Site Reference Client Name
Enfield London Borough Council Burial Space Need and Provision Study
Enfield London Borough Council CRM.1769.PL.R.001.B
London Borough of Enfield Council
Contact Details:
Enzygo Ltd. (Bristol Office) The Byre tel: 01454 269237 Woodend Lane email: [email protected] Cromhall www: enzygo.com Gloucestershire GL12 8AA
Enfield London Borough Council Burial Space Need and Provision Study
Project: CRM.1769.001
For: London Borough of Enfield Council
Status: FINAL
Date: September 2020
Author: James Whatton Graduate Planning Consultant
Reviewer: Lee Searles Director of Planning
Approver: Lee Searles, Director of Planning/Kevin Parr, Company Director
Disclaimer: This report has been produced by Enzygo Limited within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the client. We disclaim any responsibility to the client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies on the report at their own risk.
Enzygo Limited Registered in England No. 6525159 Registered Office Stag House Chipping Wotton-Under-Edge Gloucestershire GL12 7AD
London Borough of Enfield Council
Contents
1.0 Introduction ...... 11
Introduction...... 11
Background...... 11
The Study ...... 11
Report format ...... 12
2.0 Legal and Planning Policy ...... 14
Introduction...... 14
Burial Law ...... 14
National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 ...... 15
London Planning Policy ...... 20
Local Planning Policy ...... 25
Duty to Co-operate ...... 34
3.0 GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011) ...... 36
4.0 Types of Burial Sites ...... 40
Provision of Burial / Cremation Ash Capacity ...... 40
Types of Burial Sites ...... 40
5.0 Existing Burial and Cremation Provision in Enfield ...... 42
Introduction...... 42
Burial Sites ...... 42
Burials per plot ...... 42
Children burial spaces ...... 47
Provision Summary ...... 47
6.0 Forecasted Mortality in Enfield ...... 48
Introduction...... 48
Population in Enfield ...... 48
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page i October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Mortality in the Borough ...... 49
Population of the Borough by faith groups ...... 49
Forecasting percentage of religious minorities ...... 51
Deaths per religion ...... 55
7.0 Need for Future Burial land Provision ...... 56
Introduction...... 56
Burial and Cremation Requirements ...... 56
Scenario 1 ...... 57
Scenario 2 ...... 58
Scenario 3 ...... 61
Significant events Which Increase Mortality ...... 64
8.0 Summary of Supply and Demand ...... 69
Introduction...... 69
Burial Capacity and Requirement ...... 69
9.0 Consultation ...... 72
Introduction...... 72
Obtaining Information ...... 72
Adjoining Authorities ...... 74
Formal Consultation ...... 74
Presentation Feedback ...... 80
10.0 Option Identification and Potential ...... 82
Introduction...... 82
Options Identification ...... 82
11.0 Desk Based Review and Site Visit ...... 86
Introduction...... 86
Desk based review ...... 86
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page ii October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Site visits ...... 86
12.0 Extension ...... 88
Extension ...... 88
Hertford Road Cemetery ...... 88
Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery ...... 96
Trent Park Cemetery ...... 100
Lavender Hill and Strayfield Road Cemetery ...... 107
Lavender Hill ...... 107
Strayfield Road ...... 108
Allotment Planning Policy ...... 109
Feasibility of Extensions ...... 110
Density ...... 113
13.0 New Sites ...... 114
Introduction...... 114
Criteria for new sites ...... 114
14.0 Delivery ...... 116
Introduction...... 116
Borough Sites ...... 116
CIL/S106 Payments ...... 117
Development Management Policies ...... 117
15.0 Design Guidance and other Considerations ...... 118
Introduction...... 118
Wider role of cemetery sites ...... 118
Meeting religious requirements ...... 119
Timing of delivery ...... 119
16.0 Policies for the Local Plan ...... 121
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page iii October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Introduction...... 121
Policy approach and recommendations ...... 121
17.0 Next Steps and Conclusion ...... 122
Next Steps ...... 122
15.2 Conclusion ...... 122
Tables and Figures
Figure 1: GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011) Capacity Status ...... 36
Figure 2: Capacity Status (Source: GLA, 2011) ...... 37
Figure 3: Burial rate by religion (GLA Audit, 2011) ...... 38
Figure 4: London boroughs by the projected percentage of all estimated burials that will be Muslim, (2010/11 - 2030/31)...... 38
Figure 5: London boroughs by the projected percentage of all estimated burials that will be Jewish, (2010/11 - 2030/31)...... 39
Figure 6: Enfield population projections ...... 48
Figure 7: Cumulative number of deaths within the Borough ...... 49
Figure 8: Range of possible excess deaths national, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave. (Source: London Excess Deaths Framework (2014)...... 65
Figure 9: Range of possible excess deaths Regional, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave. (Source: London Excess Deaths Framework, 2014) ...... 66
Figure 10: Range of possible excess deaths within a borough, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave, calculated for a borough population of 200,000 (London Excess Deaths Framework, 2014) ...... 66
Figure 11: Table showing excess deaths caused by Influenza pandemic within London...... 68
Figure 12: Hertford Road Cemetery potential extension ...... 89
Figure 13: Hertford Road Extension A ...... 89
Figure 14: Hertford Road Extension B ...... 90
Figure 15: Hertford Road Extension C ...... 90
Figure 16: Hertford Road Extension D ...... 91
Figure 17: Hertford Road Extension A ...... 92
Figure 18: Hertford Road Extension B ...... 93
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page iv October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 19: Hertford Road Extension C ...... 95
Figure 20: Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery extension ...... 96
Figure 21: Hoe Green Park is located in the distance, beyond the perimeter boundary ...... 98
Figure 22: Potential new site ...... 99
Figure 23: Trent Park Cemetery potential extension...... 100
Figure 25: Trent Park Extension A...... 101
Figure 26: Trent Park Extension B ...... 101
Figure 27: Trent Park Extension C ...... 102
Figure 28: Trent Park Extension D ...... 102
Figure 29: Flood Zone ...... 103
Figure 30: Surface water flooding...... 103
Figure 31: Picture from Trent Park, looking towards the Cemetery ...... 104
Figure 32: Trent Park ...... 104
Figure 33: Existing extension at Trent Park ...... 105
Figure 34: Potential extension site ...... 106
Figure 35: Location of Lavender Hill (green) and Strayfield Road Cemetery (red) ...... 107
Figure 36: Potential site extension from Lavender Hill Cemetery ...... 108
Figure 37: Parcel of land east of Strayfield Lane Cemetery ...... 109
Table 1: Burial sites within Enfield Council, provided by Enfield Council Bereavement Services ...... 44
Table 2: Makeup of the Borough by religion ...... 50
Table 3: Projected change in religious minority groups ...... 52
Table 4: Summary of projections ...... 55
Table 5: Forecasted deaths per religion ...... 55
Table 6: Enfield cumulative number of deaths and breakdown of burials and cremations, based on the UK average ...... 57
Table 7: Specific religious requirements ...... 58
Table 8: Percentage breakdown of each religion to be buried and cremated...... 59
Table 9: Scenario 2 - Summary of burial and cremation requirements within and beyond the plan period...... 60
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page v October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 10: Scenario 1 compared with scenario 2 ...... 61
Table 11: Conservative approach, representing the high percentage of burials within the Borough...... 62
Table 12: Scenario 3 - Summary of burial and cremation requirements within and beyond the plan period. .... 62
Table 13: Comparison of all three scenarios ...... 63
Table 14: Surplus or deficit of burial spaces within the Borough within and beyond the plan period ...... 69
Table 15: Surplus or deficit of cremation spaces within the Borough within and beyond the plan period ...... 71
Table 16: Potential burial space options ...... 83
Table 17: Summary of potential extensions ...... 111
Drawings and Appendices
Drawing Title CRM.1769.PL.D.001.A Existing burial locations
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page vi October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Glossary Burial Vault - a structural underground tomb. It is a concrete, stone or brick-lined underground space or 'burial' chamber for the interment of a dead body or bodies.
Consecrated Land - ground that has been made or declared sacred or holy and is therefore suitable for Christian burial.
Cremation - the disposal of a dead person's body by burning it to ashes, typically after a funeral ceremony.
LBE - London Borough of Enfield
Natural / Woodland Burials - The interment of the body of a dead person in the soil in a manner that does not inhibit decomposition but allows the body to be naturally recycled.
Mausoleum - A mausoleum is an external free-standing building constructed as a monument enclosing the interment space or burial chamber of a deceased person or people
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page vii October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Executive Summary i. The Enfield London Borough Council Burial Needs Assessment has been prepared to provide evidence and inform planning policies and site allocations, relating to burial land need and provision. This will inform the Council’s new Local Plan for Enfield 2018 – 2036. ii. The study establishes existing interment provision within the Borough; historic and future population trends; the need for future burial land provision; the requirements of different faith groups; and opportunities to ensure that the identified future need can be met. iii. A review of national and local planning policy has been undertaken, along with relevant legal frameworks. This provides useful context and ensures that the study and recommendations are made in accordance with statutory requirements. iv. Existing provision for burials and the interment of ashes was established by contacting relevant third parties, as well as visiting sites to verify the accuracy of information obtained. It was established that for burials, the clear majority of capacity is provided within Local Authority cemeteries, and smaller amounts are provided within churchyards. Many of the churchyards within the Borough have been formally ‘closed’ for burials, and currently there is no scope to reopen these, despite some available capacity within them. In terms of burial space for specific faith groups, only one of the Enfield Local Authority Cemeteries provides specific burial capacity for different faith groups. This is at Strayfield Road, where there is a dedicated section for Muslim community burials. Other new burial areas are used by different faiths such as Greek Orthodox, Church of England, Roman Catholic, and is defined as consecrated or un-consecrated land. v. For the interment of ashes, the largest capacity appears to be within Lavender Hill Cemetery, Enfield Crematorium and Trent Park Cemetery, however, there is an overall deficit of ash plots available. A small proportion of additional capacity is available within certain churchyards (St Andrew Churchyard and St James’ Churchyard), providing ash plots for families who own existing gravestones. However, this not included in the overall expected capacity as it only provides a very limited number and very rarely occurs. vi. Population forecasts demonstrate that the population of Enfield is expected to increase, and specifically, the percentage of different faith groups will change during and beyond the plan period. In particular, the population and percentage of the Muslim community is expected to
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page viii October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
increase, whilst the percentage of Christian community will decrease. Smaller changes are expected across all faith groups. vii. From understanding existing burial capacity and future population trends, the surplus or deficit of capacity can be established. The study shows that based on each plot being occupied by one body, there is a need for 9,660 burial plots by 2036, and 15,152 burial plots by 2041. In terms of land usage, this equates to a requirement of approximately 4.8 hectares of additional land by 2036, and 7.7 hectares of additional land by 2041. Notably, there is a significant shortage of Muslim burial plots within the borough, both throughout the new plan period and beyond. There is also a shortage of consecrated land for Greek Orthodox community, with many of the members having to use provisions outside of the Borough. viii. In terms of space for the interment of ashes, the existing capacity figures within the Borough were unquantifiable and further research to obtain these figures is recommended. Based on forecasted deaths and the percentage breakdown of religions that chose to have crematorium plots, there is a need for 10,896 plots up to 2036, and 14,126 plots are required by 2041. ix. Given the requirement for additional burial and ash capacity, four options for achieving this have been identified: using existing sites more intensively; extending existing sites; identifying new sites; and the re-use graves under Burial Law. In this instance, a combination of all of the options listed above should be utilised in order to achieve the required capacity. Enfield Borough Council are in the process of actively scoping the viability and feasibility of a new site. The extension of Edmonton Cemetery into the skatepark has already provided additional burial spaces and the extension of more sites in the Borough could make a real impact in helping to meet the burial demands of the Borough. The intensification of existing sites alone could not provide the capacity required however, where appropriate, this option could be a tool for helping meet demand. The re-use of graves is a sustainable way of helping achieve the required burial capacity however, this is not an option within the Muslim community given that the graves are either consecrated in amongst Christian graves and/or facing the incorrect way (not towards Mecca). x. It is demonstrated that while it may be possible to extend London Borough Enfield (LBE) owned Hertford Road Cemetery, LBE will be reliant on a combination of private operators at Enfield Crematorium and Trent Park Cemetery to extend their sites, in order to meet the required capacity. The extension to existing cemeteries and recommendations within the report are subject to technical assessments including geo-environmental investigation, hydrological analysis and ecological impacts. The study has not investigated this in depth.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page ix October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council xi. The overall findings establish that the largest deficit of burial plots within the Borough is within the Muslim population, with a deficit of -8,302 by 2036 and -11,373 (by 2041). This is based on the fact that there are only 350 designated Muslim burial plots within the Borough. It can therefore be stated that greater provision is needed for the Muslim community and the New Local Plan must address this. xii. By interviewing a range of faith communities within the Borough, this study shows that there is a growing demand for emerging markets including burial chambers, natural and woodland burials. This increasing interest is in accordance with the national context, where there has been a growth of natural and woodland burials from 2.1% to 4.1% of the whole funeral market in two years. xiii. There are no natural or woodland burial provisions within the Borough of Enfield, with the nearest multifaith sites being Epping, Brentwood and Rickmansworth (appendix 3). LBE could meet the required burial capacity by developing or promoting sites such as these. xiv. Pressure on open space is lower in the North Western corner of the Borough, which is predominantly undeveloped land within the Green Belt. The allocation of new burial sites could be focused towards this area, which has good transport links to Crews Hill Station. Another possible site has been highlighted near Enfield Cemetery and Crematorium however, this is subject to feasibility study and further investigations. xv. To contribute to successful places, cemeteries must provide multiple roles, and this can be achieved through good design principles. Recommendations have been provided as to how cemeteries can contribute to providing green space, amenity value, ecological value, and heritage value. In addition, recommendations are made as to how religious requirements can be accommodated through good design. xvi. The findings and recommendations made within the study will only be achieved if implemented. Therefore, policy recommendations have been made as to how the identified capacity can be achieved through the allocation of specific sites, and the requirement for a high-quality design. Recommendations are also made as to how the required capacity can be achieved from an economic perspective.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page x October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
1.0 Introduction
Introduction
Enfield London Borough Council’s (Enfield Council) Burial Needs Assessment has been prepared by Enzygo Ltd to inform the Council’s new Local Plan, which will guide development from 2018 to 2036. The purpose of the study is to provide evidence to inform planning policies and site allocations, relevant to burial land need and provision. The study also considers the requirement for land for cremation ashes and will inform policies relevant to this.
Background
Like many Councils, Enfield are facing challenges to ensure the Borough has sufficient and appropriate spaces for burials and the interment of ashes.
Enfield Council recognise the need to understand existing burial capacity within the Borough boundary and establish how much capacity will be required within and beyond the Local Plan period. This seeks to ensure there is sufficient provision to meet the future needs of its residents.
The Study
The study methodology comprises the following key stages:
• Establishing existing interment provision within the Borough.
• Establishing historic and future population trends in the Borough.
• Establishing the need for future burial land and cremation ash provision based on the existing supply and future need. This will consider how the requirements of different religious groups can be met.
• Identifying options to ensure the future need can be met and consider each identified option in detail.
• Identifying the preferred option(s) and providing recommendations as to how recommendations could be achieved.
• Propose policies that could help achieve the recommendations made as a result of the study.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 11 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Considering non-land use factors that could impact on provision of spaces for burials and interment of cremation ash.
Relevant consultation has been undertaken throughout the assessment and recommendations, and this is detailed within this report.
Report format
Based on the key stages set out above, the structure of this report is as follows:
• Chapter 2 sets out the relevant legal and planning policy.
• Chapter 3 Analysis the GLA Audit for London Burial Provision (2011)
• Chapter 4 details the different types of burial sites.
• Chapter 5 sets out the existing burial and ash plot provision within the Borough.
• Chapter 6 explains the population trends in the Borough, including forecasted population growth.
• Chapter 7 identifies the need for future burial land provision, based on the existing provision and forecasted population trends.
• Chapter 8 provides a summary of the interment space capacity and its requirements.
• Chapter 9 details consultation that has taken place throughout the assessment process.
• Chapter 10 sets out a number of potential options which could ensure Enfield meets the identified need for burial space.
• Chapter 11 details the desk-based review and site visits that were undertaken as part of the consideration of different options.
• Chapter 12 and 13 details the identified options in further detail.
• Chapter 14 considers delivery of the proposed options.
• Chapter 15 considers non-land-use issues that could impact on the provision of spaces for burials and interment ash.
• Chapter 16 considers policies to inform the Council’s Local Plan.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 12 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Chapter 17 provides a conclusion and recommendations.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 13 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
2.0 Legal and Planning Policy
Introduction
This Chapter details the legal framework in relation to burials and space for cremation ashes, along with relevant national and local planning policy.
Burial Law
The Ministry of Justice is responsible for burial law and since the 1850s the national government has passed responsibility for burials on to local authorities. Despite this, there is currently no statutory duty upon LPAs to provide burial space for their residents, although there is a requirement for them to maintain existing cemeteries.
However, several Acts of Parliament provide LPAs with legislative powers relating to burial land provision. The Local Government Act 1972 recognises Local Authorities as burial authorities, along with the Cremations Act of 1902 and 1952 (Section 214 (1) and (5)). It allows burial authorities to provide and maintain cemeteries inside and outside of their administrative areas (Section 214 (2)) and to contribute towards any expenses incurred by third parties in providing or maintaining a cemetery in which the residents of the authority’s area may be buried (Section 214 (6)).
Section 74 of the London Local Authorities Act (2007) allows the re-use of graves as ‘where a burial authority has extinguished – (a) a right of burial in a grave space under section 6 (power to extinguish rights of burial in cemetery lands) of the Act of 1969; or (b) a right of interment in respect of a grave under section 9 of the Act of 1976, the burial authority may disturb or authorise the disturbance of human remains interred in the grave for the purpose of increasing the space for interments in the grave. No human remains may be disturbed under this section if they have been interred for a period less than 75 years’.
Legislation to permit reclamation of grave space was established under S9 of the Greater London (General Power) 1976. This permits burial authorities in London to extinguish burial rights in graves where no burial has taken place for 75 years, where unused space within the grave could then be used for the purpose of further burials. This process does not disturb any existing remains in the grave; hence it is termed ‘reclamation’.
Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 does not apply ‘in cases where a body is removed from one consecrated place of burial to another by faculty granted by the Ordinary for that purpose.’ Enfield Council has used this legislation to introduce a system of grave re-use in common
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 14 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
consecrated sections of Edmonton, Lavender Hill and Hertford Road Cemeteries. This process of re-use does not use a ‘lift and deepen’ method, since the legislation specifies the removal of remains from one consecrated place to another. Instead, the process disinters remains and relocates them to a ‘designated grave’ which is situated at the end of the row of re-used graves.
The most active form of regulation of cemeteries and new cemetery development is now exercised by the Environment Agency, largely concerned with the pollution of water sources and emissions from crematoria.
National Planning Policy Framework, 2019
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) sets out the current national planning policy for development within England. Sustainable development lies at the core of the NPPF, which requires economic, social and environmental roles to be considered for all aspects of development.
Should the outcome of this study identify the need for further burial spaces within the Borough, the NPPF must be considered to inform new development.
Within the NPPF there is no specific reference to cemeteries or burial space, other than Paragraphs 145 and 146, which relate to cemeteries within the Green Belt. Given that there are several existing cemeteries in Enfield Borough Council that are within the London Area Greenbelt, this statement is relevant.
Paragraph 145 states that the LPA ‘should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are… (b) the provision of appropriate facilities… for cemeteries and burial grounds… as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it’.
Paragraph 146 states ‘Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These are… (e) material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds)…’.
The NPPF is centred around sustainable development, which includes considering the economic, social and environmental role of development. In terms of an economic role, any development must be in an appropriate location for the development type, so as not to prevent other economic benefits being achieved. This could include considering the potential
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 15 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
of proposed sites for other types of development (e.g. housing, commercial development or other community development). Local Planning policy (considered later within this chapter) provides policies relating to the location of different types of development within the Borough. This will be considered when assessing the appropriateness of new sites (if relevant), to ensure recommendations made within this study do not compromise the economic benefits associated with other development types, for which sites are allocated.
In addition, the provision of an appropriate level of burial space is essential to build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, as without sufficient burial space, other types of development (specifically residential development) will be limited. The provision of too much burial space would result in adverse economic impacts, by preventing alternative development types coming forward. As such, this study seeks to establish the appropriate amount of space required within the Local Plan period, and beyond.
The provision of burial space must be in an appropriate location for the benefits to be fully achieved. Given the relatively low level of economic benefits achieved through burial space, sites should (if possible) benefit from existing infrastructure (i.e. access roads) or be in a location where infrastructure could be provided relatively simply (i.e. without the need for large levels of new infrastructure). A specific example of this is extending existing sites which already have the required infrastructure in place, as a preference to developing entirely new sites, which may not benefit from existing infrastructure.
In terms of providing a social role, the NPPF states that development should ‘…support strong, vibrant and healthy communities…. with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being…’
This study considers not only the amount of space required for burial capacity, but also how sites can be designed to contribute to wider social benefits. Chapter 13 of this study considers how wider amenity and cultural benefits can be achieved.
Finally, sustainable development must contribute towards achieving environmental objectives, and should ‘…contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity…’.
