment of vulnerability at a given location. The original groundwater vulnerability maps were produced some time ago.

Groundwater Vulnerability Maps provide information on how significant the groundwaters are likely to be and if they are vulnerable to pollution occurring at the land surface. The maps have descriptions on them to explain the different aquifer and soil types. Areas shown as "major aquifers" have strategic significance for water resources, they often support large abstractions for the public water supply.

Minor aquifers have a more localised significance to domestic, agricultural and industrial users (although they may still be used for drinking water). Non-aquifers do not store significant amounts of groundwater. However, in some areas they can support local supplies: e.g. small springs feeding individual properties.

Figure 9

Superficial Drift Designation Aquifer

Principal Secondary A Secondary B Secondary undifferentiated Unknown

16 Page 104

Figure 10

Aquifer bedrock Designation

Principal Secondary A Secondary B Secondary undifferentiated Unknown

Figure 11

Groundwater Vulnerability Zones Major Aquifer High Major Aquifer intermediate Major Aquifer Low

Minor Aquifer High Minor Aquifer intermediate Minor Aquifer Low

Groundwater Vulnerability Maps provide information on how significant the groundwater is likely to be and if they are vulnerable to pollution occurring at the land surface. The maps have descriptions on them to explain the different aquifer and soil types. Areas shown as "major aquifers" have strategic significance for water resources; they often support large abstractions for the public water supply. Minor aquifers have a more localised significance to domestic, agricultural and industrial users (although they may still be used for drinking water). Non-aquifers do not store significant amounts of groundwater. However, in some areas they can support local supplies: e.g. small springs feeding individual properties.

Major and minor aquifers may be important in contributing to the base-flow of streams and rivers. The maps show where groundwater is protected from above by rocks with a low permeability, such as glacial clay. They also show the characteristics of the soil above.

17 Page 105

Superficial drift deposits which overlie the solid geological strata can sometimes be substantial in thickness. They are often variable in composition changing from highly permeable outwash gravels to low permeability clays over short distances both laterally and vertically. The groundwater beneath the site is designated as a non Aquifer within the bedrock designated a non Aquifer generally within the groundwater vulnerability classification

With regard to GWV, the site is deemed to be sited over a minor aquifer of low leaching potential.

4.5.4 Flood Risk

The Environment Agency maps Figure 12 below illustrate any potential risk from flooding, even in circumstance of extreme flood conditions. The site is not at risk of fluvial flooding as it is located in Flood Zone 1 which is low risk. However, if you are introducing large areas of impermeable surfaces e.g. buildings, roads on a green field site, we will need to undertake a surface water flood risk assessment.

Figure 12

4.5.5 Wells and Potable Water Supplies

Figure 13 Borehole records Number of records in map area: 5

18 Page 106

4.6 Meteorological data

The agroclimatic index number for this site is 32 with a mean annual rainfall of 807 mm.

5.0 Pollutant Risk

The site is already and established cemetery and as such the risk of pollution will be negligible beyond current levels

6.0 Depth of Burial

From the evidence of local borehole water levels and elevations is unlikely to rise to within 15 m of the surface.

However the limiting factor for developing the site as a burial will be whether to re use the graves or not.

It is assumed that graves are at least 1 metre below surface level the approach to mitigation and burial is discussed in section 9 of this document

7.0 Archaeology

Prior to works commencing, it is recommended to consult with the county archaeological team to ascertain any archaeological interest in the area.

19 Page 107

8.0 Risk Evaluation

The information below summarises the risks associated with the site and possible mitigation options open.

8.1 Assessment of General Hazards

Figure 14 and Table 3 below illustrates the potential hazards likely to be encountered at this site.

Figure 14

20 Page 108

Table 3

Geological May be Comments hazard significant within site area (Yes/No)? Potential Natural Ground Stability Hazards Shrink-Swell Shrink swell associated with London Clay formation causing potential instability for the use of in-situ casting Y

Landslides (slope Potential for hazard is not significant and is at a level such as to instability) N cause problems only in exceptional circumstances.

Soluble Rocks Potential for hazard to be active either zero or N (dissolution) insignificant. Compressible Potential for hazard to be active either zero or N Ground insignificant. Collapsible Deposits Potential for hazard is not significant and is at a level such as to N cause problems only in exceptional circumstances.

Running Sand Hazard associated with head deposits and possibly with the River Terrace Deposits if there are significant water bearing sand lenses. As the hazard occurs where the sands are saturated it will only occur beneath a water table. Potential N for hazard to become active is at a level where it should be considered in decisions about site investigation, construction, building maintenance and land use.