Again, chapter 13 of this study considers how the wider benefits of cemeteries can be achieved good design. If designed well, cemeteries can particularly contribute to biodiversity benefits, however, this also requires a good maintenance strategy to be in place. Again, this is considered within chapter 13.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 16 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The above sustainable considerations are particularly relevant given the urban context of Enfield, where pressure on land means it is even more important to ensure development and open space resources meet multiple needs. When considering new sites (if relevant), indicators of sustainable development will be used to ensure any recommendations made within this study are consistent with the NPPF.
Chapter 5 of the NPPF considers ‘Delivering a sufficient supply of homes’. This requires a sufficient amount and variety of land to come forward where it is needed. Local Planning policy allocates sites for housing within the Borough, and these housing allocations will be considered when reviewing new sites (if relevant). This study will not make recommendations that would prevent allocated housing sites coming forward.
Section 6 relates to ‘Building a strong, competitive economy’. This focusses on supporting economic growth and productivity, taking into account local business needs and wider opportunities for development.
As above, this study will review site allocations within planning policy, and ensure any recommendations do not conflict with policies, and would not prevent allocated sites coming forward. The recommendations provided within Chapter 13 relate to design and achieving wider sustainability benefits. This will contribute towards building a strong, competitive economy by contributing to making the Borough a pleasant place to live, and thus attracting residents and businesses.
Section 7 of the NPPF relates to ‘Ensuring the vitality of town centres’. This focusses on supporting the role that town centres play, and taking a positive approach to their growth, management and adaptation.
This study will review existing burial sites within Enfield. Relevant land allocations and policies will be considered to ensure that recommendations made within this study do not compromise development of town centres within the Borough.
Section 8 relates to ‘Promoting healthy and safe communities.’ Planning policies should seek to promote social interaction, ensure places are safe and accessible, and enable and support healthy lifestyles.
A good design and maintenance plan for cemeteries is essential for this aim to be achieved. In addition, ensuring cemeteries are provided in appropriate locations can significantly impact upon their role in contributing to healthy and safe communities. Chapter 13 of this study
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 17 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
provides recommendations as to how cemeteries can be designed in such a way to attract people into them due to their amenity value and contribute towards providing valuable open space.
Paragraphs 96-101 within this chapter are particularly relevant, as these relate to ‘Open space’, of which cemeteries are a type of. Paragraph 96 states that access to high quality open space is important for communities. Information gained from assessments should be used to determine what open space, sport and recreational provision is needed, and plans should seek to accommodate this.
Enfield Council recognise the importance of cemeteries contributing to open space, and for those located within residential areas, they can play a significant role in providing open space, subject to a good design and appropriate maintenance plan. This study provides recommendations as to how cemeteries can fulfil a range of purposes, particularly in providing high value open space.
Chapter 9 of the NPPF relates to ‘Promoting sustainable transport’. This supports the use of existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and seeks to pursue opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport.
When considering existing and new sites within this study, accessibility, including access via sustainable means of transport will be considered. Proximity to large residential areas will generally be favoured as this would reduce the need to travel via private car. The location of public transport networks in relation to sites will also be considered.
Chapter 11 of the NPPF relates to ‘Making effective use of land’. This requires planning to promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for houses and other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions. The framework highlights the importance of encouraging multiple benefits from land and recognising that land can perform many functions.
This study seeks to ensure the correct amount of land is allocated for cemetery use, as allocating too much can have adverse impacts, along with allocating too little. The importance of cemeteries in achieving multiple functions is highlighted within this study, and recommendations are made as to how this can be achieved.
Chapter 12 considers ‘Achieving well-design places’. This recognises that high quality places are fundamental to what the planning process should achieve. The chapter highlights the
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 18 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
importance of a clear design vision and expectations, that should be set by the LPA. Chapter 13 of this study identifies the importance of well-designed cemeteries in ensuring they are successful places and can achieve a wide range of benefits.
Chapter 13 of the NPPF ‘Protecting the Green Belt land’ aims to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Cemeteries are considered acceptable development in the Green Belt; however, they must preserve its openness. This means that traditional lawn graves are deemed more favourably over Mausoleum’s, vaults and curbed graves.
Chapter 14 of the NPPF relates to climate change and flooding. For cemeteries, the Environment Agency sets out clear specifications in terms of flood risk and the relationship between cemeteries and the water table. This seeks to ensure cemeteries do not result in pollution.
When reviewing sites, flood risk will be considered to avoid recommending sites in inappropriate locations in terms of flood risk. In addition, the design guidance provided will draw upon contributing to reducing the risk of climate change.
Chapter 15 relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the natural environment’. This requires planning policies to protect and enhance landscapes, biodiversity, and geological value. Chapter 13 of this study relates to design criteria, and this sets out ways in which new or existing cemeteries can contribute towards conserving and enhancing the natural environment. This largely relates to a good quality design and maintenance plan.
Chapter 16 of the NPPF relates to ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. This requires a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets at risk through neglect, decay or other threats.
Where this study makes recommendations regarding sites with historic value, these historic assets will be considered within the recommendations. Chapter 13 of this study also draws upon contributing to the historic environment.
Overall, this study has been prepared considering the NPPF, and all recommendations have been made in accordance with it. However, should any development be progressed as a result of this study, a full planning application would be required, and this should include an assessment of the proposed development against the NPPF.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 19 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
London Planning Policy
Strategic planning in London is the shared responsibility of the Mayor of London, 32 boroughs and the Corporation of the City of London. Under the legislation establishing the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Mayor has to produce a spatial development strategy (SDS), which is known as the London Plan.
The London Plan is legally part of each of London’s Planning Authority’s Development Plan and must be taken into account when planning decisions are taken in any part of greater London.
As Enfield Borough council is one of the 32 London boroughs’, this Burial Needs Assessment considers both the adopted London Plan and draft New London Plan in full detail.
The Mayor of London also offers supplementary Planning guidance (SPGs) and other guidance which gives further detail on specific policies found in the London Plan. This too will be assessed in this chapter.
The current London Plan (2016) is still adopted however, the Draft London Plan (2018) is a material consideration in planning decisions, and it gains more weight as it moves through the process to adoption. This too will be considered in this chapter.
Overall, the key London planning policies and guidance are:
• The London Plan (2016)
• Mayor of London Supplementary Planning Guidance
o Social infrastructure Supplementary Planning Guidance (2015)
• New London Plan (Draft) (2018)
The London Plan (2016)
The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an integrated economic, environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next 20 – 25 years.
Policy 7.23 ‘Burial Spaces’ strategic statement states that the strategic response for the London Plan is ‘The Mayor will work with boroughs, cemetery providers and other key stakeholders to protect existing burial spaces and to promote their re-use or new provision’.
The policy also contains an LDF preparation which offers advice to boroughs in preparing their Local Development Frameworks. Policy 7.23 ‘Burial Spaces’ preparation states ‘Boroughs
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 20 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
should ensure provision is made for London’s burial needs, including the needs of those groups for whom burial is the only option. Provision should be based on the principle of proximity to local communities and reflect the different requirements for types of provisions.
The London Plan notes that ‘boroughs should continue to make provision for burial. Besides making new provision, the re-use of graves can also provide some additional capacity. Both Section 74 of the London Local Authorities Act (2007) and Section 25 of the Burial Act (1857) allow the re-use of graves in certain circumstances and boroughs are encouraged to actively examine the potential re-use offers them. Woodland burial sites with public access can provide additional links to London’s green infrastructure’.
This burial needs assessment for Enfield Council is compliant with Policy 7.23 of the London Plan. The study acknowledges that certain graves have - and will continue to be – reused within the Greater London Authority. Furthermore, as the results of the study have been broken down into religious forecasting, the needs of those who can only be buried have been fully assessed.
Policy 7.16 Green belt is also a key consideration for this study as a balance must be made between offering burial spaces and protecting, promoting and enhancing open spaces and natural environments. Policy 7.16 strategic statement states ‘The Mayor strongly supports the current extent of London’s Green Belt, its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from inappropriate development’.
Policy 7.16 planning decisions statement specifies that ‘The strongest protection should be given to London’s Green Belt, in accordance with national guidance. Inappropriate development should be refused, except in very special circumstances. Development will be supported if it is appropriate and helps secure the objectives of improving the Green Belt as set out in national guidance’.
Cemeteries are permitted development within the Green Belt, providing that they preserve its openness. However, given the varying types of interment spaces, some burial grounds offer more openness than others i.e. traditional lawn graves are more open than mausoleums and vaults. Any proposed new burial grounds within the Green Belt must take this into consideration in order to comply with both the NPPF and London Plan.
Policy 7.17 Metropolitan Open Land strategic statement states ‘The Mayor supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open land (MOL), its extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL’.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 21 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The policies planning decision statement argues ‘the strongest protection should be given to London’s Metropolitan Open Land and inappropriate development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt. Essential ancillary facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they maintain the openness of MOL.
When considering the provision of new cemeteries, the proposal must be consistent with this policy. There is no direct mention of the provision of cemeteries within the MOL in the London Plan (2016), however, the Draft New London Plan (see section below) makes the link between the between the two and states that ‘the provision of facilities for cemeteries may not be inappropriate development… on MOL, as long as it preserves the openness’. Again, preserving the openness may mean that certain types of cemeteries are not appropriate within the MOL and this needs to be considered in the study.
Policy 7.18 Protecting Open Space and Addressing Deficiency states that ‘the loss of protected open spaces must be resisted unless equivalent or better-quality provision is made within the local catchment area’. Given that cemeteries are considered appropriate development in the Green Belt, an extension or development of cemeteries in open space is consistent with this policy.
Mayor of London supplementary Planning Guidance
Social Infrastructure SPG (2015)
A key supplementary planning guidance is the Social Infrastructure SPG (2015), which includes chapter 8 Burial Needs. This elaborates on the London Plan and offers greater information.
According to this SPG, approximately 75% of the deceased are cremated but this can vary significantly by faith. The SPG also reiterates the adopted London Plan’s Policy 7.23 regarding burial spaces and states the ‘London Plan encourages local authorities to provide burial space in close proximity to their residents, to reduce the costs/time in travelling to visit deceased loved ones’.
The SPG also considers the Audit of London Burial Provision (2011), which was commissioned by the Mayor in 2010 to assess the provision of burial space in Greater London. The findings of this Audit are considered in further detail below.
The SPG chapter on burial needs also provides a summary of the laws relating to reclamation and re-use of graves, which has been highlighted at the beginning of this chapter.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 22 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Finally, the burial needs chapter of the Social Infrastructure SPG (2015) concludes that ‘in implementing the London Plan policies and especially Policy 7.23, the mayor will, and boroughs and other partners are advised to:
- Consider the needs and capacity assessments for burial space set out in Figures 18 to 22 (findings from the GLA, Audit of London Burial Provision 2011)
- Consider the impact that different burial practises may have on the demand for new plots
- Promote reuse of existing plots where appropriate and within the scope of existing legal powers
- Where demand cannot be met locally, boroughs should cooperate in planning across their boundaries to deliver necessary burial land.
This burial needs assessment has been conducted in line with the London Plan and the Social Infrastructure SPG (2015) - specifically, the chapter on burial needs. Where appropriate, the findings from the GLA Audit have been used as a basis for this research; consideration has been made on the different type of religious needs regarding interment; the study acknowledges that plots may be reused; and, the study considers cross border flows and the potential for duty-to-cooperate mechanisms to play a role in future needs.
(Draft) New London Local Plan (2018)
The Draft London Plan is a material consideration and gains more weight as it progresses to adoption. A draft New London Plan was published by the Mayor for Consultation in December 2017 and the consultation period ended on the 2nd March 2018. On the 13th august 2018 the Mayor published a version of the draft Plan that includes the Mayors suggested changes. This most recent version of the Draft New London will now be considered in relation to burial provision, Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, open space and any other policies that are relevant to this burial study.
Policy S7 Burial Space states: ‘(A) Cemeteries should be protected and the re-sue of burial space supported. (B) When preparing Development Plans, boroughs should ensure provision is made for the different burial needs and requirements of London’s communities, including for those groups of whom burial is the only option. Cross- borough and/or sub-regional working is encouraged where appropriate to identify and address the requirements of these groups and to tackle burial spaces shortages within the sub-region. (C) Development proposals for new cemetery provision should be supported. This may include provision in one borough to assist faith groups from another borough that are facing burial space shortages.’
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 23 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
This policy statement is more radical than the current adopted Plan. This is because, the Adopted Plan (2016) stated that Boroughs should continue to make provision for burial by making new provision and the re-use of graves. The Draft New Plan expands on this and states new cemetery provision should be supported. Thus, should the findings of this study suggest that new burial provisions should be developed, this would be consistent with the New Plan, providing it does not conflict with other policies.
Paragraph 5.7.1 of Policy S7 Burial Space acknowledges that in assessing the requirements for burial space, ‘account should be taken of the fact that different faith groups have different needs for burial provision’. Furthermore, ‘there may be cases where meeting the needs of residents in one borough may require burial provision to be located in another borough. This may require a sub-regional approach to the provision of burial space’. This policy reinforces the need for this study to assess cross border flows and the potential for duty-to-cooperate mechanisms to play a role in future needs.
The New Plan highlights the ‘unique heritage and archaeological qualities of cemeteries’ and that this should be considered when providing additional capacity in existing cemeteries. Any recommendations from this burial needs study which suggest an intensification or expansion of existing cemeteries must acknowledge this statement, in order to protect the heritage in the Borough.
As touched on in the adopted Plan, the Draft New Plan specifically mentions the provision of cemeteries in the context of Green Belt and MOL - the current adopted Plan does not make this link. The New Plan states ‘the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate except for a limited number of uses. These include provision of appropriate facilities for cemeteries as long as they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This also applies to Metropolitan Open Land’.
Again, this policy needs to be considered in moving forward to meet the requirements identified in this study. Certain types of interment spaces may reduce the openness of Green Belt and MOL compared with the traditional lawn graves. The results of this study’s forecasts of burial requirements by religion identify that certain types of burial grounds are needed, and because their likely built form, careful consideration will be required before proposing to locate such facilities within the Green Belt and MOL.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 24 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The Draft New London Plan also highlights that when making new provision, Boroughs are encouraged to take into account the Mayor’s broader aims for green infrastructure and natural environment, including the enhancement of existing open spaces and the addition of woodland or parkland burial grounds. The recommendations from this study must comply with this part of this policy.
Finally, the New Plan argues that both traditional burial provision and innovative approaches to the provision of community burial space, particularly in inner London, may also need to be taken; ‘These could include creating public gardens for the burial off ashes on underused pockets of open land’. Although this is not a key consideration, the study should acknowledge the potential for these types of innovative provisions in addressing the need for greater burial space in Enfield.
Local Planning Policy
Enfield’s Local Plan is comprised of several documents. Those relating to the provision and potential development of new cemeteries include:
• Core Strategy (2010)
• Development Management Document (2014) • Area Action Plans.
This study will inform the emerging Local Plan. Relevant planning policy is considered within the following section.
Enfield Core Strategy (2010 – 2025 adopted 2010)
The Enfield Core Strategy for planning provides context for more detailed documents within the LDF. The Core Strategy sets out a spatial planning framework for the long-term development of the Borough for the next 15 to 20 years.
The London Borough of Enfield covers 32 square miles of London’s northern suburbs, with housing occupying one-third of the land, and another third is Green Belt (mainly farming, country parks and horticulture. ‘The rest includes commerce, industry, shops and transport – although much is open land used as parks, sports fields, golf courses, allotments and back gardens; and there are more waterways than in any other London Borough’.
As such, the Borough contains widely varying types of development within a small geographical area. Combining a high intensity of land use and large population within the Borough, means careful spatial planning within Enfield is crucial. An active consideration of
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 25 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
requirements for future burial space needs in Spatial planning terms is needs to be applied periodically in order to make appropriate provision in local plans and through development.
According to the Core Strategy (2010), the Borough’s population was estimated then at 285,100 in mid-2007. The Borough has a large proportion of children, young people and older people (26%) compared to the rest of London. Given the high percentage of older people within the Borough, cemetery provision within the Borough is essential. A more up-to-date analysis of the Borough’s demographic statistics will be provided in chapter 4 and 5.
Core Policy 1 Strategic Growth Areas states ’The council will plan to focus future growth and development in the Borough in four specific areas, which offer the greatest opportunities for change to improve the quality of life for Enfield’s resident. These areas are: Central Leeside; North East Enfield; Enfield Town and the area around the North circular Road at New Southgate… As such, ‘improvement to the social and physical infrastructure will be prioritised in the strategic growth areas in order to ensure that planned growth and development will be sustainable. Area action plans will be prepared for each of these areas to provide a framework for development’.
The need to locate burial space in places which are accessible to the population and which can benefit from existing infrastructure, would indicate that, where possible, provision of new burial space should form part of the social and physical infrastructure of strategic growth areas identified by the Council in its local plans. Given the competition for land in the local urban context, it is likely that if such provision is possible in these areas, cemeteries will need to perform multiple functions beyond places of interment, as green spaces and places which can support bio-diversity enhancement.
‘Core Policies for Housing and Services aims to provide good quality housing that is integrated with other land uses and supported by services, jobs, physical and green infrastructure’. The Core Policies relevant to this burial needs assessment and the policies for housing and services include CP2, CP7, CP8, CP11. Overall, the policies relating to housing demonstrate that a significant amount of residential development is required with the District. Capacity for burials and the interment of ashes over the long term will therefore need to be sufficient to provide for a larger population.
Core Policy 2 Housing Supply and Locations for New Homes states ‘a new housing target for the ten-year period 2011/12 – 2020/21 is due to be published in a revised London Plan in
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 26 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
2010’. The updated London Plan 2016 states the minimum 10-year target 2015 – 2025 for Enfield is 7,976; and the annual monitoring target for Enfield between 2015 - 2025 is 798.
CP 2 states the focus for this housing growth will be the upper Lee Valley Opportunity Area at Meridian Water in Central Leeside and Ponders End in North East Enfield. Elsewhere in the Borough growth will be planned in areas where physical and social infrastructure already exists. As suggested above, a key aim should be to seek new provision of burial spaces, where this is required, in areas accessible to areas of housing growth.
CP10 Emergency and Essential Services state ’to meet the needs of existing and new communities, the Council, working with partners, will plan to deliver facilities to support the emergency services where there is an identified operational need. The Council recognises there is an identified lack of new burial space, including the provision of different types of graves, particularly in the east of the Borough, especially in the context of an increasing population and the planned growth in the Borough. The Council is currently investigating measures to address this, including the re-use of existing graves and the possible options and constraints for extending Edmonton Cemetery’.
This assessment will consider the possibility of extending Edmonton Cemetery, as well as the option for re-using spaces and identifying new cemeteries.
CP11 Recreation, Leisure, Culture and Arts states the ‘Council will seek to protect exiting assets and provision, and promote and encourage the increased use of recreation, leisure, culture and arts facilities in the Borough by: resisting the loss of existing recreation… exploring how more flexible use of existing school, college and community activities and open spaces can be made for sport and physical activity…’.
Overall, the development of new cemeteries in the Borough will have to be consistent with this policy, ensuring that there is still a sufficient amount of recreational open space.
The following Core Polices relating to Housing and Services are not related to the development of new cemeteries and have therefore not been considered in detail: CP3 Affordable housing; CP4 Housing quality; CP5 Housing Types; CP6 Meeting particular housing needs; CP9 Supporting Community Cohesion; CP 12 Visitors and Tourism.
Core Policies 13 to 19 relate to Economic Development and Enterprise. CP13 states the Council will protect and improve Enfield’s employment offer helping to facilitate the creation of a minimum of 6,000 new jobs from 2010-2026, focusing new growth in the Upper Lee Valley
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 27 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
and Enfield’s town centres. CP14 identifies several Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and CP15 identifies Locally significant Industrial Sites (LSISs) and it would therefore be generally unsuitable to locate new cemeteries within these designations.
CP17 identifies the need to strengthen Enfield’s town centres by focusing new commercial, retail, leisure, office, residential and other appropriate social infrastructure related uses… within the centres according to the Borough’s town centre hierarchy. This highlights Major Centre of Enfield Town as the main destination for comparison goods shopping, new retail, leisure and cultural activities. Overall, the development of new cemeteries should be consistent with this policy.
CP21 Delivering sustainable water supply, drainage and sewerage infrastructure states that ‘The Council will work with developers, residents and water supply and sewerage companies to ensure that Enfield’s future water resource needs, wastewater treatment and drainage infrastructure are managed effectively in a coordinated manner’. The Environment Agency regulate cemetery provision to avoid pollution of water sources and also regulate crematoria to control emissions from them. New cemeteries need to be located in areas which are geologically suitable in terms of underlying geology and in relation to proximity to groundwater sources and water courses, in order to avoid pollution of water resources.
CP24 relates to the road network and delivering ‘improvements to the road network to contribute to Enfield’s economic regeneration and development, support businesses, improve safety and environmental quality, reduce congestion and provide additional capacity where needed’. Policy CP25 sets out objectives in relation to walking and cycling. CP26 addresses objective to improve public transport. In making provision for new cemetery space, a key consideration will be to ensure that this is located in areas with good access by a range of transport modes .
Core Policies for Environmental Protection and Green Infrastructure are pertinent to Core Policies 29 – 36. Those that are relevant to new cemeteries are listed below.