Figure 15

21 Page 109

in engineering terms there are a number of potential hazards associated with this site. These are discussed later in section 9 of the report

Table 4 below assesses the potential of a number of pollutant pathways and the degree of associated risk assessed numerically on a 0-10 score with 10 being of the highest risk. From the resultant data, the final values are assessed against burial number and a determinant of risk calculated from EA flow charts and nomographs.

Table 4 Assessment Risk High, Comment Score Intermediate, Low

Burials per annum Moderate Expected to be 200 per annum

Drift / superficial High 8-7 data No superficials

Drift thickness High 8-7

Proximity to water V Low No water courses within 700 metres of site 2-1 course

Proximity to land Moderate None known 2-1 drains

Depth to Water Table Low Water table thought to be at least 15 m bgl meters 4-3

Proximity to Wells or V Low Well falls > 250 m from site 2-1 potable water source

Flow mechanism V Low Intergranular Clays 2-1

Aquifers V Low Minor Aquifer in superficial 2-1

SPZ V Low The site for development falls outside SPZ’s 2-1

Met data Low Annual rainfall moderate N/A

Proximity to housing Low Residential housing in close proximity of the site N/A

SSSI Low N/A None observed but will require district archaeologist Archaeology Low N/A assessment Total 32-23

The above table is assessed using the groundwater vulnerability-ranking table below. The total score comes to 32-23 and is considered moderate risk. However, these data are then assessed against the burial rate of up to 200 per annum on the groundwater risk nomograph p.37 of PP223.

22 Page 110

The final assessment of risk for this site according to the nomograph Figure 16 below, would class it as being of high risk due to the number of burials circa 200.

8.2 Groundwater ranking

Table 5 Ranking Very Low Low Moderate High Very High 10- 2-1 4-3 6-5 8-7 9 Drift Type Clay Silt Silty sand Sand/gravel Absent Drift Thickness >5 m >3-5 m 3 m 0-3 m Absent Depth to water Table >25 m 11 – 25 m 10 m 5 – 9 m <5m

Flow mechanism Intergranular Fissured Aquifer type Non Aquifer Minor aquifer Major aquifer Abstractions and SPZs Outside Zone 3 Within Zone 3 Close to Within Zone 2 Within Zone 1 or boundary of 250 meters from Zone 2 private potable supply Water courses and >100 m >50 <70 m >30 <50 m <30 m springs Drains >100 m >40 <100 m 30 – 40 m >10 <30 m <10 m

Figure 16

The site proposed has no major environmental constraints outside of the level of risk elevated by the higher burial number

23 Page 111

9.0 Mitigation Due to ground stability and peripheral burials and memorialisation, mitigation options are likely to be restricted at this site the table below reviews the options available The options for development may be considered to be  Re-use of graves  Chambers  Raising ground levels

Table 6 reviews the benefits and disadvantages of the three options.

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Re-use Chambers Raising ground levels Negative factors

Requires faculty Requires faculty Requires faculty Logistical time and cost Will require terracing the cut and fill will Require statutory waste permits issues for ensuring all result in a high potential for human remains graves to be used are in to be disturbed compliance and readily located May require contracted Requires significant earthworks and Requires significant earthworks personnel preparation which may disturb existing local and preparation which may perimeter graves disturb existing local perimeter graves Site will need to be May be damaging to existing roads and May require planning consents screened throughout pathways process and may cause alarm to public Not all coffins and Requires effective and expensive drainage Ground conditions may not cadavers may be fully scheme with no positive outfall this may be stabilise effectively and result in decomposed problematic, further the instability of the translational slippage slope may be exacerbated by the overburden of chambers this may result in rotational slips (see below*) Public may not want May require removal of soil off site and May be damaging to existing second hand grave therefore essential ground is very carefully roads and pathways cleared. Time and cost issues for Peripheral memorialisation may be Access on to site may be difficult exhumation problematic once ground levels have been raised sufficiently Seepage may be an issue Peripheral memorialisation may be problematic Positive factors Relatively inexpensive Increases burial number per unit area Low cost of development Requires little plant and Can be placed on top of existing burial Could utilise arisings from heavy equipment Lambeth chamber installation Can be locally selective Simplicity in interments Provides natural earth buffer between existing burials and new burials. No drainage or engineering issues likely Can be phased. Can be phased

24 Page 112

*The two major types of slides / slips are rotational slides and translational slides:

Rotational slide: This is a slide in which the surface of rupture is curved concavely upward and the slide movement is roughly rotational about an axis that is parallel to the ground surface and transverse across the slide.