Core Policy 29 relates to flood management infrastructure and states ‘proposals that compromise the function of existing, or planned, flood risk management infrastructure will normally be resisted’. Taking this into consideration, a review of flood risk will be undertaken when assessing any new sites identified through this study. Should a new site be identified, ground investigation would be required to determine water table depth.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 28 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
CP30 maintaining and improving the quality of the built and open environment states ‘all development in the public realm must be high quality and design-led, having special regard to their context’. As cemeteries are considered valuable open space, new cemeteries should exhibit good design principles.
CP31 Built and Landscape heritage aims to ensure that built development and interventions in the public realm that impact on heritage assets have regard to their special character. In particular, in considering the potential for extensions to, or for the reuse of graves within, existing cemeteries, careful consideration of the heritage value of these and how they might accommodate change is needed. When reviewing sites for new cemeteries, then as with all development, due consideration is needed of the potential for impacts on designated and undesignated heritage assets.
CP32 Pollution states the ‘Council will work with its partners to minimise air, water, noise and light pollution and to address the risks arising from contaminated land and hazardous substances’. The Environmental Agency set out regulations relating to the development of burial sites and highlight that cemeteries must prevent or limit groundwater pollution.
CP33 Green Belt and Countryside states ‘The Council will continue to protect and enhance Enfield’s green belt’. As the NPPF states, there is a potential for the provision of cemeteries within the Green Belt to be considered appropriate development, provided the form of development in the specific location does not impact on the fulfilment of the purposes and the openness of the Green Belt. This indicates a need to carefully consider the location for its potential impact on key purposes, but also the specific design and form of cemetery including built infrastructure. Presumably, there is a fallback potential to seek to demonstrate Very Special Circumstances for development of cemeteries in less favourable Green Belt locations, but this sets a high bar for justification based on need and a clear lack of alternatives.
CP34 Parks, playing fields and other open spaces states that the Council will ‘protect and enhance existing open space and seek opportunities to improve the provision of good quality and accessible open space in the Borough by:
• Protecting Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and extending its designation to include green chains that meet MOL designation criteria;
• Requiring improvements to open space provision through increasing the access to, quantity and quality of publicly accessible open spaces and supporting the community use of non-public open spaces…’
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 29 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The policies map identifies existing cemetery sites as MOL and Local Open Space and the Council seek to protect these designations. The Council want to enhance open spaces and through this there is potential to develop cemeteries which meet multiple needs including recreation areas, ecological value and amenity value. This is reinforced by CP36 biodiversity, which seeks to protect, enhance restore or add to biodiversity interests within the Borough.
CP37 Central Leeside, CP38 Meridian Water, CP39 Edmonton, CP40 north east Enfield, CP41 Ponders End, CP42 Enfield Town, CP43 Area around Enfield town station, CP44 north circular area, CP45 New Southgate all relate spatial planning in those specific areas. As such, new cemetery sites would have to be consistent with these policies.
Core Policies 46 relates to infrastructure contributions and lists key priorities, other priorities and other provisions. Those related to new cemetery sites include ‘open space and recreation provision, green infrastructure and landscape features, biodiversity and geodiversity protection’.
Enfield’s Development Management Document Adopted (November 2014)
The Development Management Document (DMD) provides detailed criteria and standard based policies by which planning applications will be determined and will be a key vehicle in delivering the vision and objectives for Enfield as set out in the Core Strategy.
The DMD will guide decisions on planning applications within Enfield. Each DMD policy links to one or more of the Core Strategy policies. Therefore, this is a key document in determining new cemetery sites. The relevant DMD policies are considered below.
DMD 1 – 15 relate to housing in particular. Although they are not directly linked to the provision of new cemetery sites, any developments which conflict with the housing DMD policies are likely to preclude development. For example, under DMD 4, ‘any development which involves the net loss of affordable housing and of social rented accommodation in particular will be refused unless the net loss arises from the managed replacement of housing…’.
DMD 16 and DMD 17 relate to community facilities. Although the DMD does not specifically include cemetery sites as an example of community facilities, the list is non-exhaustive. Cemeteries could be considered as a community facility given that they offer green space and often have places of worship within the grounds. DMD 16 states ‘new community facilities will be supported borough-wide and may be required as part of development within
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 30 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
the strategic growth areas, as detailed within Local Plan documents and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to ensure the creation of prosperous, sustainable communities. Planning permission will be granted provided the proposed development:
• Is demonstrated to have a community need
• Makes efficient and effective use of land and buildings, and where appropriate, provides opportunities for co-location, flexible spaces and multiuse
• Is easily accessible to the community it is intended to serve walking, cycling and public transport to reduce dependence upon private car transport
• Is designed to provide access for physically impaired users…
• Does not harm the amenities of neighbouring and nearby properties; and
• Does not have a negative impact on the area in terms of the potential traffic generated.’
DMD 17 aims to protect existing community facilities in the Borough.
DMD 18 relates to early years provision thus is not directly linked to new cemetery sites.
DMD 19 to 24 relates to Enfield’s economy and protecting industrial land and employment premises including those safeguarded as Strategic Industrial Locations (SIL) and Locally Significant Industrial Sites (LSIS). Proposals for new cemetery sites which affect designated SILs and LSISs will not be permitted.
DMD 25 – 36 relate to towns centres and shopping. Proposals for new cemetery sites will have to be assessed against these policies to ensure there is no conflict in spatial terms with primary shopping areas.
DMD 37 to 44 relate to design and heritage as ‘all aspects of development form (layout, structure, urban grain, landscape, density, mix of uses, height, massing, architectural detailing and materials) can impact on economic, social and environmental vitality. If designed well, cemeteries can particularly contribute to biodiversity benefits, however this also requires a good maintenance strategy to be in place. Furthermore, should a new cemetery be proposed, this could include a new building and the design of this would be considered through a new planning application, at which point this policy would be relevant.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 31 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
DMD 45 to DMD48 relates to transport and parking. New cemetery proposals need to have adequate parking facilities, easily accessible and good parking design.
DMD 49 to DMD63 relates to tackling climate change. Should a new cemetery be proposed with an ancillary building for services, the building should meet the relevant DMD policies to ensure they are energy efficient. In particular, DMD59 is specifically designed to avoid and reduce flood risk, stating that ‘new development must avoid and reduce the risk of flooding, and not increase the risks elsewhere’. This is a key factor in determining the location of proposed cemeteries.
DMD 64 to DM77 relates to environmental protection which has implications on proposed new cemeteries. DMD64 Pollution control and assessment states that ‘development will only be permitted if pollution and the risk of pollution is prevented, or reduced and mitigated during all phases of development, including demolition/decommissioning, construction, operations/occupation and maintenance’. DM64 relates to air quality which is unrelated to cemeteries but is relevant to proposals for Crematoria.
DM66 is associated with land contamination and instability. Proposed new cemeteries will have to be assessed against this policy and in order to do this a ground investigation study would be needed in order to confirm the groundwater condition, the nature of underlying geology, and the presence or otherwise of contamination.
DMD71 to DMD 81 is related to Green Infrastructure. According to the DMD, ‘Enfield’s Green Infrastructure is made up of a network of multifunctional open spaces which provide social, economic, and environmental benefits. Open spaces include green spaces such as parks, allotments, commons, recreation grounds and playing fields; children’s play areas; woodlands and natural habitats; and non-green open spaces such as civic market squares and other hard surfaced areas, including other areas designated for pedestrians.’ Burial grounds are considered to be a mixture of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Local Open Space (LOS) within the Enfield policies map and the development of new cemeteries are potentially permissible as appropriate development within the Green Belt according to the NPPF.
DMD71 protection and enhancement of open space states that ‘inappropriate development on land designated as Metropolitan Open Land will be refused except in very special circumstances.’ Overall, ‘development involving the loss of other open space will be resisted… essential structures and facilities that would support the enjoyment of, and maintain the
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 32 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
openness of the open space will be acceptable provided that the size, sitting, location, design and materials would be sympathetic and proportionate to the operational requirements of the open space that it supports’. Clearly, the potential use open land for new cemetery provision will need to carefully consider the impacts development of a cemetery could have on the current role such land plays in meeting green infrastructure, health, biodiversity, sport and recreational needs, and how future use as a cemetery could be compatible with that, or otherwise.
DMD77 states that ‘development within a 5 minute walk or 400 metre radius from a Green Chain must integrate with the network and development will only be permitted if: a) any adverse impact on the Green Chain is minimised and b) the proposal protects and where possible improves the Green Chain route for cyclists and pedestrians’. Given that existing cemeteries within the Borough are located in variety of locations including the Green Belt and near Green Chains, proposed new cemeteries must consider this policy when determining the location.
DMD 78 consider biodiversity and ecological enhancements. Proposed new cemeteries must consider nature conservation as they offer the potential for biodiversity net gain, thus offering a multi-functional use. Similarly, DMD80 states trees covered by Tree Preservation Orders on development sites must be protected.
DMD 82 to 91 relate to protecting the Green Belt. Given that the NPPF classifies cemeteries and burial grounds as appropriate within the Green Belt, this should not be an issue (providing no conflict with other policies occur). DMD84 relates to Areas of Special Character and states ’New development within Areas of Special Character will only be permitted if features or characteristics which are key to maintaining the quality of the area are preserved and enhanced’.
Master Plans – Enfield Town Framework Masterplan March 2018
As aforementioned, Enfield Council has adopted its Core Strategy (2010) and Development Management Document (2014). There are a set of objectives contained within the Local Plan policies which set the specific context for the Enfield Town area. The Masterplan relates specifically to a number of policies governing the Enfield Town area.
A number of churches and burial sites lie within this area, and therefore policies within this Plan will need to be considered if any recommendations are made relating to these sites, or any new proposed new sites fall within the Enfield town area. Key points relating to cemetery
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 33 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
sites include policies relating to urban analysis and character areas, in particular: open space network; public realm opportunities and character areas. The document contains no specific information relating to cemetery sites or burial grounds.
Local Plan – Area Action Plans
Enfield Borough Council have three Area Action Plans (AAP) which are at various stages of the policy cycle including; Edmonton Leeside Area Action Plan; North Circular Area Action Plan and North East Enfield Area Action Plan. The AAPs are intended to provide a comprehensive planning framework and identify opportunity sites for redevelopment and key infrastructure. Consequently, any amendments to existing cemetery sites, or the proposal of new cemeteries, will need to be consistent with these Area Action Plans and avoid the development on any designated sites.
The proposed Edmonton Leeside Area Action Plan has been approved by the Council for public consultation and submission to the government for examination. Within this AAP, it identifies that Edmonton Leeside lies within an Area of Archaeological Importance, whilst the Montagu Road Cemeteries Conservation Area is directly adjacent to the west of the AAP boundary.
Local Plan Proposals Map
The Local Plan proposals map identifies policy designations across the whole of the Borough. When reviewing sites, relevant designations will be considered to ensure proposal made through this report would not conflict with existing designations.
Duty to Co-operate
The duty to co-operate was created in the Localism Act 2011, and places a legal duty on LPAs, County Councils and public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of Local Plan preparation in the context of strategic cross boundary matters.
As part of the Enfield New Local Plan 2036, an Issues and Options consultation paper was developed in order to give members of the public (and other stakeholders) a chance to participate in the process of shaping the future growth of the borough and the policies within the New Local Plan.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 34 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
This study has been conducted to help guide spatial policy regarding burial sites and cemeteries within and beyond the New Local Plan period. Although the New Local Plan is for Enfield, the burial needs assessment must establish adjoining authority’s interment capacity and the spatial patterns of interments across Council lines. In order to do this, neighbouring authorities have been contacted and asked about burial provision within their authority. None responded to indicate either a requirement or willingness to co-operate with Enfield Council on this study.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 35 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
3.0 GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011)
Although the GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011) is not policy itself, it does guide and steer policy as the Mayor of London SPG on social infrastructure (see above chapter) contains a chapter on burial needs. The SPG states that ‘In implementing the adopted Plan and especially Policy 7.23, the Mayor will, and boroughs and other partners are advised to consider the needs and capacity assessment for burial space set out in figures in figures 18 to 22’ (findings from the GLA, Audit of London Burial Provision 2011).
This section will review the highlighted figures, in order to ensure that this burial needs assessment is consistent with the Adopted London Plan.
Figure 18 from the SPG (2015) (taken from the GLA, Audit of London Burial Provision 2011), illustrates the burial capacity status of London boroughs (see figure 1). This is based on the then 2010 GLA demographic projections and existing provision up to 2031, allowing for the variation in burial rate by faith. The map shows Enfield Borough is classified as ‘problematic’ – capacity status 3 in figure 4.
Figure 1: GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011) Capacity Status
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 36 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 2: Capacity Status (Source: GLA, 2011)
Figure 3 shows how different faith groups have varying preferences for whether or not they choose to be buried, (Source: GLA Audit, 2011). Muslim and Jewish faith groups have the highest percentage of people requiring burial, at 99% and 96% respectively.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 37 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 3: Burial rate by religion (GLA Audit, 2011)
Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate those boroughs with large faith group populations that require burial, such as Muslim and Jewish faith groups, are going to require a higher amount of burial spaces. Furthermore, according to the SPG, ‘these faiths tend to seek one interment in each grave and would not favour any measure to re-use grave space or reclaim unused space in an existing grave’. The SPG points out that this has implications for the amount of land required to meet these burial needs and this must be considered in this study. Figure 4 above suggests that 21% of all estimated burials are projected to be Muslim burials, leading to increased requirement for this type of provision within Enfield.
Enfield
Figure 4: London boroughs by the projected percentage of all estimated burials that will be Muslim, (2010/11 - 2030/31).
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 38 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 5 illustrates that the percentage of burials in Enfield that are Jewish are lower than Muslim - 4.7% compared with 21% respectively.
Enfield
Figure 5: London boroughs by the projected percentage of all estimated burials that will be Jewish, (2010/11 - 2030/31).
This study will build on the findings of the GLA Audit of London Burial Provision (2011), ensuring that Enfield burial needs assessment findings and recommendations are consistent with the Adopted London Plan (which is guided by the SPG)
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 39 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
4.0 Types of Burial Sites
Provision of Burial / Cremation Ash Capacity
The prevailing arrangements within the Borough in terms of burial and cremation ash capacity, is that capacity is provided within large, strategic sites, notably Local Authority cemeteries and a private crematorium. There are several churches within the Borough which provide some burial/ interment capacity, however space is very limited, and insufficient to cater for the need. Existing capacity is detailed within Chapter 6 of this study.
It has been agreed that this prevailing approach will continue, with the Council and crematorium providing the vast majority of capacity, and churches providing a smaller amount for local communities.
Types of Burial Sites
This section provides a brief overview of burial and cremation ash sites, which may be useful for those not familiar within the subjects.
The term ‘cemeteries’ is used to describe places where the remains of deceased people are buried or otherwise interred. Anyone who is a resident in a parish or who dies in a parish has the common law right of burial in the churchyard or other consecrated burial ground of that parish (unless it has been closed by Order in Council). This right has been extended to all those whose names are on the electoral roll at the time of death.
There are a range of types of cemeteries where burials can take place and cremation ashes can be buried, most notably:
• Church graveyards. This term generally refers to a cemetery associated with a church. This may consist of ‘consecrated land’ (declared by the church to be sacred) or non- consecrated land, or a mixture of both.
• Traditional cemeteries. Many cemeteries are non-denominational, and most types of funeral service or ceremony can be conducted there. Traditional cemeteries have often been used by many generations, and consist of upright monuments, usually made of stone.
• Memorial parks and gardens. These are a newer type of cemetery, and generally have memorials and plaques rather than tombstones. As with traditional cemeteries, these are generally non-denominational.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 40 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Natural Burials sites. These are often, but not always, privately-owned burial sites and reflect an interest in more environmentally friendly forms of body disposal.
• Generally, cremation ashes can be buried in any of the above sites, either within an existing burial plot or in a separate smaller plot.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 41 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
5.0 Existing Burial and Cremation Provision in Enfield
Introduction
To inform this study, it is necessary to understand the existing provision within the Borough for the interment of the dead.
Burial Sites
The existing burial sites identified within the Borough are detailed in table 1 below. The table the number of remaining burial spaces and remaining number of spaces for cremation ashes is detailed.
This data was obtained in the following way:
• Firstly, relevant contacts (i.e. church warden, Vicars, private cemetery owners, the Local Authority) were contacted via phone and email and asked how many burial spaces and cremation spaces were available. In some cases, a range was given, in which case the figure listed in table 1 is the median of the range.
• Secondly, sites were visited to confirm whether the figures obtained through calls/emails seemed reasonable. See table 1This included churchyards which are now closed. There are some cemeteries which lie just outside the Enfield Borough boundary. These are not included in table 1; however, reference is made to them in appendix 3.
Burials per plot
Information from local cemetery operators indicates that in general, Muslim, Jewish and Green Burial graves are occupied by one body only.
For other burial plots, families have a choice of single, double or treble graves. It is very difficult to accurately understand how many graves are used for how many burials. However, the following figure provides a useful figure: 20% single; 75% double; 5% treble.
Many graves that are purchased for double graves will not necessarily be fully occupied for a number of years.
For the purpose of this study, a conservative rate of 75% single, and 25% double graves have been used. This reflects the fact that double graves may not be occupied by two bodies within
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 42 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
the Plan period, and once reserved, this plot is no longer available to others. This assumption has been made for adult plots that are not faith specific, and not green burial plots.
It has been necessary to assume a portion of graves will be used doubly, as not doing this would not reflect the actual situation and identify a lower level of grave availability than the reality.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 43 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 1: Burial sites within Enfield Council, provided by Enfield Council Bereavement Services
Figure Cemetery Name Street Address Burial Plots Assume 25% Ash Plots Notes on Map Remaining double Remaining
1 Enfield Great Cambridge 1000 250 Unknown Private Cemetery. Approximately 55 acres Crematorium Road multi-faith. Data was not confirmed by the Crematorium.
2 Adath Yisroel Burial Carterhatch Lane, Unknown 0 Private Cemetery. Approximately 3.2 Ground Enfield, EN1 4BE Unknown hectares. Judaism
3 Hertford Road Hertford Rad, 500 Re-use 125 30 LBE Local Authority Cemetery. 10 acres. Cemetery Enfield, EN3 5JE graves
4 Lavender Hill 72 Cedar Road, 1000 - 1500 313 120 LBE Local Authority Cemetery. 28 acres (+ Cemetery Enfield, EN2 0TH re-use graves 12-acre extension at Strayfield Road.) Anglican/non-conformist. Around 1500 re- + 30 new use plots remain available according to LBE graves Bereavement Department + around 30 new equalling 1530 plots.
5 St Andrew 18 Silver Street, 0 N/A 0 LBE maintained. CoE closed except for Churchyard Enfield EN1 3EG Ashes.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 44 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
6 St James’ Hertford Road 0 N/A 0 CoE closed churchyard. Can intern ashes in Churchyard (near Green limited cases of families who own the Street), Enfield existing gravestones. LBE maintained. Highway, EN3 5AX
7 Strayfield Road Strayfield Road 1500 – 2000 N/A 0 LBE Local Authority Cemetery. 12-acre Cemetery new graves extension of Lavender Hill Cemetery and in total (350 can provide new spaces, includes 2 of which are separate Muslim sections. 1500 – 2000 new Muslim graves in total. plots) Study assumes 1750 plots in total (of which 350 are Muslim plots).
8 Edmonton Church Street, 1800 new 300 24 LBE Local Authority Cemetery closed except Cemetery London, N9 9HP graves in for re-openers 30 acres + 2-acre extension. extension Re-use graves have been exhausted. 1800 new graves in extension.
9 Southgate 175 Waterfall 500 adult 125 60 LBE Local Authority Cemetery. Cemetery Road, London, N14 graves + 100 Approximately 13 acres. Extension ongoing 7JZ child burials which accommodates Mausoleum and Vaults.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 45 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
10 Jewish Federation Montague Road, c.450 graves N/A 0 11 hectares approximately. Judaism. of Synagogues Edmonton, London, Cemetery N18 2NF (Edmonton)
11 Tottenham Park Dodsley Pl, Unknown N/A 0 Mainly provide interment for Muslims. Cemetery Montagu Road, Owned by Demetriou & English. London, N9 0EU
12 Western Montague Road, Unknown. N/A 0 Not many plots available when observing Synagogue N18 – next to the during site visit. Federation Jewish Cemetery
13 Trent Park London Borough of Unknown. Unknown Multi-faith. Islington Council Local Authority Cemetery Islington Data not provided by the cemetery, operated by Islington Council.
14 All Saints Church Street, N9 0 N/A 0 CoE Closed Churchyard. LBE maintained Churchyard
15 Cockfosters Chalk Lane 0 N/A 0 CoE Closed Churchyard. LBE maintained Churchyard
16 Christchurch Waterfall Road, 0 N/A 0 CoE Closed Churchyard. LBE maintained Churchyard N14
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 46 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Children burial spaces
Specific spaces for child burials are provided at Southgate Cemetery.
Provision Summary
Table 1 details the existing capacity for burial plots and plots for crematorium ashes within the Borough. This information will be used throughout this study to understand where there are shortfalls in capacity and where there is a surplus of capacity.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 47 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
6.0 Forecasted Mortality in Enfield
Introduction
Within this section the population trends within the Borough are examined, including historic population trends and future population forecasts. Information on mortality within the Borough is also provided, as well as the population of different faith groups. Specific faith group requirements are considered further within Chapter 5.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) data projects the population until 2041, and therefore the data within this section extends beyond the plan period (2018 - 2036) to 2041. This will ensure all data is based on long term trends and will enable the Council to plan both within and beyond the plan period.