Translational slide: In this type of slide, the landslide mass moves along a roughly planar surface with little rotation or backward tilting. A block slide is a translational slide in which the moving mass consists of a single unit or a few closely related units that move downslope as a relatively coherent mass .

Figure 17

To counter these slides terracing will have to be undertaken for both the development of a chamber system and the use of imported fill to raise ground levels as discussed in the relevant sections.

25 Page 113

9.1 Re-use of Graves

It is understood that the areas of ground proposed are considered to be Public/Common Consecrated graves the following approach should be adopted

Consult with Diocese

Seek faculty Approval

Conduct re-use in accordance with faculty conditions (Which may include press and site notices, notification periods and procedures

Re-use of public grave with disturbance of remains Deepen the grave (over dig) Exhume any remains found and re-inter remains in adjacent consecrated grave

 Graves will not be re-used until a period of at least seventy-five years has elapsed since the last burial took place.  Burial Authorities will consult with the owner of the burial rights, where contact details are available, and other relevant stakeholders before re-use of a particular grave takes place.  Re-use will take place only where a conservation assessment exercise has assessed the impact of re-use on the historic, cultural, and environmental features of the site. In the case of sites with historical designations, a full Conservation Management Plan will be prepared.  Burial Authorities will introduce and follow clear notification, objection and appeals procedures with regard to re-use plans for individual graves.  Records will be retained of all prior interments in a re-used grave.  A record will be taken of all above-ground grave furniture prior to any removal or re- use, in addition to a full transcription being made of any inscription or monumental mason mark.

26 Page 114

 Due respect will be afforded human remains at all times during the process of exhumation and reburial.  Any artefact whether precious or not will be re-interred with the disturbed remains.  Before a new grave is sold, the public will be told whether the grave is a reused grave.  The presumption remains that re-use programs should, where possible, restore and conserve existing memorials.  Where an old memorial has been leased on a re-used grave, the grave owners become the custodian of the memorial and will take responsibility to maintain the memorial for the period of the burial right.  Re-use of plots and memorials takes place strictly in accordance with a Memorial Panel process and with this Protocol

The approach would be to dig a large mass grave within the consecrated area in which the remains of the exhumed could be placed.

The amount of disruption could be kept to a minimum although the site would require screening off for a period of time.

Works could be undertaken by in house staff or external specialist could be considered.

The main issue will be the cost in terms of time and labour a three man team would be unlikely to be able to exhume and inter more than 3 to 5 graves per day to full depth.

It is likely therefore that the overall timescales incurred in both logistical management and site activity may make this option untenable.

Therefore the consideration would be to do this on a grave by grave basis as and when required, however, this may cause significant logistical and legal issues to undertake this on an individual basis rather than as a large scale single operation.

It is estimated that at least 600 graves could be found through re-use.

9.2 Raising Ground Levels.

CDSL engineers do not see this as a safe option unless significant cost is implemented for creating terraces and retention walls. These will be most relevant in the areas with the southern section as outlined by the dotted boundary as per figure 18 below.

With falls along the southern section of the proposed site being approximately 1:10 (10%), the retention walls should be spaced at approximately 10 metre intervals to allow no more than a 1 metre terrace rise, a total of 10 terraces could be constructed within the designated area using this method with approximately 60 burials per terrace.

The design of these terraces would be complex and in order to ensure sufficient burial at the upper end of each terrace sufficient depth of fill will be required.

As the ground falls both to the east and the south as illustrated below the protection against slippage and slope failure will be critical. However the north south sloping section is more suited for both

27 Page 115

chamber and fill options without the need for terracing other than perhaps a retaining wall along the eastern boundary.

Figure 18

1:2

1:10

Should raising ground levels be considered an option for this site than the following criteria would have to be considered, a U1 permit for importing ‘inert muck’ for use in construction projects is required by the Environment Agency. The EWC (European Waste Code) is 17-05-04 for ‘inert’ material.

The highways agency and the local authority will need to be notified if this goes forward. A traffic management system will need to be implemented including traffic Marshalls for lorries entering and leaving the site, a suitable haul road leading up to and leaving the site will need to be in place (in some cases a bell mouth may be required depending on how busy the road entering/leaving the site is.)