Population in Enfield
The total population in Enfield is projected to increase from just under 313,800 in 2011, to 378,898 by the end of the plan period (2036) and over 390,600 by 2041. The projected population is shown within figure 6 below.
Population and forecasted population in Enfield Borough 450000
400000
350000
300000
250000 Long term trend 200000 population
Population projections (2018- 150000 based) ONS New Local Plan 100000 period 2018 - 2036 50000
0
Year
Figure 6: Enfield population projections
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 48 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Mortality in the Borough
Mortality rate is forecasted by the ONS, and this can be applied to the population projections to establish the expected number of deaths. From this, the cumulative number of deaths within the Borough can be calculated, as shown within figure 2.
Cumulative number of deaths in Enfield Borough Council 60000
50000
40000
30000 Cumulative number of deaths 20000 New Local Plan
Period 2018 - 2036 Cumulative Cumulative numberdeaths of 10000
0
Year
Figure 7: Cumulative number of deaths within the Borough
For the purpose of this study, the cumulative number of deaths is considered from 2018 as this is the last recorded real data for the Borough (and the start date for the New Local Plan). From 2018 to 2036 the cumulative number of deaths is 42,459 and by 2041 this is 55,359.
Population of the Borough by faith groups
Table 2 sets out the population make-up by faith group in Enfield, based on the 2001 and 2011 Census data. Census data on religion was not collected prior to 2001 thus a limited amount of information is available.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 49 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 2: Makeup of the Borough by religion
% of population in the Difference in % % of population in Difference in % Religion Borough 2001 – 2011 England (2011) between England and 2001 2011 Enfield (2011) Christian 63.18% 53.58% -9.6% 59.38% 5.8% Buddhist 0.49% 0.58% 0.10% 0.45% -0.13% Hindu 3.35% 3.50% 0.15% 1.52% -1.98% Jewish 1.95% 1.41% -0.54% 0.49% -0.92% Muslim 9.62% 16.69% 7.07% 5.02% -11.67% Sikh 0.33% 0.34% 0.02% 0.79% 0.45% Other 0.62% 0.62% 0% 0.43% -0.19% religion No religion 12.35% 15.53% 3.18% 24.74% 9.21% Religion 8.12% 7.74% -0.37% 7.18% -0.57% not stated
The table above demonstrates that in both 2001 and 2011 Christians made up the largest religious group in Enfield, although the percentage decreased by almost 10% over the ten years. By 2011, the percentage of Christians within the Borough (53.58%), lower than the percentage in England (59.38%), with a difference of 5.8% between the Borough and national percentage.
In 2011, those identifying within the Muslim faith group comprised the second largest group in Enfield. There was an increase in the proportion of the population in this group from 9.62% in 2001 to 16.69% in 2011 (+7%). The increase in the Muslim faith group in Enfield was larger than that of the second largest group in 2001 – people who registered ‘no religion’ (12.35%). By 2011, this group had grown in proportion to 15.53% of the population (+3.18%).
Compared with the national average, the percentage of people who class themselves as having no religion in Enfield is lower, with a difference of 9.21% between England and Enfield.
Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs faith groups saw a slight increase in population percentage between 2001 and 2011. There was a small decline in the percentage of Jewish faith population and the percentage of people who did not state a religion. The percentage of people who categorised themselves as other religion stayed the same.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 50 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Forecasting percentage of religious minorities
Census projections are not undertaken for religion so there is no nationally available data on the expected number of people of different religions in the future.
This study has assessed a number of data sets which provide a percentage of different population groups over a series of years. The data sets analysed were:
• 2001 to 2011 Census Data (for both Enfield and England)
• ONS Annual Population Survey 2004 – 2018 (for both Enfield and Greater London) (source from 2019)
• Pew Research Group1.
The most recent ONS data available (2004–2018) for Enfield is variable on an annual basis making it difficult to establish clear trends for some religions. However, given that it provides specific data for Enfield, this data set is the most reliable for forecasting the future percentage changes of different religious groups in Enfield. This has been done by calculating the historic change in population of different religious groups from the ONS 2004-2018 data (for Enfield) and then forecasting how the population (or percentage) of different religious groups is going to change between now and 2041 by calculating the percentage increase/ decrease per year.
Table 3 below illustrates the population percentage changes from the ONS 2004-2018 data for Enfield, as well as the Census data for England and London, and the Pew Research Group. The Census data for London/England, and the Pew Research Group has been included in the table to identify what is going on outside Enfield as this will help to identify any trends and variances further afield, thus providing a comparison between the Borough, London, and England.
Given that the ONS 2004-2018 data set for certain religions in the Borough are incomplete, the forecast has a high element of risk associated with it. Enzygo recommends that there is a review of data every 5 years to check that populations of religious groups have changed in the way forecasted.
1 http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 51 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 3: Projected change in religious minority groups Religion Results Buddhist Census Data 2001 - 2011: Within Enfield Borough Council there has been an increase in the percentage of Buddhists between 2001 and 2011, from 0.49% to 0.58% (0.009% increase per year). The increase is also seen in England (0.28% in 2001 to 0.45% in 2011, representing an increase in percentage of 0.017% per year).
ONS Data 2004 - 2018: The ONS data on population by religion within Enfield between 2004 to 2018 for Buddhists was very limited, with only 3 years’ worth of data available. The data suggests an increase in 0.1% per year, from 1% in 2009 to 1.6% in 2015. Due to the limited data available, the average % was taken from the three-year recordings (2009, 2011 and 2015), which resulted in 1.3% of Enfield’s population being Buddhist in 2018.
The ONS data also provides population by religion for greater London but this too is very limited. Nonetheless, the average percentage of the population that are Buddhist across the whole of London increased slightly from 1.6% in 2004 to 1.9% in 2018 (an increase in 0.02% per year). The 2018 percentage figure for the whole of London (1.7%) is higher than the average percentage of the population in Enfield between 2004 – 2018 (1.3%).
Pew Research Centre: Research undertaken by the Pew Research Centre indicated that within the UK, the growth in percentage of Buddhists is expected to be 0.0125% per year. This figure lies between that seen in Enfield and England, over the period between 2001 and 2011.
Study Assumption: Using the ONS 2004 – 2018 religious percentage of the population for Enfield, this study has calculated the average % of Buddhists across the 3 years of data (1.3%) and an assumption has been made that this will remain the same for the period up to the end of the New Local plan. Given the percentage increase of Buddhists in England and London, this may increase in the future and a review of the religious population forecast is recommended. Hindu Census Data 2001 – 2011: Within Enfield there has been a slight increase in the percentage of Hindus between 2001 and 2011, from 3.35% to 3.5% of the population (0.015% increase per year). In 2011, the percentage of Hindus was higher in Enfield than the percentage of Hindus in England (3.50% compared to 1.52%). Across England there was a slight increase in the percentage of Hindus from 1.11% (2001) to 1.52%, an increase of 0.41% over 10 years (0.041% increase per year). The growth in Hindus in Enfield is consistent with the growth in England (0.015% per year and 0.041% per year, respectively).
ONS Data 2004 - 2018: Within Enfield there has been a general decline in the percentage of the population that are Hindu as between 2004 to 2018 there was a decrease from 5.9% to 4% (- 0.136% per year). However, the trend is not particularly clear with a large amount of variation. Given the variation, the average % of population from 2004 to 2018 was taken which equates to 4.1% of the population being Hindus. The study assumes that this will remain constant, which is a conservative approach given the data shows a decline. Analysis of the percentage of the London population that are Hindu from the ONS 2004-2018 suggests that there has been, on average, an increase in Hindus from 5.4% in 2004, to 6.2% in 2018 (an increase in 0.06% per year). Pew Research Centre:
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 52 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The research undertaken by Pew Research Centre indicates that the UK will see an increase in percentage of Hindus of 0.015% per year (an increase from 1.4% of the population to 2% of the population between 2010 and 2050). This figure is equal to the yearly percentage increase of Hindus in Enfield from 2001 to 2011 Census Data. However, it is lower than that seen within England from 2001 to 2011, which had a yearly increase of 0.041% per year. This suggests that in England, the percentage of Hindus will grow between 2010 - 2050, but at a slower rate than that seen between 2001 and 2011.
Study Assumption: This cemetery study takes the average percentage of the population of Hindus in Enfield according to the ONS 2004 to 2018 data (4.1%). An assumption has been made that this will remain the same during the period up to the Local Plan period. This is a conservative approach considering the ONS data for Enfield actually shows a decline. Jewish Census data 2011 - 2011: Within Enfield there has been a decline in the percentage of Jewish population from 1.95% in 2001 to 1.41% in 2011 (-0.054% per year). This is broadly consistent with the decline in England, from 0.52% in 2001 to 0.49% in 2011 (-0.003% per year).
ONS Data 2004 - 2018: Within Enfield there has been a very slight decline in the percentage of the population that is Jewish, however, there is a large variability, with the years 2007 and 2008 possibly distorting the results. Furthermore, several years have missing data. Taking the data for the available years, there was a slight increase in the percentage of Jewish people, from 1.4% in 2004 to 1.7% in 2016 (0.025% per year). Given the limited data and variation in results, the average percentage of the population was taken (1.8% of Enfield’s population being Jewish between 2004 and 2018).
The ONS data also provides population by religion for greater London however, like the data for Enfield, the data is incomplete. The average percentage of the population that are Jewish across London increased from 4.6% in 2004 to 5.2% in 2018 (increase in 0.04% per year).
Despite the population of Enfield having a low percentage of Jewish people, the neighbouring Borough Barnet has a high percentage of Jewish people, increasing from 16.9% in 2004 to 19.2% in 2018 (an average of 16.5%). Furthermore, the Board of Deputies of British Jews 2 states that there are 54,084 Jews living in the London Borough of Barnet accounting for one in 5 (20.5%) of all Jews in England and Wales.
Pew Research Centre: Research by the Pew Research Centre indicates that within the UK, the percentage of the population that is Jewish is anticipated to decrease by 0.005% per year (from 0.5% in 2010 to 0.3% in 2050).
Study Assumption: This study uses the average population percentage of Jews from the 2004 – 2018 ONS data and assumes that this will remain constant (1.8%). This is conservative approach given that the actual ONS data for Enfield suggests a decrease in Jewish people. Muslim Census Data 2001- 2011: There is a larger percentage of Muslim people resident in Enfield compared with the rest of England. Overall there has been a general increase in the percentage of Muslims in Enfield from 9.62% in 2001 to 16.69% in 2011, an overall increase in 7.07% (0.707% per year). In England, there was an increase from 3.10% in 2001 to 5.02% in 2011 (0.192% per year).
2 https://www.bod.org.uk/jewish-facts-info/jews-in-numbers/
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 53 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
ONS Data 2004 – 2018: Overall, there has been an increase in the percentage of the Muslim population in Enfield from 7.5% in 2004, to 14.7% in 2018. However, the data is variable with a large increase between 2004 to 2007, followed by a few peaks and troughs. Using this data, a linear trendline was applied and then extrapolated (this doesn’t show a true reflection of the population, but it does show an overall increase in the percentage of population (0.28% per year)).
Analysis of the Muslim population of across the whole of London indicates that there has generally been an increase from 10.6% of the population in 2004, to 13.7% in 2018 (an average increase in 0.22% per year).
It is worth noting that the adjacent Borough, Waltham Forest, has a higher average proportion of Muslim residents, with an average of 21.3% between 2004 to 2018.
Pew Research Centre: The Pew Forum identified an increase in Muslim population in the UK of 0.18% per year (from 4.6% in 2010 to 8.2% in 2030). This is slightly lower than that seen within the ONS data between 2004 to 2018 (in Enfield and London).
Study Assumption: This study has made an assumption of the population projection by applying a linear trend and extrapolating the results from the ONS 2004 – 2018 data for Enfield. Although this doesn’t show a true reflection of the results, it does show an overall increase in the percentage of the population, which is consistent with the other data sets. Sikh Census data 2001 – 2011: The percentage of the population in Enfield who are of the Sikh Religion increased slightly between 2001 to 2011, from 3.3% to 3.4% respectively (an increase in 0.01% per year). This is similar to the overall percentage of Sikhs in England, which increased from 0.67% to 0.79% (an increase in 0.012%).
ONS Data 2004 – 2018: There is no available data for the population percentage of Sikhs in Enfield between 2004 to 2018. The data for the overall percentage of Sikhs in London is erratic, with the majority of Boroughs having no available information. The available data suggests a decrease from 2004 to 2018, from 4.2% to 4.1% (-0.007%). The average percentage of Sikhs within the London Population between 2004 to 2018 is 4.3%.
Pew Research Centre: The Pew Research Centre have no available data for the percentage of Sikhs in England.
Assumed for study: An assumption has been made that the population percentage of Sikhs in Enfield is 4.3% and that this will remain the same for the duration of the plan period. This is based on the average population percentage of Sikhs across London according to the ONS 2004 – 2018 data.
The information detailed within table 3 is summarised below in table 4. This shows, in the final column, the assumed change in percentage for each religious minority within the Borough and the justification is provided within table 3.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 54 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 4: Summary of projections Religion Enfield England ONS 2004 – ONS Pew Assumed for Census Census 2018 Enfield 2004 – Research study data Data 2018 Group 2001- 2001- London 2011 2011 Buddhist 0.009% 0.017% 0.1% 0.02% 0.0125% 1.3% constant Hindu 0.015% 0.041% -0.36% 0.06% 0.015% 4.1% constant Jewish -0.054% -0.03% 0.025% 0.04% -0.005% 1.8% constant Muslim 0.707% 0.192% 0.28% 0.22% 0.18% 0.28% increase Sikh 0.01% 0.012% N/A -0.007% N/A 4.3% constant
Deaths per religion
Based on table 4, the forecasted number of deaths per year for each religion can be calculated on an annual basis, and the cumulative number calculated. These are detailed within table 5 below.
Table 5: Forecasted deaths per religion Religion Cumulative number of deaths Mid Cumulative number of deaths Mid 2018 2018 - 2036 – 2041 Buddhist 552 720 Hindu 1,741 2,270 Jewish 764 996
Muslim 9,748 13,481 Sikh 1,826 2,380 Christian 14,433 16,329
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 55 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
7.0 Need for Future Burial land Provision
Introduction
This chapter establishes the need for burial land and space for cremation ashes within the Borough, based on the forecasted number of deaths calculated in chapter 4.
To calculate demand for interment, the forecasted death rate calculated in Chapter 4 will be analysed and considered in the context of the population of the Borough.
The analysis part of this chapter is split into three scenarios:
• Scenario One: illustrates Enfield’s cumulative number of deaths between 2018 -2041 and the UK national average of those that chose to be cremated as opposed to buried is applied.
• Scenario 2: Analyses the religious breakdown of Enfield’s population and applies the individual religious preferences to each denomination. Specifically, the demographics of faith groups in Enfield are considered, as different group have different requirements following death. Therefore, a change in the faith make-up of the Borough can have effects on burial/cremation space requirements.
• Scenario 3: The percentage breakdown of Enfield’s burial and cremation rate (39% to 61% respectively) is applied to all non-religious and religions that are more flexible when choosing their interment options (i.e. Christians).
Burial and Cremation Requirements
Within England and Wales, the cremation rate has increased steadily since 1945, from 7.8% of the number of deaths being cremated, to 79.04% in 2015, 79.54% in 2016 and 79.86% in 2017 according to cremation.org.uk3.
Over the plan period and beyond, several factors may result in the cremation rate increasing or decreasing significantly. These include:
• Increased cost of burials may result in more people being cremated;
• The rapidly diminishing land available for burials may result in more people being cremated;
• Under the City of London (Various Powers) Act 1969 and the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1976, burial authorities are already able, if conditions are met,
3 https://www.cremation.org.uk/progress-of-cremation-united-kingdom#provisional
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 56 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
to carry out burials in existing graves without disturbing human remains. This results in more burials in London, compared with the rest of England and Wales;
• Increased awareness of environmental issues associated with cremations may result in more people being buried;
• The growing popularity of natural burials may result in more people being buried.
Overall, it is assumed that there will not be a significant increase or decrease in the percentage of the population being cremated, and thus a rate of 75% of the population being cremated will be used in this study, except for faith groups with specific requirements (excluding scenario 3). This is regarded as conservative in approach in order to ensure sufficient provision over the plan period and beyond. In practice, significant new provision is likely to over-provide on forecast needs through the nature of the resource provided.
Scenario 1
This first section will analyse the overall cumulative number of dead within Enfield, between July 2018 and December 2041, based on the projected deaths from Chapter 4, without analysing the different religious percentages within the Borough. This will illustrate a larger percentage of cremations within the Borough. This is considered a high-risk strategy given that Enfield has a large population of those who chose to be buried.
Table 6 illustrates Enfield’s overall cumulative number of dead with the UK average of a 75% buried and 25% cremated.
Table 6: Enfield cumulative number of deaths and breakdown of burials and cremations, based on the UK average Total (based on Chapter 4 25% to be buried % to be cremated projections All Religion and 59,806 14,952 44,855 Non- denominations
As aforementioned, given Enfield’s high population religious denominations that prefer burials (i.e. Muslims), this approach is not appropriate for the New Local Plan. A more nuanced approach must therefore be adopted to reflect Enfield’s population.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 57 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Scenario 2
To understand capacity requirements in Enfield, it is important to understand specific faith group requirements. Table 7 below sets out the standard methods of disposing of the dead for the main faith groups.
Table 7: Specific religious requirements Religion Method: Notes: Buddhism Burial or cremation depending on local tradition Christianity Burial or cremation Christian Orthodox forbids cremation. Hinduism Cremation as soon as Usually cremated ashes are placed in water. possible, except for However, this isn’t always the case. children under three who are buried. Islam Burial as soon as possible (certainly within three days) Judaism Burial. Some non- Burial as soon as possible, service to take place in orthodox Jewish designated Jewish burial grounds. communities permit cremation Sikh Cremation as soon as possible.
There is very limited information regarding the average percentage of burials/ cremations for each religion. National figures will be used to estimate the percentage of each religion that will be buried/cremated (75% cremation and 25% burials), combined with the specific requirements for certain religions.
Table 8 below shows the percentage of each religion that is assumed to be buried. Based on Table 7, it is assumed that no Hindus or Sikhs will be buried, and all Jewish and Muslim residents will be buried. For all others, it is assumed that 25% of people will be buried, in line within the UK’s national average.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 58 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 8: Percentage breakdown of each religion to be buried and cremated. Religion % to be buried % to be cremated
Christian 25% 75% Buddhist 25% 75% Hindu 0% 100% Jewish 100% 0% Muslim 100% 0% Sikh 0% 100% Other religion 25% 75% No religion 25% 75% Religion not stated 25% 75%
It is estimated nationally that approximately 30% of cremation ashes are interred within cemeteries / graveyards. This assumption will be used in this study.
For the purpose of this study, the number of burial spaces and number of spaces for cremation ashes has been calculated for the following years:
• Within the plan period:
o July 2018 – December 2024 (6.5 years)
o January 2025 – December 2029 (5 years)
o January 2030 – December 2036 (6 years)
• Beyond the plan period:
o January 2037 – December 2041 (4 years)
For burials, this relates to the number of bodies, rather than the number of plots required, which will be considered later. For the cremation of ashes, the ‘cremation’ row relates to the number of bodies, and the ‘cremation plots’ is 30% of this figure, based on the assumption that 30% of cremated remains are interred.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 59 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 9: Scenario 2 - Summary of burial and cremation requirements within and beyond the plan period. Religion: Burial/ July 2018 – January 2025 January Cumulative January Cumulative Cremation: December – December 2030 – July 2018 – 2037 – July 2018 – 2024 2029 December December December December 2036 2036 2041 2041 Buddhists Burial 48 36 54 138 42 180 Cremations 86 65 94 248 75 324 Crem plots 58 43 67 166 50 216 Hindus Cremations 424 319 476 1219 370 1,589 Crem plots 182 137 204 522 159 681 Jewish Burial 266 200 299 764 232 996 Sikh Cremations 444 334 500 1278 388 1,666 Crem plots 190 143 214 548 166 714 Muslim Burial 2,706 2,271 3,675 8,652 3,071 11,723 Christian Burial 1,650 947 1,011 3,608 474 4,082 Cremations 2,970 1,705 1,821 6,495 853 7,348 Crem Plots. 1,980 1,136 1,214 4,330 569 4,899 All others Burial 1,199 1,153 2,090 4,442 1,905 6,347 (other Cremations 2,158 2,076 3,761 7,995 3,429 11,424 and no Crem. plots religion) 1,439 1,384 2,507 5,330 2,286 7,616
Total Burial 5,869 4,607 7,129 17,605 5,724 23,328 Cremations 6,082 4,499 6,652 17,233 5,115 22,351 Crem. Plots 3,849 2,843 4,206 10,896 3,230 14,126 *All numbers are rounded upwards during final calculation.
Table 9 demonstrates that overall, out of the cumulative number of deaths from July 2018 to December 2041 (59,806), 39% of the number of dead are predicted to be buried, whilst 61% of the number of dead are expected to be cremated. This contrasts significantly with the national average of the number of people to be buried and cremated (25% and 75% respectively) and reflects the high proportion of religious denominations within the Borough that choose to be buried as opposed to cremated, most notably Muslims as illustrated in chapter 6.
Table 10 shows the striking difference between analysing Enfield’s total number of deaths between 2018 – 2041 using the blanket 75% to 25% split: and the more nuanced approach to assessing the overall deaths of each religion and factoring in the religious preferences into the analysis.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 60 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 10: Scenario 1 compared with scenario 2 Total (based on % to be buried % to be cremated (of Chapter 4 projections which 30% are interred) All Religion and Non- denominations 59,806 (table 6). 14,952 44,855
(25% to be buried) (75% to be cremated) Break down of Enfield’s religious population and 59,806 23,328 36,477 analysis using religious preferences (table 9). (39% to be buried) (61% to be cremated)
In order to reflect Enfield’s high percentage of religious denominations that chose to be buried, scenario 2 is most accurate of the Borough’s population and their burial needs - which has a higher percentage of burials compared to the UK national average.
Scenario 3
As stated above, Enfield has a high percentage of people who choose to be buried, as opposed to cremated. In order to reflect this, this section will deviate from the national average of a 75% cremation, 25% burial. This has been done to ensure the Borough (and the New Local Plan) offers the space required for the growing percentage of those that chose to be buried, therefore undertaking a conservative approach.
Table 11 below shows the percentage of each religion that is assumed to be buried, based on the increased demand for burials within the Borough. Based on table 9 and the cumulative figure between 2018 to 2041, it is assumed that 39% of all non-specific religions and non- religious people chose to be buried, whilst 61% of those chose to be cremated.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 61 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 11: Conservative approach, representing the high percentage of burials within the Borough. Religion % to be buried % to be cremated
Christian 39% 61% Buddhist 39% 61% Hindu 0% 100% Jewish 100% 0% Muslim 100% 0% Sikh 0% 100% Other religion 39% 61% No religion 39% 61% Religion not stated 39% 61%
Like Section 7.3, the same assumptions have been applied in that 30% of cremation ashes are interred within cemeteries and graveyards. The structure of the table below is in the same format as table 8.
Table 12: Scenario 3 - Summary of burial and cremation requirements within and beyond the plan period. Religion: Burial/ July 2018 – January 2025 January Cumulative January Cumulative Cremation: December – December 2030 – July 2018 – 2037 – July 2018 – 2024 2029 December December December December 2036 2036 2041 2041 Buddhists Burial 75 56 84 215 65 281 Cremations 59 45 67 171 52 223 Crem plots 58 43 65 166 50 216 Hindus Cremations 424 319 476 1219 370 1,589 Crem plots 182 137 204 522 159 681 Jewish Burial 266 200 299 764 232 996 Sikh Cremations 444 334 500 1278 388 1,666 Crem plots 190 143 214 548 166 714 Muslim Burial 2,706 2,271 3,675 8,652 3,071 11,723 Christian Burial 2574 1,477 1,578 5,629 739 6,368 Cremations 2,046 1,174 1,254 4,474 588 5,062 Crem Plots. 1,980 1,136 1,214 4,330 569 4,899 All others Burial 1,345 1,799 3,260 6,929 2,972 9,901 (other Cremations 2,013 1,430 2,591 5,508 2,362 7,870 and no Crem. plots religion) 1,439 1,384 2,507 5,330 2,286 7,616
Total Burial 6,965 5,803 8,895 22,190 7,080 29,270 Cremations 4,986 3,302 4,888 12,650 3,760 16,410 Crem. Plots 3,848 2,843 4,204 10,896 3,230 14,126
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 62 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 13 illustrates Enfield’s total number of deaths between 2018 – 2041 and the different breakdown in percentage of those that choose to be buried compared to cremated, using the three different scenarios:
• Scenario 1: UK National Average - 75% Cremation and 25% burial
• Scenario 2: Religious breakdown of Enfield’s population – 61% Cremation and 39% burial
• Scenario 3: The percentage breakdown of Enfield’s burial and cremation rate (39% to 61% respectively) and applied to all non-religious and religions that are more flexible when choosing their interment options (i.e. Christians) – 51% cremated and 49% burial
Table 13: Comparison of all three scenarios Total (based on Chapter % to be buried % to be cremated (of 4 projections which 30% are interred) All Religion and Non- 59,806 denominations 14,952 44,855 (table 6). (25% to be buried) (75% to be cremated) Break down of Enfield’s religious population and 59,806 23,328 36,477 analysis using religious preferences (table (39% to be buried) (61% to be cremated) 9). Break down of Enfield’s religious population and analysis using 59,806 29,270 30,536 religious preferences (table (49% to be buried) (51% to be cremated) 10).
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 63 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The above table illustrates the three scenarios:
• Scenario 1: Takes the Cumulative number of deaths between 2018 – 2041 and applies the UK national average of 75% cremation to 25% burial. This understates the preference of burials within the Borough and is considered a high-risk strategy which does not reflect the needs of the Borough.
• Scenario 2: Analyses the religious breakdown of Enfield’s population and considers each religious preferences independently. The results indicate the Borough has a 61% cremation rate and 39% burial rate. This reflects the needs of the Borough, offers a conservative approach for the potential need for space and should therefore be the basis of this study going forward.
• Scenario 3: Applies a 61% cremation rate and 39% burial rate to all of the religions and non-religious groups. This equates to the cumulative number of deaths between 2018 – 2041 being broken down as 49% burial rate compared to 51% cremation rate. This overstates the preference for burials and should not be considered further as it does not reflect Enfield’s needs.
Significant events Which Increase Mortality
There is potential for unforeseen events to increase mortality in any given year, as has been experienced since 2000 in relation to extreme heat or cold, poor air quality and virus outbreaks. These are difficult to capture and model. An attempt is made here to establish the level of mortality in years where particular events took place.
Excess Deaths Framework for London
The London Resilience Partnership Excess Deaths Framework (2014) states that “it is highly likely that significant events will occur which will be detrimental to the health of large numbers of people and may result in excess deaths locally, regionally and nationally”. An example of a significant event is the current Corona Virus (Covid-19). This was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the WHO and has immediate and long-term impacts across all areas of society, including spatial planning. At the forefront of significant events and the implications these have in terms of planning, is the effect it has on burial needs within a Borough or District. The remaining section of this chapter will discuss this in further detail by analysing The London Resilience Partnership Excess Deaths Framework (2014) and its key findings in relation to planning.
The London Resilience Partnership Excess Deaths Framework (2014) has been formulated to take into account any significant event that would or could cause an excess of deaths that would or could overwhelm the resources and capabilities on three levels of the management
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 64 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
of deaths process. The majority of the planning assumptions detailed in the framework are focused on pandemic influenza as it was the highest risk on the London Risk Register at the time the report was issued. The most reasonable worst-case scenario was assessed across local, regional and national level within the report.
The planning assumptions chapter states that the influenza pandemic has only been utilised to put some indication of the possible numbers to be encounters, as part of the death management process. Deaths from pandemic influenza do not occur uniformly over time, but over a 15-week period, with a distinct peak between weeks 6 and 8, and it is this period that will most likely put pressure on body shortage according to the Framework.
The “National Framework for Responding to an Influenza Pandemic” projects a range of clinical attack and case fatality rates. The table below shows the percentage of the population who may fall ill (clinical attack rate); and, of those, the percentage who may subsequently die (case fatality rate).
Figure 8: Range of possible excess deaths national, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave. (Source: London Excess Deaths Framework (2014).
The Regional Planning assumptions highlight the need to ensure that when local resources and capacities have been exhausted then Regional ability in the area of mutual aid can be introduced and worked through.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 65 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 9: Range of possible excess deaths Regional, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave. (Source: London Excess Deaths Framework, 2014)
The Borough planning assumption introduces the ability of a Borough to implement their existing arrangements especially in relation to locally produced Business Continuity plans and procedures.
Figure 10: Range of possible excess deaths within a borough, based on various permutations of case fatality and clinical attack rates in a single wave, calculated for a borough population of 200,000 (London Excess Deaths Framework, 2014)
As reported in the Framework (2014) it is not possible to say with any certainty the impact that a significant event would have, as it would not necessarily fall within a wave or phase period as was used during the planning for the pandemic. Deaths are likely to be greatest if the highest attack rates are in elderly people, and this is certainly the case for the COVID 19. Consequently, the second part of this section analysis the age cohorts of Enfield Borough in an attempt to analyse the additional mortality rate from Covid 19. This impact will be considered in the overall findings regarding the Borough’s burial needs requirements.
Continuing the analysis of the Framework report, the document has made planning assumptions which include:
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 66 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Deaths which would have occurred normally, regardless of the cause of excess deaths (e.g. pandemic influenza), have been included in the modelling to give a realistic indication of the expected total deaths. This is identified because of the level of risk incorporated within the National Risk Register
• The transient population has not been included in the modelling and boroughs will need to take this into account in borough level planning. • An assumption that bodies will not be repatriated or exhumed during an excess death’s incident has been applied. • A national assumption that typically 75% of people prefer to be cremated and 25% buried has been applied (ICCM), but each borough will need to determine specific burial and cremation ratios, as these will differ dependent on the specific religious and ethnic make-up of the localised population. For modelling purposes, burial sites which serve specific religious communities exclusively have not been included in cemetery capacity figures. • Family graves (where one or more members of the same family are buried in a predetermined plot) have been excluded from the burial capacity figures as it is impossible to determine whether the person intended for the plot will die during the significant event. • Due to the possibility of deployment elsewhere, no reliance on the Ministry of Defence for assistance in the death management process has been applied. • The capabilities of National Emergency Mortuary Arrangements (NEMA) have not been considered in excess deaths planning. • Assumptions for staff absenteeism have not been modelled for, because this is best planned for at a local level and this framework is designed to be flexible enough to cope with reduced staffing rates. • The consideration that a whole family unit could be affected by the significant event would test the whole death management process, especially in relation to communication, intervention and disposal as well as certification, registration and the burial and cremation elements.
The Framework goes further and explains the London capacity assessments at the different stages of the excess deaths process. The London capacity has been modelled over a period of a week. The Framework (2014) states, “the total number of estimated deaths, of the most reasonable worst-case scenario, over a period of an excess deaths incident is 39,600 (applying the 1.5% Case Fatality Rate against the 35% Clinical Attack Rate)”.
In terms of the impact of the figures above, in relation to the burial and cremation capacity for London, there are a number of factors including burial space and service level of chapels and cremators and therefore, it is difficult to establish a figure. The Framework has however, defined the average figures for the normal death rate and the pandemic influenza (as the most likely cause of a significant event and has been modelled at local, regional and national levels)
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 67 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
death rate, over a period of a week. From this, the difference in capacity has been established for London. The Framework highlights that there are around 4000 existing cemeteries in London and 53 cremator machines.
The table below is a summary of the difference in the normal, regional, death rate and the additional number of deaths, based on pandemic influenza modelling, and is designed to give a picture of the expected impact. The figures are based on a 25% burial rate and 75% cremation rate. The case fatality rate is 1.5% and a clinical attack rate is 35% the mist reasonable worst- case scenario.
Figure 11: Table showing excess deaths caused by Influenza pandemic within London.
This chapter breaks down the requirements for burial and cremation ash space within the Borough, based on the forecasted mortality rate. The mortality rate of different faith groups is also set out, and this considers the expected growth in specific faith groups and their preferred method of disposing of bodies. Finally, significant mortality events were considered in depth. This included an analysis of the London Framework for dealing with major events such as influenza.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 68 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
8.0 Summary of Supply and Demand
Introduction
Within this chapter the supply of burial and cremation sites and the requirement for future burial and cremation sites is summarised, to obtain a clear understanding of the existing and future requirements at a local scale.
Burial Capacity and Requirement
The table below sets out the requirement for burial space and remaining burial space within the Borough. The final column sets out the surplus or deficit or burial spaces within and beyond the plan period.
The surplus/ deficit column compares number of plots, with the number of deaths. At this point it doesn’t consider that 25% of plots could be double for certain groups. This will be addressed later within this study.
Table 14: Surplus or deficit of burial spaces within the Borough within and beyond the plan period
Burial Spaces
Religion Existing Required Capacity Surplus / Deficit Capacity (number of deaths) (number of Mid Mid plots) 2018 - 2018 –
2036 2041 Christian / No 6,830* 8050 10,429 -1,220 (by 2036) Religion / Other Religion / Multi -3,599 (by 2041) Faith
Buddhist 0 138 180 -138 (by 2036)
-180 (by 2041) Hindu N/A N/A N/A N/A Jewish Unknown 764 996 Unknown** Muslim 350* 8,652 11,723 -8,302 (by 2036)
-11,373 (by 2041)
Sikh N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 7,180 16,840 22,332 -9,660 (by 2036)**
-15,152 (by 2041)**
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 69 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
* Based on existing capacity figures from table 1 of this report.
**These figures exclude the Jewish capacity and required capacity (number of deaths) as the existing capacity for Jewish people is unknown and the surplus of Jewish capacity is unlikely to be used by other faith groups/non faith groups.
*** Trent Park Cemetery and Enfield Crematorium figures unknown.
From the existing burial capacity figures that Enzygo obtained, table 14 demonstrates that, based on each plot being occupied by one body, there is a need for 9,660 burial plots by 2036, and 15,152 burial plots by 2041.
The largest deficit of burial plots within the Borough is within the Muslim population, with a deficit of -8,302 by 2036 and -11,373 (by 2041). This is based on the fact that there are only 350 designated Muslim burial plots according to Enfield Bereavement Services. It can therefore be stated that greater provision is therefore needed for Muslim burial plots.
Based on available guidance4, typical municipal cemeteries have a grave density of 1976 plots per hectare. Based on the above figures, this would result in a need for 4.8 hectares of additional land by 2036, and 7.7 hectares of additional land by 2041.
Table 15 below sets out the same information as table 14, but for the interment of ashes. However, figures were not obtained for Trent Park Cemetery or Enfield Crematorium therefore, an assumption can’t be made for the potential surplus/ deficit. Based on the forecasted deaths, 10,896 crematorium plots are need up to 2036, and 14,126 plots are needed by 2041.
4 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/cemeteries-and-burials-groundwater-risk-assessments
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 70 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 15: Surplus or deficit of cremation spaces within the Borough within and beyond the plan period Cremation Spaces
Religion Existing Required Capacity Surplus / Deficit Capacity (number of deaths) Mid Mid 2018 – 2018 - 2036 2041 Christian / No N/A 9,660 12,515 N/A Religion / Other Religion / Multi N/A Faith Buddhist N/A 166 216 N/A N/A Hindu N/A 522 681 N/A Jewish N/A 0 0 0 Muslim N/A 0 0 0
Sikh N/A 548 714 N/A Total Insufficient 10,896 14,126 10,896 (by 2036) data** 14,126 (by 2041)
*Trent Park Cemetery results are unknown.
** No data supplied by Enfield Crematorium
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 71 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
9.0 Consultation
Introduction
Within this Chapter details of the consultation that has taken place throughout this study are detailed. Due to the COVID-19 global pandemic, the consultation event with local stakeholder could not take place as planned. The consultation event was intended to provide an opportunity to show the results and methodology so far and to allow local stakeholders the opportunity to make any questions and comments on the findings. Instead, stakeholders were asked a series of questions over the telephone and a presentation was prepared by Enzygo, illustrating the results of the study so far. This was emailed to relevant stakeholders and the surrounding Councils, thus ensuring joint working on cross-boundary issues via Duty-to- cooperate. The feedback from the presentation is detailed in section 9.5.
Obtaining Information
In order to inform this study, representatives from each burial site were contacted (e.g. Vicar, Church Warden, the Local Planning Authority) to obtain information regarding the current number of burial spaces and spaces for cremation ashes. In many cases more than one person was contacted for each burial site to obtain the necessary information.
Within the email/ phone call it was explained that Enzygo Ltd were undertaking a review of burial / cremation ash space within the Borough in order to establish how much future space would be required.
Although this was not part of the formal consultation process, it did ensure interested parties were aware of the study, and they had the opportunity to ask further questions raise concerns / issues.
At this point a number of comments were raised:
• A Parish Administrator stated that St. James Churchyard only inters ashes in very limited cases of families who own one of the existing gravestones, and if the interment of ashes is possible given the ages of some stones. In 3 years, there had only been two such cases. The study can therefore deduct St James Churchyard as a solution to meet the required capacity.
A meeting was also held at Edmonton Cemetery with the Bereavement Services Manager at Enfield Borough Council, and the Commercial Development Manager. A number of key points were raised during this:
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 72 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• People described as being within the Afro-Caribbean community have specific burial needs and it would be helpful if the report identifies this, in view of the presence of the Afro-Caribbean population in the Borough.
• The Jewish communities tend to fund their own cemeteries, creating a lower requirement for Jewish funerals and interment organised by the local authority. Data collection on capacity within Jewish Cemeteries undertaken directly.
• In thinking about new or extended sites, a preference was expressed for multi-faith provision within sites. This means that each site should offer multi-use facilities, as well as multi-faith burials to create a complete burial service at each site.
• Practical constraints on capacity exist at particular sites. For example, at Lavender Hill the water table can impact on burial practice. In winter, graves are sometimes dug in a pattern of ‘dig then miss a plot, then dig’. The missed plot is dug during the summer months. This is done to ensure that the walls of the graves don’t collapse during the wet weather. This is important to note as any sites which look that they have the potential to intensify, may in fact already be counted for and can only be dug when the ground is more secure.
• It was mentioned that Hertford Road Cemetery has Council-owned land adjacent to the site, including land used for parks and allotments.
• Southgate Cemetery offers infant burials and there is scope for approximately a further 100 plots. Vaults are currently being installed at Southgate, due to demand.
• Any cemeteries within the Green Belt must preserve the openness of the area. Consequently, Strayfield Road Cemetery (an extension of Lavender Hill) has a planning condition stipulating that the graves are to be lawn graves only. Given the Borough’s high percentage of traditional style graves, vaults and mausoleums, Lawn graves are not as in demand as opposed to the styles listed above. If local residents do not favour lawn-style cemeteries, and yet our ability to develop new cemetery sites in the Green Belt relies on such unobtrusive development, then this may present challenges for new cemetery design and/or for the desirability of placing them in the Green Belt.
• In terms of a comparison of the space requirements for cremation ashes and for traditional graves, 6 lots of ashes can be buried in one traditional grave.
• Any new Cemeteries must be located in appropriate locations that are ideally situated next to public transport links.
During the site visit, contact was made with several stakeholders who were on site at the time of the survey. This provided an opportunity to discuss the report and gave the stakeholders present a chance to raise any concerns. The key points raised are mentioned below:
• At Hertford Road Cemetery, the small chapel has been bought by the Greek Orthodox Church and land to the west of the chapel comes with it. This area will be used for Greek Orthodox burials. Land opposite the Chapel may be developed for a community building.
• At Enfield Crematorium a discussion was held with the Crematorium manager who stated that there was opportunity to expand at Hoe Green Park to the south of the
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 73 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
site, and at derelict land opposite the entrance to the site to the west. On site intensification is already taking place which will offer a 5-year supply however, 2 years are needed to allow the land to settle before it can be used. This is because 3 ft of soil is needed on the site as there is a landfill below thus this is a practical consideration. Furthermore, ashes can’t be relocated to make space for more ash plots as other land on site is consecrated. In terms of re-using graves, some of the plots can be held by the owners for 175 years. 50-year leases can be extended for another 50 years. They then require a further 75 years after the lapse of the lease before they can be re-used.
• At Southgate Cemetery a discussion was held with a member of staff from Welters Organisation Worldwide, a company which designs and builds above and below ground interment systems. The employee stated that there is an increasing need for the development of vaults and mausoleums due to different requirements of communities within Enfield and beyond.
Adjoining Authorities
The following adjoining authorities were contacted regarding the study, and within the email the purpose of the study was explained. The authorities were invited to participate in consultation and raise any comments / questions they might have. The adjoining authorities were also sent the PowerPoint presentation which was going to be presented at the consultation event:
• Haringey
• Waltham
• Barnet
• Broxbourne
• Welwyn and Hatfield
• Essex CC
• Epping Forest
• Hertsmere
Formal Consultation
The formal consultation was planned to go ahead in March 2020 at Enfield Council Offices. However, due to the Corona Virus this did not take place. Instead of the event, semi-structured interviews over the phone were conducted with stakeholders including key members from religious groups and funeral directors within the Borough. This provided an opportunity for those selected to raise any concerns and issues with burials and cremations in Enfield.
The key stakeholders that responded included:
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 74 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Funeral Directors (including multi-faith and non-religious communities inside and outside the Borough) and Sikh and Hindu Funeral Director. • Known religious groups/places of worship including Our Lady of Mount Carmel & Saint George R.C. Church, Nanak Darbar North London, The Greek Cathedral Cemetery Enclosures Trust Fund, Vicars from the Anglican community, Gurdwara Sikh Sangat, Enfield Nagapooshani Ambaal Temple, Cherubim & Seraphim church of Zion and Abhayarama Meditation Centre (Enfield Buddhist Temple). • Other key stakeholders including members of the Muslim Community and Education Centre, Alpha Care Specialists for the Greek and Greek Cypriot Community and the North London Muslim Welfare Association. • Contacts at the Borough Council cemetery providers. • Contacts at adjoining Local Authorities Of those who requested the questionnaires to be emailed, it was asked if they could return the answers via email and pass the questionnaire on to any other relevant stakeholders, with the aim to reach as many parties as possible.