28 Page 116

To ensure the site rules and permit conditions are met a trusted gate keeper will be required along with a trusted machine operator and site labourers.

Tickets and loads will need to be checked on the way in by the gate keeper, the machine operator will check the loads whilst they are being tipped, the gate keeper and lorry driver will both sign our tip ticket and the lorry drivers consignment note. Copies of which will then put in the weighbridge ready for collection at the end of each working day.

A WAMITAB (Waste Management Industry Training And Advisory Board) holder will need to visit site at least once a week. This is to make sure the site diary is being kept up to date and waste management procedures are being adhered to, including random soil sampling methods as deemed in the permit conditions.

Customers/hauliers will be required to send soils analysis and WAC (Waste Acceptance Criteria) test, for inspection supporting their claim for any soils/muck to be tipped is in fact inert.

This is how to satisfy the EA & local authority that no material being tipped on site, along side random soil sampling, and site supervision/policing is in fact deemed as non-hazardous or worse hazardous to health.

Depending on current market conditions and competitive pricing, a construction project requiring this amount of imported material could expect to receive anything from 25 – 100 loads per day..

With any amount of loads entering and leaving a site on daily basis will require a sweeper, weather conditions will dictate how many sweeps per day. A wheel wash and spinner will be required to satisfy both the local authority and the highways agency. A dust suppression system will also be required, especially on dry summer days, this can be a sprinkler system linked to a bowser. Once the muck has been tipped, it will require a bulldozer with blade to spread out the material working to the correct levels as specified by the surveyor. The surveyor will visit site as and when required to mark out the correct levels.

Settlement of the finished level ground will start to take place almost instantly with the machine tracking over it. Although, it does depend on the ground conditions and what the required use of the ground will be for. A structural engineers report would be advisable.

Retaining Walls. On the highlighted section to the south of the site, the retaining walls should be constructed to withstand both horizontal loads and shear forces from potential shrink swell of the clay beneath.

The walls are estimated to cost at least £320 per linear metre to construct and it is estimated in total there will be approximately 350 linear metres.

Therefore at least £115K should be considered for constructing the retaining walls. Whilst the fill may in part be sourced at cost neutral or cost positive, operational and engineering costs will be high.

We have calculated development costs of approximately £210K approximately excluding retaining walls. We have calculated for approximately 700 graves could be accommodated.

29 Page 117

9.3 Chambers It is a misconception that burial chambers are the solution to groundwater problems per se.

The EA have mixed views on chambers as they are seen by some departments as a temporary container of contaminants and certainly (as most concrete chambers are constructed of less than a C60 grade), they should not be installed within or below the level of groundwater.

Figure 19

Marine grade concrete chambers designed by CDSL with specification input from EA

Chambers, if sealed, merely contain all the body fluids and natural oxidative decay is slow or does not happen at all; therefore to allow natural oxidative decay processes, chambers should be vented and this is expensive.

If they are not vented the EA consider them a potential long term source of pollution - should the chamber crack or structurally fail, an amount of contaminants could leach into the groundwater.

CDSL worked with the EA to design a chamber which provides a triple seal system and is constructed of marine grade concrete with venting option.

Chambers should be constructed of marine grade C60 concrete with fibre re-enforcing to prevent the potential of re-bar break-through.

The base thickness should be between 75 mm and 100 mm in thickness with side wall thickness not less than 50 mm.

In situ casting was reviewed, however, as the clays underlying the site are subject to shrink swell properties and the high water table potentially causing construction issues, pre-cast chambers on a gravel raft was considered to be the preferred method of development.

The development of the site using chambers should be for the chambers to be purely functional and not to be considered to be in line with the high end chamber installations a installed by welters at Streatham. This high end approach uses extra space and has higher construction and development costs.

30 Page 118

The approach at the West Norwood site will be to use precast chambers installed on a terrace system. Along the southern section of the site as highlighted in Figure 18 above and demonstrated in the slides in Figure 20 below

Figure 20 Chambers constructed on a terrace

Figure 21 Chambers and memorialisation

Figure 22 Opening of chamber

31 Page 119

Further mitigation can be achieved using an attenuation matrix that forms a drainage medium, a water storage system and an integrated filtration system.

Using a zeolitic product such as Clinoptilolite as part of the drainage matrix, there is a significant allowance for absorption of potential contaminants should in the worst case a chamber crack or leak.

This is achieved with the construction specification below Figure 23

The drainage matrix is 200 mm thick made up of 140 mm of 10-20 mm gravel and 60 mm of powdered Clinoptilolite

Figure 23

Ensuring a positive discharge will be essential to the effective water management of the site.