The following responses from Funeral Directors were raised below: (Appendix 1 and 2 shows the semi-structured questionnaires that were used for funeral directors and places of worship. The questions were mainly used to steer the conversation and the respondent was allowed to speak freely in order to obtain more qualitative information).
Funeral Director Responses
Q1. What geographical area does your company serve?
• Most of the funeral directors within the Borough that were interviewed stated that the company’s customers remain predominantly within the Borough, with one stating that 90% of interments are within Enfield and the additional 10% of the interments are based in Hertfordshire, Haringey and Barnet. This is because according to most Director’s it is not common to use cemeteries outside the Borough as families want the cemeteries to be accessible. One Director stated that company serves around 80% customers within Enfield and 20% outside. According to one multi-faith funeral Director, the geographical area that the company serves includes Potters Bar, Tottenham and Enfield.
• One funeral Director based outside of the Borough in Harlow stated that the company serves people from across all of the UK, with around 20% of the customers being from within Enfield Borough. This suggests that there are cross boundary flows.
• When interviewing the Sikh and Hindu funeral director they stated that the company provides a service for anywhere in north London and therefore appears to provide a wider geographical range than multi-faith and non-religious Directors.
Q2. Are customers from the Enfield Borough using cemeteries outside the Borough?
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 75 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Overall, the respondents stated that there is no need for interments to take place outside of the Borough, should the family / deceased do not wish to. This suggests that the current capacity accommodates the existing demand.
Q3. To which sections of the community do you provide funeral services?
• The multi-faith and non-religious funeral directors that were interviewed served a range of communities however, there were re-occurring patterns within the findings. A number of Directors stated that Enfield has a large population of Roman Catholics and therefore, there is a demand for Catholic funerals in the Borough. Roman Catholics require burials and Italian Roman Catholics require brick lined graves according to one Director. Several multi-faith Directors stated that they rarely provided a service to the Muslim or Jewish community as they require specific burial techniques. A number of Directors also stated that there was a need for earth vault graves due to the large proportion of Afro-Caribbean within Enfield and Tottenham. Enfield also has a large population of Cypriot Greek Orthodox and this was highlighted by the funeral Directors that were interviewed. Overall, there is a large number of minority ethnic funerals within the Borough.
Q4. From your experience, what type of funeral/burial space is in the most demand?
• The most common response from this question was that beside cremation being the most common funeral service, lawn graves are the most popular type of interment. Many Directors stated that there was a shortage of this type of grave within the Borough. The second most popular type of interment that was mentioned in the interviews was vaults, followed by Curb stones and headstones.
• The Sikh and Muslim funeral director highlighted that the Hindu and Sikh community are cremated and very rarely do they use burials. The director stated that there could be more cremation facilities within the Borough.
Q5. Are you experiencing demand for wider forms of cemetery? – for example woodland/natural burials.
• The majority of funeral directors said that they had seen a small increase in the requests for woodland burials and natural burials however, the nearest one within Enfield is Epping Forest, which deters the many people. One Director stated that if there were woodland and natural burials closer to the Borough then the demand in the Borough would increase.
Q6. How far do people tend to travel to use a particular burial site?
• All Directors stated that the key thing families considered when picking a cemetery was location. The majority of families want to be located within 10 miles, preferably 5, of the family’s homes. Furthermore, the site must also be accessible, with a good transport network close by. This is the reason why many people prefer Edmonton Cemetery than Lavender Hill and Strayfield Cemetery according to some Directors, with the latter being on the edge of the Borough and having poor transport connectivity.
Q7. What facilities/provision do you feel are in need - for example to provide for religious customs?
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 76 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• One concern which was raised during the interview was that families need more options as at the moment families can’t pick their graves themselves which is concerning for a lot of families. Another person mentioned the cost of vaults, which are approximately £11,500. Several Directors were concerned about the lack of burial space in the Borough in the future. A couple of respondents suggested the development of more chapels within cemeteries.
Places of Worship Respondents
Q1. Do you feel that there are enough burial provision/ash plots in the Borough for your specific religion?
• When interviewing the Abhayarama Meditation Centre (Enfield Buddhist Temple), the respondent stated that there is less availability in the cemeteries that Buddhists in Enfield use (Enfield Crematorium and Strayfield Road).
• When interviewing the Cherubim & Seraphim church of Zion (a Christian denomination from Nigeria), they stated that there is not enough space for the members of their religion after life. Be this space for cremation or traditional graves.
• When interviewing the Vicar of St Michaels in Enfield (Anglican), he stated that he worried about the future burial and ash capacity, especially with impacts of the Corona Virus. Similarly, another Vicar from St James Enfield stated that they were aware of potential shortage of space for burial plots in the Borough. When interviewing the respondent from Our Lady Mount Carmel (Catholic denomination), the respondent stated there was enough burial provision for around 10 years.
• The respondent from the Gurdwara Sikh Sangat (Sikh community) said that they felt there was no shortage of ash plots for Sikhs in the Borough. However, the Nanak Darbar North London (Sikh Community) stated that they have noticed an increased delay at New Southgate Crematorium, forcing members of the congregation to use alternative site like Golder Green in Highgate.
• The member of the Greek Cathedral Cemetery Enclosures Trust Fund stated that New Southgate Cemetery enclosure for Greek Orthodox was almost at capacity.
Q2. Do you get members of the congregation from outside Enfield, or is it largely within the Borough?
• The member of the Abhayarama Meditation Centre stated that most of the members are from within Enfield Borough.
• When interviewing the Enfield Nagapooshani Ambaal Temple (part of the Hindu community) most of our congregation is from within Enfield Borough but around 40% travel from elsewhere.
• The Anglican Vicar stated that the congregation reside within the Borough.
• Many members of the Gurdwara Sikh Sangat travel from outside Enfield Borough. The respondent from Gurdwara Sikh Sangat stated the congregation is split between 50/50 inside and outside the Borough.
• The member of the Greek Cathedral Cemetery Enclosures Trust Fund stated that the majority of the congregation is within the Borough.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 77 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Q3. From your experience, what type of funeral/burial space is in the most demand? – what challenges does this present?
• The member of the Abhayarama Meditation Centre confirmed that cremation is the most common form of funeral service in Buddhism.
• The Vicar from St Michaels Church stated that burial and cremation demand is a 50/50 demand. The Vicar was worried that ash plots at Strayfield Road were full and there would be no more capacity in the Borough. The Vicar from St James’ Enfield highlighted the main challenge is being able to provide congregation members a place in which their earthly remains might be interred that would be local. When interviewing the respondent from Our Lady Mount Carmel, they stated that burials must be on consecrated (sacred) land, which in itself creates further challenges.
Q4. Are you experiencing demand for wider forms of cemetery? – For example woodland / natural burials.
• The member of the Abhayarama Meditation Centre confirmed that Buddhists rely on cremation in areas preferred by the family.
• The Vicar from St James Enfield stated that increasingly people are opting for woodland/natural burials and would welcome this option within the Borough.
Q5. What facilities/provision do you feel are in need – for example to provide for religious customs?
• The member of the Abhayarama Meditation Centre (Buddhist Community) stated more space to allow for more available spaces for cremation would be widely welcomed.
• When interviewing the Enfield Nagapooshani Ambaal Temple (part of the Hindu community) they stated that many members of their congregation and friends have complained about crematorium delays. Traditionally, Hindus bury the dead within 1 or 2 days, in Enfield they have to wait 1 or 2 weeks, sometimes longer. More space for cremations would reduce this wait according to the respondent.
• When interviewing the Nanak Durbar respondent, it was stated that additional crematoriums to reduce delays and minimise travel outside of the Borough would be welcomed.
• The member of the Greek Cathedral Cemetery Enclosures Trust Fund stated that there is a need for burial space within their community and they are waiting the results of this study so they can tailor their needs by what is available.
Other Stakeholder Respondents
Q1. Do you feel that there are enough burial provision/ash plots in the Borough for your specific religion?
• When interviewing the member from the Alpha Care Specialists for the Greek and Greek Cypriot Community, it was stated that the care service prefer to use New
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 78 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Southgate Cemetery as there is a specific area for Greek burials but they sometimes use Edmonton as it is close. However, it is increasingly difficult to gain plots in the Greek part of the New Southgate Cemetery.
• When interviewing the respondent from the North London Muslim Welfare Association, he stated that most of the Muslim community have to travel as far as Romford, Essex (Garden of Peace Cemetery) to be buried in the preferred timescale. They sometimes use Walthamstow Cemetery, but it is almost full. They used to use Montague Road Cemetery however this is already full.
• When interviewing a member from the Christian community, one respondent stated that there is not enough burial space in Enfield, particularly at Enfield Cemetery and Edmonton (even with the extension).
Q2. Do you get members of the congregation from outside Enfield, or is it largely within the Borough?
• 98% of the Greek Orthodox request to be buried within New Southgate Cemetery.
• The respondent from North London Muslim Welfare Association stated that all of the members are within the Borough.
• When interviewing the respondent from the Christian community, they said some members of the congregation live elsewhere in London and the adjacent boroughs however, these members prefer to use burial sites within Enfield as that is where family members are. This therefore puts additional pressure on Enfield.
Q3. From your experience, what type of funeral/burial space is in the most demand? – what challenges does this present?
• A member from the Muslim Community and Education Centre stated lawn graves with a headstone and border are the most in demand for Muslims. However, they said Enfield Council no longer allow borders due to maintenance issues. A member from Enfield Mosque stated that they have been facing difficulties trying to bury members in Strayfield Cemetery within the preferred timescale of 24 hours, so this often extends to 2-3 days. Strayfield actually request 2-3 days’ notice for burials, this is obviously not possible for Muslims. Therefore, additional space/facilities may be required to allow Muslims to continue to follow faith.
• A member from the Muslim Community and Education Centre also stated that they require burials to occur within a few hours but they have to wait days as a result of only being allowed 2/3 burials per day and weekend burials are at an extra cost”.
Q4. Are you experiencing demand for wider forms of cemetery? – for example woodland/natural burials.
• The respondents from the Muslim community stated that only lawn graves and traditional graves are required.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 79 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Q5. What facilities/provision do you feel are in need – for example to provide for religious customs?
• The employee at Alpha Services (Greek Orthodox member) stated that more space is required at New Southgate Cemetery, especially for the Greek Orthodox burials. The respondent also highlighted the expensive cost of burials within the Borough.
o New Southgate Cemetery is located just outside the Borough and is privately run. There is therefore a lack of Greek Orthodox burial provision within the Borough and this needs to be addressed within the New Local Plan.
• The respondent from North London Muslim Welfare Association stated that in addition to highly required additional burial space, the development of cemetery- based washing facilities (like those at the Garden of Peace Cemetery) would be welcomed. These are not used for washing the deceased, but for family members and friends who attend the funeral or visit the grave and would allow the Muslim community to worship in a more suitable environment. One respondent from the Muslim Community and Education Centre stated that more burial space is required and they previously requested the land to be used at Cambridge Roundabout.
• One respondent from the Christian community suggested that the process for burial to be reconsidered as other religious groups require burials within a short period of time, thus they therefore gain priority over burial plots. The respondent stated that this sometimes means Christians can be ‘pushed to the bottom of the pile’. For that respondent, this raises issues regarding multi-faith cemeteries.
Presentation Feedback
Due to the Coronavirus, the proposed consultation event could not be carried out. In order to ensure the consultation process was carried out as best as possible, a presentation was prepared by Enzygo, demonstrating the results so far. Two comments were received.
One respondent stated that they were concerned with the lack of Islamic burial space in the Borough.
The second response was from Barnet Council, which stated that the Assessment needs to factor in the impact of COVID 19 on the remaining burial space within the Borough. Enzygo has considered the impact of COVID-19 by analysing excess deaths that take into account unforeseen events to increase mortality in any given year.
Barnet Council also questioned the relevancy to the 2011 Audit of London Burial Provision which was referenced in the draft London Plan. This was referenced to highlight the potential variation in the percentage breakdown of religious groups that choose to be buried, compared with the national breakdown of religious groups that chose to be buried or cremated.
It was also noted that ‘not all Enfield residents will be buried in Enfield and likewise residents from other places will be buried in Enfield (such as Boroughs that own cemeteries in Enfield)
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 80 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
will be buried in Enfield’. Enzygo has recognised this and have highlighted the existing cemeteries, crematoriums and natural woodlands outside the Borough which are used for cross-boundary burials.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 81 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
10.0 Option Identification and Potential
Introduction
The above chapters identify a significant need for additional space for burials and ash.
Within this chapter the potential options which could accommodate the burial capacity requirements identified are detailed. The identified options are then explored further within the following chapters.
Options Identification
A number of options which could accommodate the identified capacity have been considered:
• Option 1: Intensification
• Option 2: Extension to existing burial sites
• Option 3: New sites
• Option 4: Re-use graves
• Option 5: Joint working with surrounding Local Authorities
• Option 6: Do nothing
It is worth noting that the re-use of graves is a sustainable and limited response to the shortage of burial spaces, which, additionally, would generate new income to help pay for the ongoing maintenance of established cemeteries. As noted in previous chapters, this is already occurring at existing cemeteries in the Borough under the provisions of Burial Law Acts in London. As an already established practice, re-using graves is less controversial in London compared with other burial grounds outside the Capital. Where possible, the re-use of graves in existing Cemeteries in the Borough should be carried out to help reduce the need for burial space. This has already been exhausted at Edmonton Cemetery as this was carried out between the years of 2011 - 2019.
An initial review of each of the five options has been undertaken to assess their potential and consider if and how these options could be taken forward. This is summarised in table 16. A mixed approach combining several options is likely to give the best potential to provide sufficient quantity and variety of burial and cremation capacity during the new local plan period, and beyond.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 82 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 16: Potential burial space options
Option Potential to meet the need Next Stage
Intensification This approach can be beneficial where Intensification is not a the number of additional spaces required feasible approach for is small, and where sites have not been Enfield in order to achieve used intensively in the past. the required capacity. The study will not consider this For Enfield, the Borough has already further however, where taken a proactive approach to identify feasible, cemeteries and capacity within existing cemeteries and to crematoriums could utilise use them whilst retaining the quality of this approach individually provision required. to realise small amounts of additional capacity Further intensification at scale is not likely to be feasible to meet the identified need, which is significant.
There are currently few other forms of provision which could easily intensify. Local churchyards are predominantly ‘closed’. Extension This option is feasible and could provide a Identify existing burial sites small or large number of additional plots where extensions could be depending on the size of the extension. possible (i.e. adjacent to open, undeveloped land). The feasibility of extending sites must be Identify if adjoining land is considered on a site by site basis, as it will owned by the Council. If so, depend upon a wide range of factors, undertake a more detailed specifically whether it is physically review to consider the possible, and potential environmental feasibility of extensions, impacts caused by extensions, and the assessed against their current uses and roles fulfilled by such current use and role within land. the local green infrastructure network.
Consider timescales for extensions whilst provision of a long term strategic new site is considered.
New Sites This approach is feasible when required Undertake a site appraisal capacity cannot be achieved through exercise to assist with the intensification or extensions. identification of suitable sites for a new cemetery Also, likely to be a preferred option site as a long-term where main cemetery capacity is requirement, having becoming exhausted and new strategic utilised limited provision is required. intensification and some
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 83 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
In addition, provision with local site extensions in the short allocations for new cemeteries and term. supportive development management policies could facilitate provision of a Consider site allocations broader offering of cemetery spaces in and development appropriate locations by denominations management policies and by the private sector. supportive of a broader range of cemetery spaces to be provided independently and by the private sector. Re-use Graves This approach is already occurring within Continue the programme the Borough (notably Lavender Hill of the identification of Cemetery) and is the most sustainable potential graves that are way of ensuring enough burial space is nearing the end of the 75- within the Borough. year use to realise a small but on-going resupply of The re-use of graves could be intensified new plots within existing even further, to help ease land pressure. cemeteries. This method does have potential sensitivity and controversial implications and is not suitable in some places e.g. consecrated land.
There is no scope to re-use graves at Edmonton Cemetery as this has been exhausted from 2011 – 2019.
Joint supply Would require working closely with Option not taken forward. with other surrounding Local Authorities to ensure authorities demand could be met elsewhere, or to meet demand from elsewhere within Enfield.
From consultation feedback, it is fairly clear that people generally prefer to be buried within their local area, so this option is likely to be less popular with residents.
From engagement undertaken and lack of response received, it is not understood whether adjacent authorities have sufficient understanding of their own provision and future requirements to support a co-operative dialogue and approach at this stage. Do Nothing Doing nothing would mean that local Option not taken forward. authority provision would be rapidly exhausted and increased reliance would be placed on independent
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 84 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
denominational provision, on provision in adjacent authority areas (at higher cost to residents) and on private sector provision provided as new developments..
The feasibility of the approaches set out in table 16 in achieving the identified capacity for the Local Authority is set out in the following chapters.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 85 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
11.0 Desk Based Review and Site Visit
Introduction
In order to inform the preferred options referred to within Chapter 10, a desk-based review of all known interment sites within the Borough was undertaken. All sites were also visited, to confirm what was established during the desk-based review and identify any further site constraints or opportunities.
Within this chapter, details of the desk-based review and site visits undertaken are provided. Reviews were undertaken for sites which have, or had, capacity for burial/interment of ashes (see table 1). The list was derived from information provided by the Borough, and a desk-based review to establish any further sites. These sites were reviewed on the basis that there could be capacity to intensify or extend them.
Desk based review
Prior to visiting the sites, a desk-based assessment was undertaken for each site. This included establishing the following:
• Statutory designations from Natural England’s Magic Mapping tool
• Existing land use, and of land surrounding the sites
• Any relevant planning history or current applications
• Planning policy designations
• Distance from sensitive receptors and residential receptors
• Landscape considerations
• Flood Zone
• Site access
• Notes were also made on the feasibility of intensifying the site or extending the site.
Site visits
Site visits were then undertaken which allowed the opportunity to confirm the desk-based review findings. Where the feasibility of extensions has been identified, this land was considered in more detail. This gave a better indication of whether an extension would be possible. The following points specifically were considered:
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 86 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Scope to intensify the burial ground: Are there areas of unused space that could be utilised within the existing site? Are there proposed uses for these areas?
• Scope to extend the burial ground: Are there areas of land immediately adjacent to the burial space that could be utilised? Does the Church/Parish/Local Authority own this land? Have there been any negotiations to utilise this land?
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 87 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
12.0 Extension
Extension
This Chapter considers how extensions to existing to existing burial sites could contribute to achieving the required need identified within Chapter 6.
A number of sites were identified as having the potential to extend. This potential for extension was based on the following:
• There was land adjacent to the existing burial site. This land was free of permanent development.
• This land was owned by the Council.
• A discussion with the Council identified no substantive reason why a cemetery extension could not take place, notwithstanding a need to carefully consider the role and value of such land in its current use.
The following sites were identified as having the potential to extend:
• Hertford Road Cemetery
• Enfield Crematorium
• Trent Park Cemetery
• Strayfield Road Cemetery
• Lavender Hill Cemetery
Hertford Road Cemetery
An extension of Hertford Road Cemetery was discussed in the meeting with Enfield Council Bereavement Services as there is undeveloped Council owned land adjacent to the site which includes an allotment and park. There are 5 parcels of land adjacent to the cemetery, marked A, B, C, D and E on figure 13. If all of the parcels of land were extended, the extension occupies approximately 10.41 hectares.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 88 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
B A
C
D
Figure 12: Hertford Road Cemetery potential extension
Section A is an existing allotment to the north eastern corner of the cemetery. The site occupies approximately 0.8 hectares.
Figure 13: Hertford Road Extension A
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 89 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Section B lies to the east of the Cemetery and is again undeveloped land that is currently used as Metropolitan Open Land. The segment of the park is part of the large park which covers a substantial area of land to the east and south of the Cemetery. The site occupies approximately 2.25 hectares.
Figure 14: Hertford Road Extension B
Section C lies to the south of the Cemetery and is undeveloped Metropolitan Open Land. The area occupies approximately 2.3 hectares.
Figure 15: Hertford Road Extension C
Section D is part of the wider Metropolitan Open land and is currently undeveloped. The land occupies an area of approximately 5.3 hectares of land. This area would only constitute an extension if areas B and C were developed.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 90 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 16: Hertford Road Extension D
Site A Review
Site A’s existing use is an allotment and is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) within the adopted planning policies. Core Policy 34 of the Local Plan relates to MOL which includes parks, playing field and other open space including cemeteries and allotments. Policy relating to the extension of cemeteries into allotments will be considered separately within this chapter.
As site A is an existing allotment, Sites B, C and D should be prioritised over Site A at Hertford Road Cemetery, (if the extension at Hertford Road is carried forward). The site is in current use as an allotment and so a change to cemetery use would require careful prior consideration of the potential conflict in policy objectives relating to leisure and healthy living etc.
The site lies within flood zone 1, and the surrounding receptors are residential which is therefore appropriate for a cemetery extension. However, a feasibility study has not been carried out and further investigation is required in order to assess whether Site A is could be used for burials. At a minimum, the water table at cemeteries must be constantly more than 3m depth to comply with EA guidance of 1m below depth grave.