The site will require connection to a point of drainage outfall due to the location of the site this may prove complex as there are no signs of any immediate outfall connection.

The option to use single depth chambers may be more appropriate, for a number od safety and logistical reasons

9.3.1 Single versus Double Chambers Due to the potential shallowness of existing graves and with the requirement of terracing we would consider the use of single depth chambers. Terracing could be more readily implemented with chambers of reduced height

As the chambers would weigh less than the problems with installation and construction and potential slippage would also be reduced. In this site we would recommend the use of single chambers if these are to be adopted.

32 Page 120

In engineering terms our main concern with chambers is the potential for subsurface flow beneath and the potential of cavitation below the chambers and therefore an effective drainage system would have to be installed.

Consequently a positive outfall would have to be established.

This may be problematic on this site as discharge rates are likely to be relatively high.

9.3.2 Cost Benefit

A typical installation price for a single chamber post construction and landscaping is approximately £700 to £1000 per chamber however this will increase significantly with the need for a terraced construction. We would therefore estimate that even for a single chamber that a cost of between £1000 and £1500 should be allowed for.

Installation of chambers may have to be undertaken on a phased approach due to the high initial capital spend (for example, approx. 1000 chambers every 10 years), therefore there will be issues to disruption and ensuring future capital spend is available. The potential to develop the whole of this site in a single development spend based on annual burial numbers is high

This being said chambers do offer very high burial density, up to 2 times the burial number per unit area. 1100 burial plots.

Applying the scenario to the cemetery at West Norwood, the council would have to be charging between £3100 and £3700 per interment and would require 160 burials per annum for this approach to be viable on a purely cost comparison basis.

The estimated cost of installing chambers on to be of a comparable NPV to earthen burial and to be within the current budget limit would have to be no more than £1,000 per chamber installed this would give an estimated site development cost between £1 million and £1.5 million

The breakdown of development costs are illustrated in the Table 7 below.

Table 7 Construction Item Per chamber Per 1000 chambers

Chambers 400 400,000 Clinoptilolite 40 40,000 Gravel 12 12,000 Kiln dried sand 8 8,000 Rootzone 25 25,000 Muck away 110 110,000 Sub total 595 595,000

Landscaping mobilisation 350 350,000 and contractors costs. Drainage and water 50 50,000 management Total 995 995,000

33 Page 121

The final construction price and delivery will in part be dependent on the final engineering specification but we believe that these figures are within 20% of the anticipated cost of delivery.

10.0 Conclusions

The site at West Norwood has a number of engineering constraints further complicated by the number of peripheral burials around the site.

The soils of the site are recorded as being made ground sitting over London Clay. The made ground sits on a significant slope of between 11% and 10% this has the potential to create an elevated risk of slippage or slide in both translation and rotation.

As a result of this risk the use of burial chambers and imported fill for raising ground levels will have to be engineered in such a way that this risk is minimised and this requires a construction of a series of terraces specifically on the southern extents of the proposed site.

The inclusion of burial chambers adds a further complication with regard to drainage.

The infiltration to the sub-base will be rapid and therefore there is a possibility of sub surface flow and consequentially cavitation below the chambers .

To reduce this risk a proper drainage design is essential and this will require sufficient outfall which there does not appear to be currently within the locals of the area.

This requires further examination before this option is considered.

Should an outfall be established and chambers considered an option then the following comparisons can be made for development cost as illustrated in the table 8 below.

Table 8 Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Re-use Chambers Raising ground levels Number of Graves 600* 900 650 Development costs £400 £1000 £500 per grave/chamber Total site costs £240K £900,000 £325K Gross return @ £1,800,000 £2,700,000 £1,950,000 circa £3k per burial Net return £1,560,000 £1,800,000 £1,625,000

*May be significantly less due to constraints on ownership etc.

The option for chambers looks the most financially favourable initially; however the risk element is high as marginal increases in unit construction costs could rapidly erode the margin.

Raising ground levels has possibly the least financial risk as the final cost item is of a known quantum, even when compared to re-use which as discussed may have many political and logistical constraints.

34 Page 122

11.0 Reportage details

Report Authors: Justin Smith; CDSL Phil Lewis BSc, MSc (Hydrogeology), CGeol, FGS

Verification: Dr Mike Hann CDSL

Date: 28th December 2014

35 Page 123

Cemetery Development Services - Terms and Conditions

Cemetery Development Services (CDS) otherwise, but shall, where possible, assign to the Client the benefit of any warranty, guarantee Terms and Conditions for the Supply of Services or indemnity given by the person supplying the goods to CDS. CDS shall have no liability to the Client for any loss, damage, costs, expenses or other claims for Interpretation compensation arising from any Input Material or instructions supplied by the Client which are In these Conditions incomplete, incorrect, inaccurate, illegible, out of sequence or in the wrong form, or arising AGREED FEE means the charges agreed between CDS and the Client in relation to the Specified from their late arrival or non-arrival, or any other fault of the Client. Service Except in respect of death or personal injury caused by CDS’s negligence, or as expressly CLIENT means the person named on the Specification Sheet for whom CDS has agreed to provided in these Conditions, CDS shall not be liable to the Client by reason of any provide the Specified Service in accordance with these Conditions representation (unless fraudulent), or any implied warranty, condition or other term, or any CONTRACT means the contract for the provision of the Specified Service duty at common law, or under the express terms of the Contract, for any loss of profit or any DOCUMENT includes, in addition to a document in writing, any map, plan, graph, drawing or indirect, special or consequential loss, damage, costs, expenses or other claims (whether caused photograph, any film, negative, tape or other device embodying visual images and any disc, tape or by the negligence of CDS, its servants or agents or otherwise) which arise out of or in connection other device embodying any other data with the provision of the Specified Service or their use by the Client, and the entire liability of INPUT MATERIAL means any Documents or other materials, and any data or other CDS under or in connection with the Contract shall not exceed the amount of CDS’s charges for information provided by the Client relating to the Specified Service the provision of the Specified Service, except as expressly provided in these Conditions. OUTPUT MATERIAL means any Documents or other materials, and any data or other information CDS shall not be liable to the Client or be deemed to be in breach of the Contract by reason of provided by CDS relating to the Specified Service any delay in performing, or any failure to perform, any of CDS’s obligations in relation to the SPECIFICATION SHEET means the sheet to which these Conditions are appended Specified Service, if the delay or failure was due to any cause beyond CDS’s reasonable control. SPECIFIED SERVICE means the service relating to geophysical surveys of land to be provided by CDS for the Client and referred to in the Specification Sheet Termination CDS means CDS (registered in England under number 05089827) or its subsidiary as stated on the Either party may (without limiting any other remedy) at any time terminate the Contract by Specification Sheet giving written notice to the other if the other commits any breach of these Conditions and (if The headings in these Conditions are for convenience only and shall not affect their interpretation. capable of remedy) fails to remedy the breach within 30 days after being required by written notice to do so. Supply of the Specified Service CDS shall provide the Specified Service to the Client subject to these Conditions. Any changes or Insolvency of Client additions to the Specified Service or these Conditions must be agreed in writing by CDS and the This clause applies if: Client. the Client makes any voluntary arrangement with its creditors or (being an individual or firm) The Client shall allow CDS adequate access to its property at reasonable times and for so long as is becomes bankrupt or (being a company) becomes subject to an administration order or goes necessary to enable CDS to provide the Specified Service in accordance with the Contract. into liquidation (otherwise than for the purposes of amalgamation or reconstruction); or The Client shall at its own expense supply CDS with all necessary Documents or other materials, and an encumbrancer takes possession, or a receiver is appointed, of any of the property or assets all necessary data or other information relating to the Specified Service, within sufficient time to of the Client; or enable CDS to provide the Specified Service in accordance with the Contract. The Client shall ensure the Client ceases, or threatens to cease, to carry on business; or the accuracy of all Input Material. CDS reasonably apprehends that any of the events mentioned above is about to occur in CDS shall have no liability for any loss or damage, however caused, to the Input Material. All Output relation to the Client and notifies the Client accordingly. Material shall be at the sole risk of the Client from the time of delivery to or to the order of the If this clause applies then, without prejudice to any other right or remedy available to CDS, CDS Client. shall be entitled to cancel the Contract or suspend any further provision of services under the The Specified Service shall be provided in accordance with the Specification Sheet subject to these Contract without any liability to the Client, and if the Services have been provided but not paid Conditions. for the price shall become immediately due and payable notwithstanding any previous Further details about the Specified Service, and advice or recommendations about its provision or agreement or arrangement to the contrary. utilisation, which are not given in CDS’s brochure or other promotional literature, may be made available on written request. General CDS may correct any typographical or other errors or omissions in any brochure, promotional These Conditions (together with the terms, if any, set out in the Specification Sheet) constitute literature, quotation or other document relating to the provision of the Specified Service without the entire agreement between the parties, supersede any previous agreement or understanding any liability to the Client. and may not be varied except in writing between the parties. All other terms and conditions, CDS may at any time without notifying the Client make any changes to the Specified Service which express or implied by statute or otherwise, are excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. are necessary to comply with any applicable safety or other statutory requirements, or which do Any notice required or permitted to be given by either party to the other under these not materially affect the nature or quality of the Specified Service. Conditions shall be in writing addressed to the other party at its registered office or principal place of business or such other address as may at the relevant time have been notified pursuant Charges to this provision to the party giving the notice. Subject to any special terms agreed, the Client shall pay the Agreed Fee and any additional sums No failure or delay by either party in exercising any of its rights under the Contract shall be which are agreed between CDS and the Client for the provision of the Specified Service or which, in deemed to be a waiver of that right, and no waiver by either party of any breach of the Contract CDS’s sole discretion, are reasonably incurred as a result of the Client’s instructions or lack of by the other shall be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other instructions, the inaccuracy of any Input Material or any other cause attributable to the Client. provision. All charges quoted to the Client for the provision of the Specified Service are exclusive of any Value If any provision of these Conditions is held by any competent authority to be invalid or Added Tax, for which the Client shall be additionally liable at the applicable rate from time to time. unenforceable in whole or in part, the validity of the other provisions of these Conditions and CDS shall be entitled to invoice the Client on completion of the Specified Service. the remainder of the provision in question shall not be affected. The Agreed Fee and any additional sums payable shall be paid by the Client (together with any Any dispute arising under or in connection with these Conditions or the provision of the applicable Value Added Tax, and without any set-off or other deduction) within 30 days of the date Specified Service shall be referred to arbitration by a single arbitrator appointed by agreement of CDS’s invoice. or (in default) nominated on the application of either party by the President for the time being If payment is not made on the due date, CDS shall be entitled, without limiting any other rights it of Institute of Arbitrators. may have, to charge interest on the outstanding amount (both before and after any judgment) at English law shall apply to the Contract, and the parties agree to submit to the non-exclusive the rate of 4 % above the base rate from time to time of Barclays Bank plc from the due date until jurisdiction of the English courts. the outstanding amount is paid in full.