The land contains trees / bushes and vegetation (besides the user’s crops) thus an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment would be required to establish the value of these.
Review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool demonstrated no statutory or non-statutory designations within the application site, or immediately adjacent to it. Within 1 km there includes SSSI Impact Risk Zone and five Grade II listed buildings (closes building White Horse
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 91 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Public House 140m to the north). These are not sensitive to the development of a cemetery extension. There is no PRoW within Site A.
A review of Enfield planning application page demonstrates no planning applications within the application site, or relevant applications adjacent to the site.
Overall, the main constraint of Site A is the presence of allotments, which is considered later in this chapter.
Figure 17: Hertford Road Extension A
Site B
Site B’s existing use is a park and it is designated as a MOL within the adopted planning policy. Core Policy 34 of the Local Plan relates to MOL which includes parks, playing field and other open space including cemeteries and allotments. The Policy aims to maximise the potential for parks. The park is good Green Infrastructure and contains a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and cycle path. Should the extension of the cemetery go ahead, access to the PRoW and cycle path should be retained.
The park contains some trees and vegetation thus an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment is recommended to establish the value of these prior to the extension.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool illustrates that there are no relevant statutory or non- statuary designations within the vicinity of the site. Within 1 km there includes SSSI Impact Risk Zone and five Grade II listed buildings (closes building White House Public House approximately 95m west of the site). Given the end use of the site, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
The site is within Flood Zone 1 however, a large section of Site B is located within low risk of surface water flooding, with medium to high risk in some concentrated areas. A feasibility
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 92 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
study would have to be undertaken to ensure the water table is constantly more than 3m depth to comply with EA guidance of 1m below depth of grave.
There do not appear to be any planning applications to be made within the site, or relevant applications adjacent to the site.
Surrounding receptors include an allotment and residential dwellings to the west, residential houses to east and north and more MOL to the south. St James Church lies approximately 420m to the west. These receptors would not be sensitive to an extension of the cemetery.
Access to the site could be from the existing MOL or the cemetery itself. The Site can also be accessed to the north off Green Street.
Overall, from a desk-based review of the site, the main constraint appears to be that the site is designated as MOL. Extending Hertford Road Cemetery onto MOL would require careful consideration of the potential impacts on local and strategic open space provision and availability. Should the Council choose to pursue this site, an assessment of open space availability and impacts would be required. A full application would be required, and this should be supported by a range of technical assessments including a flood risk assessment considering the potential medium to high risk of surface water flooding.
Figure 18: Hertford Road Extension B
Site C
Site C’s existing use is a park and it is designated as a MOL within the adopted planning policy. Core Policy 34 of the Local Plan relates to MOL which includes parks, playing field and other open space including cemeteries and allotments. The Policy aims to maximise the potential for parks. The park is good Green Infrastructure and contains a PRoW to the north, between the site and the Cemetery. Should the extension of the cemetery go ahead, access to the PRoW and cycle path should be retained.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 93 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The site is within Flood Zone 1 however, a large section of Site B is located within low risk of surface water flooding, with medium to high risk in some concentrated areas. A feasibility study would have to be undertaken to ensure the water table is constantly more than 3m depth to comply with EA guidance of 1m below depth of grave.
The park contains some trees and vegetation thus an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment is recommended to establish the value of these prior to the extension.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool illustrates that there are no relevant statutory or non- statuary designations within the vicinity of the site. Within 1 km there includes SSSI Impact Risk Zone, Green Belt land and seven Grade II listed buildings (closes building St James Church 230m north west of the Site). Given the end use of the site, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
There do not appear to be any planning applications to be made within the site, or relevant applications adjacent to the site.
Surrounding receptors include sports field associated with a College which lies to the south, tennis court to the west and more MOL to the east. These receptors would not be sensitive to an extension of the cemetery.
Access to the site could be from the existing path in between the southern boundary of the cemetery and the northern boundary of the site. The Site can also be accessed to the north off Green Street or the south off The Ride.
Overall, from a desk-based review of the site, the main constraint appears to be that the site is designated as MOL. Extending Hertford Road Cemetery onto MOL land would require careful consideration of the potential impacts on local and strategic open space provision and availability. Should the Council choose to pursue this site, an assessment of open space availability and impacts would be required. A full application would be required, and this should be supported by a range of technical assessments including a flood risk assessment considering the potential medium to high risk of surface water flooding.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 94 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 19: Hertford Road Extension C
Site D
Site D’s existing use is a park and it is designated as a MOL within the adopted planning policy. Core Policy 34 of the Local Plan relates to MOL which includes parks, playing field and other open space including cemeteries and allotments. The Policy aims to maximise the potential for parks. The park is good Green Infrastructure and contains a PRoW along the western boundary and down the middle of the two parcels of land. Should the extension of the cemetery go ahead, access to the PRoW and cycle path should be retained.
The site is within Flood Zone 1 however, a large section of Site B is located within low risk of surface water flooding, with medium to high risk in some concentrated areas. A feasibility study would have to be undertaken to ensure the water table is constantly more than 3m depth to comply with EA guidance of 1m below depth of grave.
The park contains some trees and vegetation thus an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment is recommended to establish the value of these prior to the extension.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool illustrates that there are no relevant statutory or non- statuary designations within the vicinity of the site. Within 1 km there includes SSSI Impact Risk Zone, Green Belt land and eight Grade II listed buildings (closest building White Horse Pub approximately 285m to the north of the site). Given the end use of the site, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
There do not appear to be any planning applications to be made within the site, or relevant applications adjacent to the site.
Surrounding receptors include residential dwellings north of the site, primary school to the east, high rise flats to the south and more MOL to the west. These receptors would not be sensitive to an extension of the cemetery.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 95 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Access to the site could be from the existing MOL to the east and north or the cemetery itself. The Site can also be accessed to the north off Green Street or the south off The Ride.
Overall, from a desk-based review of the site, the main constraint appears to be that the site is designated as extending Hertford Road Cemetery onto MOL land would require careful consideration of the potential impacts on local and strategic open space provision and availability. Should the Council choose to pursue this site, an assessment of open space availability and impacts would be required. A full application would be required, and this should be supported by a range of technical assessments including a flood risk assessment considering the potential medium to high risk of surface water flooding.
Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery
Figure 20 below shows Enfield Crematorium, and to south of this lies Hoe Green Park, which is open space within the Green Belt and is outlined in red. The area outlined could form an extension to the existing crematorium. The park occupies approximately 2.5 hectares of land excluding the vegetative boundary surrounding the site.
Figure 20: Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery extension As far as Enzygo are aware, no existing studies have been undertaken at the site. This review of Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery and Hoe Green Park includes both a desk-based review and site visit.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 96 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Within the interactive planning policy map available on Enfield Council webpage, Hoe Green Park is designated as Green Belt land and Open Space. As discussed in the policy chapter, Cemeteries are allowed to be located within the Green Belt, providing they preserve the openness of the area.
Based on a review of Enfield Council planning application webpage, there have been no planning applications within Hoe Green Park since 2000 (which is the furthest the records date back to on the council planning applications website). Within the existing cemetery there have been two applications. TP/08/0679 was for “an erection of replacement fence consisting of 2.6m high steel palisade to north and part south boundaries” - this was withdrawn in 2008. The second application (P12-02174PLA) for the ‘Installation and replacement of new and existing doors and windows, including infills to north, south and east elevations’ and was granted with conditions in 2012.
A review of the Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool demonstrates that Hoe Green Park is within the Green Belt and a SSSI Impact Risk Zone. Within 1km of the site there lies two registered parks, 1 scheduled monument and over 30 Listed Buildings of a variety of Grades – the nearest listed building is approximately 380m east of Hoe Green Park eastern boundary. Given the distance from the site to the nearest listed building, and the insignificant impacts caused from the extensions of cemeteries, these designations should not preclude an extension on Hoe Green Park.
The site lies within Flood Zone 1 which is at low risk from flooding. The desk study indicates that there was an incident of a large sink hole appearing in approximately 2015 which suggests the land is unstable. Thorough ground (geotechnical) survey work is required to ensure the ground would be suitable for an extension to the cemetery.
The Park is used for recreational activity and contains a number of trees and vegetation around the border. An ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment are required in order to assess the value of biodiversity and trees, prior to the development of extending the cemetery on the site.
The surrounding land use includes a railway line to the east of the Park, Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery to the north and residential dwellings to the south. None of the above should preclude the extension of Enfield Crematorium.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 97 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
It is assumed that access to the site would be via the existing cemetery and therefore this assessment does not consider site access. However, it should be noted that there is existing access to the Park of Great Cambridge Road, and this too could be utilised.
Hoe Green Park is located in the Green Belt, and the park performs a function as a local open space resource. A cemetery development on this land, as an extension to Enfield Cemetery and Crematorium, would result in the loss of a park in a suburban area, the impacts of which are likely to be negative and which would need to be carefully considered and assessed. Overall, from both a desk-based review and site visit, other than this, there do not appear to be significant constraints within the site that would preclude the development of a cemetery extension. However, the site would need to be subject to thorough ground (geotechnical) surveys to determine suitability of the ground for cemetery use. The use of the potential land in Hoe Green Park as a cemetery would be based on integration with the existing private Enfield Cemetery and Crematorium.
Figure 21: Hoe Green Park is located in the distance, beyond the perimeter boundary
Alternative Site at Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery
Adjacent to the entrance of Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery, there lies undeveloped land, (see figure 23) and this was confirmed both during the desk-based research using satellite imagery, and when visiting the site. When visiting Enfield Crematorium and Cemetery, the Crematorium Manager highlighted that the parcel of land would be suitable for a new
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 98 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
cemetery and crematorium however, the land is on a long-term lease. As this land is not owned by Enfield Council, the site has not been identified as appropriate for an extension. However, the Council could investigate this further given the sites suitability and close proximity to the existing site.
The parcel of land has been subject to several planning applications. Planning application TP/95/0106 relates to the use of site as garden of remembrance involving the construction of a vehicular access to the Classified Road. This was Granted with conditions in 1998. Details of landscaping submitted pursuant to condition 10 of approval under Ref: TP/95/0106 for use as garden of remembrance was approved in 2001. In 2002, application TP/00/1630 which related to the erection of crematorium building in association with pet cemetery use was granted with conditions. However, none of these developments appear to have been carried out. This is therefore a potential new site for the Council to consider.
Potential new Enfield Crematorium site and Cemetery
Figure 22: Potential new site
Overall, the extension opposite the A10 is designated as Local Open Space and Green Belt. The site also offers very limited amenity value in terms of a local open space. Subject to addressing Green Belt policy, this parcel of land would appear to be relatively unconstrained for a cemetery linked to existing provision. Further feasibility studies would be required in order to assess its potential for cemetery use.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 99 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Trent Park Cemetery
Figure 24 below shows Trent Park Cemetery. The Cemetery has already been extended in the South East corner, extending into Butterfly Meadows. Both the Cemetery and the extension is within the Green Belt. A desk-based review indicates that there are four parcels of land, east of the cemetery, which could be extended further – A, B, C and D. These sites lie within Butterfly Meadows, a nature preserve that is designated as Green Belt in the Planning Policy Map.
Existing Cemetery D
and SE A extension
C B
Figure 23: Trent Park Cemetery potential extension
The surrounding land use of the existing cemetery varies. To the north lies Trent Park, which is a registered park and garden. To the south lies Cockfosters Tube Station and several commercial buildings. Adjacent to the west lies a strip of recreational sports grounds including Cockfosters Cricket club, beyond this there are residential dwellings. East of the cemetery lies Butterfly Meadows Nature Preserve.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 100 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Site A is undeveloped land to the east of the existing cemetery approximately 1.3 hectares. It contains the London Outer Orbital Path and some informal paths.
Figure 24: Trent Park Extension A
Site B is undeveloped land to the east of the already extended section of the cemetery. It is part of Butterfly Meadows and lies within the Green Belt. The site occupies approximately 2.6 hectares.
Figure 25: Trent Park Extension B
Site C is to the east of site B and can therefore only be developed if Site B is extended on. Site C is the largest parcel of land, occupying approximately 3.5 hectares of land.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 101 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 26: Trent Park Extension C
Site D lies to the east of Site A and is the smallest parcel of land out of the sites identified as possible areas of extension for Trent Park Cemetery. The site occupies 0.65 hectares of land and is comprised of vegetation and trees. The extension of Site D can only take place if Site A is extended on.
Figure 27: Trent Park Extension D
A desk-based site review indicates that area D is within Flood Zone 3 and provides flood storage capacity for Merryhill Brook. Figure 29 shows the flood risk map of the site, thus illustrating it is at high risk of flooding and is not suitable for cemetery use. As such, no further assessment of the site has been undertaken.
Furthermore, part of site A is at low risk of surface water flooding and if the Council were to pursue this site, a flood risk assessment and appropriate design strategy must be incorporated into the planning application to reduce flood risk and ensure graves can be located there.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 102 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 28: Flood Zone Figure 29: Surface water flooding
Site A
Site A is designated as Green Belt open land within the interactive map planning policy. The land contains trees/ bushes/ vegetation and therefore an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment would be required to establish the value of these.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool shows the site is designated Green Belt land, SSSI Impact Risk Zone and woodland forest is located within the site. Within 1km lies several listed buildings (the closest being Cockfosters Transport Station 230m from the site); 1 Registered Park (Trent Park, neighbouring the site); 1 Community Forest (Watling Chase) and several habitat designations. Given the distance between the site and the end use of the site being considered, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
The London Outer Orbital Path lies in between the cemetery and Site A and covers part of the site. Should the cemetery be extended, access to the public would have to be retained.
There do not appear to be any planning applications within Site A. The cemetery has already had one extension which was approved with conditions in 2015 under planning application 15/03331/FUL.
The identified potential extension land is designated as MOL, Metropolitan SINC and Local Open Space. The site is located adjacent to Cockfosters railway station, which is subject to new TfL development to create a new gateway to Trent Park. Further consideration would be need as to whether an extension to the cemetery would accord with the Council’s vision for Trent Park. If taken forward, then delivery would be reliant on development by the owners of the cemetery (Islington Council). Detailed feasibility studies would be required.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 103 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Figure 31: Trent Park Figure 30: Picture from Trent Park, looking towards the Cemetery
Site B
Site B is designated as Green Belt open land within the interactive map planning policy. The land contains trees/ bushes/ vegetation and therefore an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment would be required to establish the value of these. Furthermore, the site is designated Priority Habitat Inventory according to Defra MAGIC mapping tool. The existing sites extension also contains this designation; thus, this should not preclude development.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool shows the site is designated Green Belt land, SSSI Impact Risk Zone and woodland forest is located within the site. Within 1km lies several listed buildings (the closest being Cockfosters Transport Station approximately 230m from the site); 1 Registered Park (Trent Park, neighbouring the site); 1 Community Forest (Watling Chase), several habitat designations and 1 local nature reserve (Oak Hill Wood). Given the distance between the site and the end use of the site being considered, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
The London Outer Orbital Path lies partly within the north-western corner of the site and connects the existing cemetery with Site B. Should the cemetery be extended, access to the public would be retained and therefore adverse impacts are not anticipated.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 104 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
There do not appear to be any planning applications within Site B. As mentioned, the cemetery has already had one extension which was approved with conditions in 2015 under planning application 15/03331/FUL. Site B is adjacent to the extension part of the existing cemetery.
The identified potential extension land is designated as MOL, Metropolitan SINC and Local Open Space. The site is located adjacent to Cockfosters railway station, which is subject to new TfL development to create a new gateway to Trent Park. Further consideration would be need as to whether an extension to the cemetery would accord with the Council’s vision for Trent Park. If taken forward, then delivery would be reliant on development by the owners of the cemetery (Islington Council). Detailed feasibility studies would be required.
Figure 32: Existing extension at Trent Park
Site C
Site C is designated as Green Belt land within the interactive map planning policy. The land contains trees/ bushes/ vegetation and therefore an ecological assessment and arboricultural assessment would be required to establish the value of these. The north eastern corner of Site C lies within Flood Zone 3 therefore the extension should not occupy part of this area.
A review of Defra’s MAGIC mapping tool shows the site is designated Green Belt land, SSSI Impact Risk Zone and woodland forest is located within the site. Within 1km lies several listed buildings (the closest being Cockfosters Transport Station approximately 370m from the site); 1 Registered Park (Trent Park, neighbouring the site); 1 Community Forest (Watling Chase), several habitat designations and 1 local nature reserve (Oak Hill Wood). Given the distance between the site and the end use of the site being considered, no impact upon these historic features is anticipated.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 105 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Informal public footpaths are located within the site. Should the cemetery be extended, access to the public would be retained and therefore adverse impacts are not anticipated.
There do not appear to be any planning applications within Site C. As mentioned, the cemetery has already had one extension which was approved with conditions in 2015 under planning application 15/03331/FUL. Site B is adjacent to the extension part of the existing cemetery.
Access into the site would be via the existing cemetery, and via Site B. Consequently, the extension of Site C can only occur if the development of Site B has taken place. Enzygo therefore recommends extending the sites in a phased approach, should the Council wish to utilise the recommended parcels of land.
The identified potential extension land is designated as MOL, Metropolitan SINC and Local Open Space. The site is located adjacent to Cockfosters railway station, which is subject to new TfL development to create a new gateway to Trent Park. Further consideration would be need as to whether an extension to the cemetery would accord with the Council’s vision for Trent Park. If taken forward, then delivery would be reliant on development by the owners of the cemetery (Islington Council). Detailed feasibility studies would be required.
Figure 33: Potential extension site
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 106 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Lavender Hill and Strayfield Road Cemetery
Lavender Hill Cemetery is located in the north west of the Borough within the Green Belt, where there is more open space than the eastern side of the corridor surrounding Enfield centre. As such, pressure on open space in this part of the Borough is lower and so expansion here could be more feasible than the other sites discussed above. This is apparent given that Strayfield Road is an existing extension of Lavender Hill Cemetery, see figure 35.
Figure 34: Location of Lavender Hill (green) and Strayfield Road Cemetery (red)
Lavender Hill
Lavender Hill is constrained on the western boundary by a railway line so direct extension would not be feasible this side. However, beyond the railway line lies agricultural fields which could be utilised for cemetery provision, subject to planning considerations. Given the land is not owned by LBE, a detailed analysis of independent parcels of land to the west has not been investigated but it should be highlighted that there are large parcels of undeveloped land which could potentially accommodate cemeteries and crematoriums. The land in this area should be considered further as a potential candidate location for a new cemetery to provide
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 107 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
cemetery provision within the longer term and accommodate burial needs beyond the plan period.
To the north east of Lavender Hill, adjacent Cook’s Hole Road, lies Hilly Fields Park (see figure 36).
Figure 35: Potential site extension from Lavender Hill Cemetery
Hilly Fields Park (south of Turkey Brook) covers approximately 130,000m2 (13 hectares) of land. Parcels of land within the redline area could be utilised. This is subject to establishing that the water table is constantly more than 3m depth to comply with EA guidance of 1m below depth of grave. A feasibility study would ensure whether the area outlined above is suitable for this use.
Strayfield Road
As mentioned, Strayfield Road is already an existing extension of Lavender Hill Cemetery. The site already has good access to local transport networks (Crews Hill Station) and there are large undeveloped parcels of land in the surrounding area to the west. Similar to Lavender Hill, the area to the west and north west could be considered further as potential new cemetery land to accommodate long term need.
In terms of direct extensions from Strayfield Road Cemetery, there is a playing field to the east of the cemetery, which covers approximately 14,600m2 (1.46ha) (see redline in figure 37). A
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 108 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
feasibility assessment would be needed before the site is pursued as an area to extend and detailed geo-technical surveys are required to ensure ground conditions are suitable.
Figure 36: Parcel of land east of Strayfield Lane Cemetery
Allotment Planning Policy
Site A of Hertford Road Cemetery has been proposed in this study as an opportunity for extension however, its current use is an allotment.
Core Policy 34 Parks Playing Fields and other Open Spaces of the Enfield Core Strategy (2010) relates to allotments (as well as cemeteries). CP34 states ‘the Council will protect and enhance existing open space and seek opportunities to improve the provision of good quality and accessible open space in the Borough by… Seeking to address deficiencies in allotment provision across the Borough identified in the Enfield Open Space Study, through improving existing allotments, and creating new informal growing spaces’.
Although MOL entails both cemeteries and allotments, should the Council wish to develop Site A at Hertford Road for an extension, alternative allotment facilities would likely be required locally. Furthermore, an assessment would have to be undertaken to establish the amenity value of the allotments, and how much they contribute to the character locally.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 109 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Within the Development Management Document (2014) allotments (leisure gardens) fall under policy DMD85 Land for food and other agricultural uses. The policy states development on agricultural land will be permitted if all of the following criteria are met:
• Proposal delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises
• The proposal ensures good environmental practise
• The proposal safeguards high quality agricultural land from irreversible development
• Proposal in relation to renewable energy sources do not over-farm the land
• The type and volume traffic generated would not result in danger or inconvenience to the public.
Considering the above criteria and the fact that allotments are classified as agricultural land, alternative allotment sites must be provided elsewhere in the Borough in order to replace the allotment adjacent to Hertford Road Cemetery.
Overall, there does not appear to be any specific planning policy that precludes the development within the allotments adjacent to Hertford Road Cemetery.
Feasibility of Extensions
Table 17 below provides a summary of the of the above information.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 110 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Table 17: Summary of potential extensions
Site Size Potential Current Use Feasibility (hectares) burial capacity Hertford Road Site 0.8 1,580 plots Allotment Existing use means site may not be suitable. Feasibility study A required. Hertford Road Site B 2.25 4,446 plots MOL (undeveloped) Policy designation means site may not be suitable for extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Hertford Road Site C 2.3 4,544 plots MOL (undeveloped) Policy designation means site may not be suitable for extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Hertford Road Site 5.3 10,472 plots MOL (undeveloped) Policy designation means site may not be suitable for D extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Enfield 2.5 4,940 plots Hoe Green Park (Local Enfield Cemetery is privately operated and Hoe Green is owned Crematorium Open Space and Green by LBE. Further geo-technical investigation work is also Extension Belt) required. Trent Park Site A 1.3 2,568 plots MOL, Metropolitan SINC Policy designation means site may not be suitable for and Local Open space extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Development of TfL gateway to Trent Park may also mean the extension to Trent Park is not inline with LBE wider vision. Trent Park Cemetery is operated by Islington Borough Council. Trent Park Site B 2.6 5,137 plots MOL, Metropolitan SINC Policy designation means site may not be suitable for and Local Open space extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Development of TfL gateway to Trent Park may also mean the extension to Trent Park is not inline with LBE wider vision. Trent Park Cemetery is operated by Islington Borough Council.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 111 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Trent Park Site C 3.5 6,916 plots MOL, Metropolitan SINC Policy designation means site may not be suitable for and Local Open space extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Development of TfL gateway to Trent Park may also mean the extension to Trent Park is not inline with LBE wider vision. Trent Park Cemetery is operated by Islington Borough Council. Trent Park Site D 0.65 1,284 plots MOL, Metropolitan SINC Policy designation means site may not be suitable for and Local Open space extension. Further geo-technical investigation work is also required. Development of TfL gateway to Trent Park may also mean the extension to Trent Park is not in line with LBE wider vision. Trent Park Cemetery is operated by Islington Borough Council. *Strayfield Road 1.46 2,884 Green Belt Playing field to the east of Strayfield Cemetery could be Cemetery extended on, subject to geo-technical investigation work. *Lavender Hill Further TBC Green Belt West and north of Lavender Hill lies undeveloped land which Cemetery investigation could be utilised; however, it is not owned by LBE. required Further geo-technical investigation work is required at Hilly Fields Park to ensure the water table is at least 3m deep.
Total 22.66 Circa. 41,887 N/A
Total undeveloped 21.86 Circa. 43,300 Undeveloped
Total Allotments 0.8 1,580 plots Allotment
*Lavender Hill is excluded from total hectares of potential extension results given that the extension of these sites would likely result in a complete new site. Further research is required to identify land surrounding these cemeteries.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 112 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
The table above demonstrates that based on the sites considered for extension, there is a total capacity of approximately 23 hectares, which equates to around 41,887 plots. Approximately 40,300 of these plots are within undeveloped land (20.4 hectares), with an additional 0.8 hectares (approximately 1,580 plots) located within land which is currently used for allotments.
Chapter 6 of this study identifies a requirement for 4.8 hectares of additional land by 2036, and 7.7 hectares of additional land to accommodate the required capacity by 2041. The above table demonstrates that this is achievable.
Table 17 excludes the possible extension at Enfield Crematorium (adjacent to the A10) as it is considered that this would be a new site allocation and not an extension. Furthermore, there are opportunities for an extension/new site allocations at Lavender Hill Cemetery, which would extend into the Green Belt and the north west region of the Borough. Again, this study has considered that ‘extensions’ to Lavender Hill would constitute a new site allocation, as opposed to an extension.
Density
The above calculations are based on a cemetery capacity of 1,976 plots per ha, which is a typical Local Authority cemetery capacity. Given the demand on open space within the Borough, the Council may choose to adopt this capacity to reduce land-take associated with cemeteries.
The Council may alternatively choose to reduce density, and instead focus on ensuring the sites fulfil a wider range of purposes (see following chapter). The Council may also choose to provide further ‘Green Burial’ plots or woodland burials, which are limited within the Borough. These have a lower density than traditional burial plots, and a plot is only used for one body. Although no specific demand for these was identified, there is a national trend towards Green Burials. Furthermore, the Council may intend to increase the number of vaults and mausoleums on new sites in order to reflect the Borough’s population trends and this will reduce the density of graves per hectare. Finally, Muslims require specific orientation of graves, thus potentially reducing the density of graves per hectare.
Environmental impacts may also reduce the density per hectare as some sites have risk of surface water flooding which dictates where graves can be located. Other environmental impacts can also dictate the location of some graves, for example, ecological considerations.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 113 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
13.0 New Sites
Introduction
The previous chapter demonstrates that the required burial capacity could potential be met through the extension of existing burial sites. However, it may be the case that these extensions do not come forward, for example if further investigations identify that the sites are not suitable for cemetery development. In this instance, the Council will need to identify a new site for burials. The previous chapter has highlighted two potential sites which could be used as a cemetery:
• Site opposite Enfield Crematorium, adjacent to the A10.
• Land to the north west of the Borough, off Lavender Hill Cemetery.
A feasibility study is essential for the above sites to be considered further.
The remaining part of this chapter details factors that should be considered if a new cemetery is required.
Criteria for new sites
Cemeteries can, if well developed, result in relatively small impacts, and can be ‘good neighbours’ within residential areas. This can be seen at the existing council cemetery sites, which lie in proximity to residential development.
The following should be considered when identifying new cemetery sites:
• Accessibility and highways. Vehicle access would be required into a new cemetery site on a regular basis. Therefore, any new site will require an appropriate vehicle access, and the surrounding road network must have the ability to accommodate additional vehicle movements associated with a cemetery. A new site should ideally be accessible via public transport and sustainable transport modes, such as walking and/ or cycling. Should a new cemetery site be proposed, the planning application should include details of site access, transport impacts and accessibility.
• Ecology. Sites of very high ecological value may not be appropriate for a cemetery development, if the impacts of a cemetery would result in significant, adverse ecological impacts. A preliminary ecological assessment could be undertaken to assess the level of ecological value associated with a site.
• Trees. Trees within a cemetery site can add visual ecological and amenity value. However, if a new site contains a significant number of trees, there may be a requirement to remove these. The number and value of trees should be considered. Should the development of a new site result in impacts on trees, an arboricultural impact assessment will be required.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 114 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
• Flood risk and geology. The Environment Agency set out regulations relating to the development of burial sites. Cemeteries must prevent or limit groundwater pollution. Burial sites must be:
o Outside a source protection zone 1 (SPZ1)
o At least 250 meters from any well, borehole or spring supplying water for human consumption or used in food production – for example at farm diaries.
o At least 30 meters from any spring or watercourse not used for human consumption or not used in food production.
o At least 30 meters from any spring or watercourse not used for human consumption or not used in food production.
o At least 1 meters from any field drain, including dry ditches.
• Graves must:
o A grave depth must have a depth of 2m plus 1m clearance thus, the water table should be constantly 3m or deeper.
o Not be dug in unaltered or un-weathered bedrock.
o Be deep enough so at least 1 metre of soil will cover the top of the coffin, body or animal carcass.
o The above criteria should be considered when identifying a new site for a cemetery development. Ground investigations would likely be required to establish the water table depth.
• Size. A new cemetery site would have to be a minimum size to make it viable for the development of a cemetery. This would be determined by the value of the land, and any additional infrastructure requirements associated with the proposed development.
• Landscape. If well designed, cemeteries can have relatively low landscape impacts, particularly compared to other types of development. Depending on the site location, an assessment of landscape and visual impacts may be required to support the development of a new cemetery. Screening, such as the planting of trees and hedges can contribute to wider benefits, particularly ecological benefits.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 115 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
14.0 Delivery
Introduction
This assessment has identified a need for further burial and cremation ash capacity within the Borough, within the plan period.
Within this section the delivery options in terms of achieving the identified capacity are set out. This includes recommendations which the Council could choose to take, in order to deliver the required capacity.
Borough Sites
It is clear from the site review that the majority of sites for burial and the interment of ashes are strategic sites, provided by the Council (for burials), and ‘Dignity Crematoria Ltd’ (for cremations). The remaining private cemeteries are within the Jewish and Muslim community.
For burials, the only available space outside the Council sites is at Enfield Cemetery and Crematorium (the site is currently being intensified with an additional c.1000 graves).
For the interment of ashes, local churches and cemeteries do provide some capacity, although the vast majority lies within Enfield Cemetery and Crematorium.
Many of the churches within the Borough are closed or confined, and therefore there is little capacity to intensify or extend these sites.
Given the need for significant additional burial capacity, the only feasible way for this to be delivered is through large strategic sites, rather than through local churchyards.
This report identifies that some additional capacity could be achieved through the extension of existing sites and re-using graves. If this could be achieved at scale, there may not be a requirement for new sites in the short term.
Detailed consideration of potential cemetery site extensions is recommended to be undertaken in the context of a clear assessment of the role of such land within the current open space and green infrastructure resources within Enfield. This is a significant task beyond the scope of this report
In the long term, a new strategic cemetery site, making provision for all faith groups is likely to be a priority. A suitable site options and appraisal exercise should be undertaken to identify and assess candidate sites.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 116 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
CIL/S106 Payments
CIL/ S106 payments from new developments are likely to be the most feasible way of generating income to fund new sites/ extensions to existing sites. In this instance, monetary payment is likely to be more feasible than developers providing land, as land owned by relevant developers is unlikely to be in a suitable location. This is particularly the case if extensions are chosen by the Council as the most appropriate way of delivering the identified capacity.
Enfield Borough Council currently have a CIL charging schedule in place. However, this does not include the allocation of money for cemetery provision. Therefore, it is recommended that the CIL charging schedule is reviewed to include the provision of money for the maintenance and expansion (if relevant) of cemeteries, set in a formula linked to housing growth and population composition.
Development Management Policies
Alongside direct, proactive provision by the council, it is recognised that there is a wider range of potential cremation and burial resources that could potentially be developed independently by denominations and by the private sector, to provide suitable choice for Enfield’s residents. It is likely that this provision will need to be provided on open spaces, on MOL or in the Green Belt. A proactive approach to development management policies to guide such development to appropriate locations, and to promote cemetery design appropriate to them, should be considered.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 117 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
15.0 Design Guidance and other Considerations
Introduction
This study has highlighted the importance of cemeteries providing multiple functions, particularly given land use pressures within the Borough. This section provides advice on how cemeteries could, if well designed, provide a wide range of functions.
Ultimately, for this approach to be successful, cemeteries should be designed by an architect rather than plots simply laid out on the land available. At this stage, ongoing maintenance needs to be prioritised, as a high-quality design needs to be sustainable for the Council. This is where monetary funds from developers could play a significant role, not just in providing cemetery space, but maintaining it in such a way to serve a role within the wider community.
Wider role of cemetery sites
• Green space and amenity value. In the 19th century urban burial grounds were envisaged as public open spaces and were designed to be attractive places to visit in their own right5. Many modern cemeteries are poorly designed, meaning the health and environmental benefits are not being realised. Achieving this function is particularly important in Enfield, given the urban nature of the Borough, and the pressure on green space. • Examples of well-designed cemeteries can be seen across the country, and indeed the world. Arnos Vale cemetery in Bristol includes a café, and gift shop, a venue for hire. Public are welcomed into the site for tours, weddings, community events, yoga classes, talks and other community events. Greenland cemetery in Chicago was designed by landscape architects and is now a certified arboretum. Locals use it as a park, for picnics and for walks. Tipton cemetery in the West Midlands was awarded a Green Flag award for the excellent service it provides to the community. The cemetery has a range of burial and memorial facilities meeting the religious customs of its residents.
• Although this level of amenity value may be difficult to achieve within a cemetery extension, measures can be taken to improve existing sites and associated extensions. For example, footpaths could run through cemeteries rather than around them, attracting people into the sites rather than around them. Signs, information boards and seating area could be used to encourage people to stop and look around.
• Ecological value. If designed and maintained correctly, cemeteries can provide a high level of ecological value, and minor additions and modifications can greatly enhance ecological value, without distracting from the site’s primary purpose. The following should be considered and encouraged when designing sites: The retention and enhancement of wildlife corridors; incorporation of native bushes/ trees and variable habitats; bird boxes placed around the site; SUDs design that provides ecological services; dry-stone walls to provide habitats for insects and small mammals; the use
5 https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/cemeteries-churchyards-and-burial- grounds_.pdf
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 118 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
of hibernacula to provide appropriate habitats. A maintenance scheme should be in place designed to conserve and promote ecological value, while ensuring the site doesn’t look unmaintained. Information boards pointing out measures taken to enhance ecological value, can enhance amenity value, and also inform people as to why areas may look less ‘kept’ than others. • Heritage value. For new cemetery sites or extensions to relatively modern sites, the historical significance can be less than that of, for example, Victorian cemeteries. However, cemeteries do play a role in bringing residents and families closer together and provide an insight into how people within the area lived. This can be seen within the existing Local Authority cemetery sites, by the wide range of headstones and memorials surrounding them. Over time the heritage significance of these sites will increase, as future generations will gain information on the individuals who lived in the area historically, and the lives they had lived. Encouraging residents into cemeteries and providing areas for people to sit and look around, will contribute towards the future heritage value of sites being achieved.
Meeting religious requirements
During the consultation process, a number of points were raised by religious groups regarding their experience of cemeteries and crematoriums within the Borough. These points can form a number of recommendations, which although are not directly applicable to this study, should be noted by the Council.
• Timing of burials/ cremations was raised several times. A number of faith groups require burials or cremations as soon after death as possible, yet the existing facilities do not allow this in all cases. This was particularly relevant to the Muslim community.
• The lack of facilities for religious requirements was noted, particularly for members of the Muslim community. Specifically, the need for washing facilities within a small building was identified. Given the significant shortage of burial spaces for Muslims, any new or extended site would require a Muslim section. The opportunity should be taken to include washing facilities within a building, to meet this identified need.
Timing of delivery
Table 9 of this study shows that there will be a requirement for the burial of circa. 5,869 bodies by December 2024. Based on existing burial capacity (7,180 as shown in table 14) there is currently sufficient capacity to meet this need. However, it is unclear what effect COVID 19 will have on the short-term burial capacity within the Borough.
By December 2036 (end of the New Local Plan period), there will be a burial requirement of approximately 16,840 plots (table 14). This equates to a deficit of 9,660 burial plots, and a deficit of 15,152 by December 2041 (based on current existing capacity figures).
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 119 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Most significant finding is the shortage of Muslim burial space within the Borough as there are only 350 plots within Strayfield Road Cemetery (table 1). Table 9 identifies a need for 2,706 spaces by 2024. This shortage needs to be addressed imminently.
In terms of planning for Muslim burial needs further down the line, table 14 indicates that there is a required capacity of 8,652 by the end of 2036 and 11,723 by the end of 2041.Overall, in terms of the deficit for Muslim burial plots, there is a deficit of -8,302 by 2036 and -11,373 by 2041. The New Local Plan needs to address the deficit in Muslim burial plots as a priority.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 120 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
16.0 Policies for the Local Plan
Introduction
The purpose of this study is to identify the burial and cremation ash space requirements within the London Borough of Enfield. This information should then inform the forthcoming Local Plan. As such, Enzygo have proposed several recommended policies that reflect the study’s findings. These are intended to inform the Boroughs own consideration of policy requirements and specific wording.
Policy approach and recommendations
This study identifies a need for additional burial space by 2042. This capacity could, based on a desk-based review and site visit, be met through a combination of using existing sites more intensively; extending existing sites; identifying new sites and the re-use of graves under Burial law.
The recommendations for extensions and potential new site allocations are detailed in table 17 but are subject to further investigation in terms of feasibility studies and geo-technical surveys.
Enfield Borough Council have a CIL charging schedule which was adopted in April 2016. The list does not include any provision for cemeteries. We recommend that the Council review this and consider the inclusion of cemeteries within the schedule. This money would contribute towards the cost of maintaining existing cemeteries as high quality, valued green spaces, and contribute towards additional cemetery provision, for example through extensions or new site.
Cemetery extensions or new sites should be of a high-quality design and provide a range of wider benefits including amenity value, green space value, and ecological value. A maintenance scheme should be in place to demonstrate how this value can be achieved in the long term.
There is a growing demand for emerging burial markets such as natural and woodland burials, both Enfield and nationally. Given that there are no such provisions within the Borough (see appendix 3), the New Local Plan should take this into consideration and allocate suitable sites for such facilities.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 121 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
17.0 Next Steps and Conclusion
Next Steps
To ensure the required burial space is provided within the Plan period, Enzygo recommends that Enfield Borough Council progress the recommendations made within this report.
This report has identified that, based on a desk-top review, required capacity within and beyond the Plan period could be achieved through a combined approach of using existing sites more intensively; extending existing sites; identifying new sites and the re-use of graves under Burial law.
Further investigations would be required to establish if the above extensions are feasible, notably geo-hydrological investigations. Any planning application would be required to be accompanied by relevant technical assessments.
If extensions to existing sites is shown not to be feasible, for example through further investigation, there will be a requirement for the Council to identify a new site for cemetery use. This report sets out factors that should be noted when reviewing new sites.
15.2 Conclusion
Within this report the existing capacity for the interment of the dead is considered, along with future requirements. This takes into account the existing and future faith groups within the Borough, and their specific requirements in terms of interment.
Where a shortfall in capacity is identified, recommendations have been made as to how this could be addressed. Should this approach be taken, further investigations will be required to confirm if the identified sites are appropriate for a cemetery extension. This should include relevant technical assessments.
In addition, advice is provided on how cemeteries can better fulfil the range of services they are able to provide.
Finally, ways in which the required capacity can be achieved are also detailed, and in this instance, monetary contribution through the CIL process is considered appropriate.
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 122 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Appendix 1: Semi-structured interview questions
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 123 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Appendix 2: Semi-structured interview questions
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 124 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Appendix 3: Cross boundary cemeteries, crematoriums and natural woodland sites in close proximity to Enfield Borough Council
Name Type of burial site Location Proximity to Enfield Borough boundary Western Cemetery Jewish Cemetery Cheshunt c.100m north of Enfield boundary Adath Yisroel Jewish Cemetery Waltham Cross 1.6km north of Enfield Cemetery boundary Waltham Abbey Jewish Cemetery Waltham Abbey c.3km east of eastern Jewish Cemetery boundary Waltham Abbey Multi-faith Cemtery Waltham Abbey c.850m east of Enfield Cemetery boundary Chingford Mount Cemetery operated by Waltham Forest c.1km east of Enfield Cemetery Waltham Forest Council boundary Tottenham Cemetery Mult-faith cemetery Tottenham c.400m south of Enfield boundary Islington and St Islington and Camden Islington c.15.km south west of Pancras Cemetery Cemetery Enfield boundary Islington Crematorium Islington and Camden Islington c.15.km south west of Cemetery Enfield boundary New Southgate Multi-faith including New Southgate c. 300m west of Cemetery and Greek Orthodox, Roman Enfield boundary Crematorium Catholic and Caribbean communities. Bells Hill Burial No space. Re-use graves Barnet c. 4km west of Enfield Ground only boundary Mutton Lane Predominantly Christian Potters Bar c. 1.5km north west of Cemetery Enfield boundary Parndon Wood Multi-faith Harlow c. 9km north east of Cemetery and Enfield boundary Crematorium Nearest Woodland Burial Sites GreenAcres Cemetery Woodland Burial Epping c. 11.5km north east and Ceremonial Park of Enfield boundary JJBS Woodland Jewish woodland Cheshunt c.100m north of Cemetery Cemetery Enfield boundary Herongate Woodland Woodland Burial Brentwood c.27km east of Enfield Cemetery boundary Woodcock Hill Woodland Burial Rickmansworth C. 25km west of Cemetery Enfield boundary
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 125 October2020
London Borough of Enfield Council
Appendix 4: Existing Cemetery Locations
Enfield Burial Space Need and Provision Study Page 126 October2020 Key
London Borough of Enfield
Existing Cemetery Locations 1. Enfield Crematorium 2. Adath Yisroel Burial Ground 3. Hertford Road Cemetery 4. Lavender Hill Cemetery 5. St Andrew Churchyard 6. 6W-DPHV¶&KXUFK\DUG 7. Strayfield Road Cemetery 8. Edmonton Cemetery 9. Southgate Cemetery 10. Jewish Federation of Synagogues Cemetery (GPRQWRQ 11. Tottenham Park Cemetery 12. Western Synagogue 13. Trent Park Cemetery 14. All Saints Churchyard 15. Cockfosters Churchyard 16. Christchurch Churchyard
7 1
4
2
6 3
5 13 15
8
14 9 16 Samuel House, 5 Fox Valley Way, Stocksbridge, Sheffield, S36 2AA 12 11 10 CLIENT: London Borough of Endfield
SCALE: PROJECT NO: 1:50,000@A3 CRM.1769.001
DRAWN: DRAWN: DATE: MG JW March 2020
PROJECT: Enfield Burial Space Study
TITLE: Existing Cemetery Locations
DRAWING REF: CRM.1769.001.PL.D.001.A
&URZQ&RS\ULJKWDQGGDWDEDVHULJKWV2UGLQDQFH6XUYH\
Site Reference Client Name