Rights in Input Material and Output Material The property and any copyright or other intellectual property rights in: any Input Material shall belong to the Client any Output Material and any amendments or variations to the Input Material made by CDS shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing between the Client and CDS, belong to CDS, subject only to the right of the Client to use the Output Material for the purposes of utilising the Specified Service. Any Input Material or other information provided by the Client which is so designated by the Client and any Output Material shall be kept confidential by CDS, and all Output Material or other information provided by CDS which is so designated by CDS shall be kept confidential by the Client; but the foregoing shall not apply to any Documents or other materials, data or other information which are public knowledge at the time when they are so provided by either party, and shall cease to apply if at any future time they become public knowledge through no fault of the other party. The Client warrants that any Input Material and its use by CDS for the purpose of providing the Specified Service will not infringe the copyright or other rights of any third party, and the Client shall indemnify CDS against any loss, damages, costs, expenses or other claims arising from any such infringement.

Warranties and Liability CDS warrants to the Client that the Specified Service will be provided using reasonable care and skill and, as far as reasonably possible, in accordance with the Specification and at the intervals and within the times referred to in the Specification Sheet. Where CDS supplies in connection with the provision of the Specified Service any goods (including Output Material) supplied by a third party, CDS does not give any warranty, guarantee or other term as to their quality, fitness for purpose or

36 This page is intentionally left blank Page 125 Agenda Item 7

West Norwood Cemetery – Capital Project Update 13/01/2015

West Norwood Cemetery

PROGRAMME SUMMARY West Norwood Cemetery has a total capital budget of £913,685 from 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2014 for essential capital works. All of the highways works have been completed and the main entranceway has been re-opened to the public. As reported in June 2014 a number of provisional items were added to the programme because if under spend on the contract, these included:

• 11 new ‘Woodscape LBV 115’ bins - INSTALLED • 6 new ‘Westminster’ style benches from Branson Leisure – INSTALLED • Informational and speed limit restriction signs – INSTALLED • “Fibredec’ surface course (main entrance road only) - INSTALLED •

Far left: The informational sign affixed to the Tite Arch now replaces about 3 ‘sandwich board’ signs previously used in the cemetery forecourt area.

Left: The new notice board offers the Friends and Cemetery Service the opportunity to help visitors with useful information about the cemetery.

Left: Fibredec surface treatment was laid in July 2014.

- 1 - Page 126

West Norwood Cemetery – Capital Project Update 13/01/2015

Works Outside of Core Contract

Lighting

Lambeth was very lucky to receive some additional funding for decorative and functional lighting within the cemetery. The work was funded through the Greater London Authority’s ‘Outer London Fund’ (OLF) and the results of which have been astounding, some examples of these are shown below:

Additional Works

As reported in June some additional works were identified (outside of core contact works) that were required in 2014-15 using a budget surplus of approximately £68,000 (see financial summary).

These items include the following:

• Boundary Wall Repairs £40,000 Complete • Birkett Memorial Repairs £17,800 On site • CCTV Upgrade £3,000 Complete • Entry Card System £1,000 Complete • Gilbart Memorial* £4,000 Part complete TOTAL £65,800

Birkett Memorial has been delayed due to the unavailability of a large piece of Portland stone. Contractors are in communication with suppliers for an estimated delivery time, but this is proving difficult due to the rarity of a piece of Portland stone of the correct size.

Gilbart Memorial railings have been repaired, however some of the stone work is still outstanding.

- 2 - Page 127

West Norwood Cemetery – Capital Project Update 13/01/2015

Left: Once near collapse, the area of perimeter wall in square 45 has been carefully restored using an experienced heritage contractor.

Feedback from nearby grave owners, neighbours of the cemetery and staff have been really positive about the workmanship and respectfulness of the contractors.

The section of wall in square 1 was also repaired (not pictured).

FINANCIAL SUMMARY

BUDGET 2012-13 Capital funding £37,753 2013-14 Capital funding £875,932 Total income £913,685

EXPENDITURE – ACTUAL SPEND TO 31 DECEMBER 2014 2012-13 Project management fees £1,924 2012-13 Wall condition survey £12,500 2012-13 Road works – professional fees £23,329 2013-14 Road works – construction £585,040 2013-14 Road works – professional fees £18,116 2013-14 Gate Refurbishment Work £25,000 Total actual expenditure £640,909

EXPENDITURE – COMMITTED SPEND 2013-14 Road works - construction £124,861 2013-14 Road works – remaining professional fees £15,000 2013-14 Project manager fees £67,115 Total committed expenditure £206,976

BALANCE 2013-14 Remaining budget after all expenditure – used £65,800 for the additional works described above.

PROJECT CONTACTS For further enquiries, please contact:

Steven Wong Project Manager Lambeth Council Tel: 0207 926 6088 Email: [email protected]

- 3 - This page is intentionally left blank Page 129 Agenda Item 8

Technical Officer Group (TOG) Update

Summary of the recent TOG activities i) Future Governance Arrangements

. Lambeth Legal Officers tasked to prepare and circulate current and proposed future governance arrangements ii) Cemetery Graves Re-Use Policy

. Graves re-use feasibility study completed and circulated . TOG agreed for a Working group to be set up to develop the graves re-use policy . Consultant to be engaged to support the development of the grave-reuse policy . Brief for consultant currently being drafted iii) Capital Investment Plan

. Draft capital investment plan prepared and circulated for comments . Structural Study for catacombs completed and circulated . Capital Investment Plan to be submitted to the Asset Investment Management Group end of February iv) Linkage to the proposed West Norwood Cultural Hub

. Update on Nettlefold Hall / Cinema development and linkages to West Norwood Cultural Hub requested before next TOG meeting v) Timetabling of Petition to the Consistory Court

. Timetable being prepared for development of:

- Future governance arrangements - Grave re-use policy - Completion of the management plan and business plan - Review of the Consistory Court Ruling

(Timetable will take into account schedule for SoMC and Advisory Group meetings) vi) Heritage Lottery Fund Application

. Parks for People bid for the cemetery and Heritage bid for the catacombs discussed with the HLF . LBL encouraged by the Lottery to submit Parks for People and Heritage bids . Useful networking meeting held with Brompton Cemetery officers . Draft Project Plan prepared for an August submission of a Parks for People bid . Draft consultant brief prepared for preparation of a Parks for People bid . Subject to confirmation of match funding a Project Steering Group to be established and consultant team engaged . Results of mock Green Flag exercise circulated This page is intentionally left blank