Officer Delegated Decision Report

Report title Cemetery Capital Investment Priorities

Wards: All

Report Authorised by: Strategic Director - Sue Foster

Portfolio: Cabinet Member – Cllr Jane Edbrooke

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

Report summary

1) The capital investment priorities aim to:

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

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

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

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

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

5) A nine year capital investment programme is required for the West Norwood Cemetery that incorporates two HLF bids within that time frame. The total investment requirements are:  Capital Receipts £3,939,521  HLF ‘Parks for People’ £4,995,900  HLF ‘Heritage’ £4,000,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 1 x full time project officer for West Norwood Cemetery  1 x full time project officer for Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery  1 x full time programme manager to co-odinate the two HLF submissions and related work streams for West Norwood Cemetery  1 x contracted site construction manager to oversee West Norwood Cemetery works  1 x contracted site construction manager to oversee Lambeth and Streatham Cemetery works It is assumed that these staffing costs can be recharged to capital – therefore they have been included in the overall project costs in the finance summary.

Finance summary

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

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

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

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

Re-use and Burial – Key Income and ROI Figures

Cemetery Investment Income ROI West Norwood Re-use £965,000 £1,800,000 £835,000 Lambeth New Burial – £25,000 £403,000 £428,000 redundant roadways New Burial £2.5m - £7m £3.8m - £21.7m £1.3m - £14.7m Streatham Re-use £2.5m £4.4m £1.9m

Recommendations

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

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

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

4) It is recommended that AIMG acknowledges the extent of work and capital investment requirements for each subsequent financial year and that they are consequently tabled as rolling programmes of work that need to be reviewed prior to the start of each financial year. 1. Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cemetery is organised as a rectangular grid of paths, has a few tress and is sited just east of the River Wandle in what was countryside in the 1850’s. There are two lodges beside the main gate in Blackshaw Road and a memorial chapel, all built in brick in a Gothic style. The cemetery was extended to the south in 1874. There is also a crematorium and Garden of Remembrance that was opened at the northern end in 1869. Lambeth Cemetery is the only site currently with capacity for new earthen burials – furthermore, it is the site with the most potential in terms of virgin burial and re-use burial spaces. For this reason, it is a critical resource for the Council (and its citizens) that must be improved upon, where its clearly evident that the site has had minimal investment in its infrastructure for the past 40 years, resulting in an environment that does not give a positive visitor experience when mourners are likely to already be in a state of despair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Exhumation: public graves are exhumed and bodies buried elsewhere on site in a mass grave. - Building up: simply adding graded and compacted soil on top of the public grave to provide depth for further burials. The groundwork’s team have helpfully undertaken surveys at each site to assist in determining the correct methods, but it is absolutely critical that a full engineering feasibility be undertaken for any re-use site, or burial site for that matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Lambeth Cemetery grounds staff area; - Lambeth Cemetery chapel; - Lambeth Cemetery disused chapel; - Lambeth Cemetery offices; - Lambeth Crematorium; - Streatham Cemetery toilets; - Streatham Cemetery disused chapels; - West Norwood Cemetery lodge; - West Norwood Cemetery chapel and crematorium. The VAMS team have initially priced the work at just under £2m and have an indicative programme start date of October 2014. This report references this work throughout and steps will be taken to co-ordinate our work stream with the VAMS team to ensure that the impact on members of public and the cemetery operation and staff is minimised.

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

HLF ‘Parks for People’ Nationwide Programme

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

HLF ‘Heritage’ Regional Programme

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

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

2.1 Drainage The topography of the cemetery causes water run off to the north and east of the site. This is evident by the way the ground ‘swells’ in these directions and the consequent effect it has on the road and footways, memorials and the north / east boundary walls. For this reason, it is absolutely critical that the water is drained from the site effectively. Atkins were commissioned in 2003 to conduct a flood risk assessment – specifically they were asked to mitigate the amount of flooding to 8 key areas in the cemetery (referenced in Appendix 1), which were incidentally (for the majority) on the north / east side of the cemetery. During their feasibility they found that a majority of the existing ‘new’ drainage infrastructure was blocked and / or damaged. Further to this they were unable to access parts of the original Victorian drainage infrastructure due to the sheer amount of graves and depth of the connections.

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

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

Cost Summary

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

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

2.2 Roads

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

Area (1) is significantly potholed and requires urgent repair. It currently presents a health and safety hazard for pedestrians and vehicle users alike. Area (1) – Road leading up the Greek Cemetery

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

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

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

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

2018-19 Kerb alignment and road resurfacing £258,500 Non permeable surface layer £240,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £498,500 2.3 Footpaths

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

Cost Summary

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

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

2.4 Boundary Wall

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

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

Cost Summary

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

2016-17 - - 2017-18 Structural Maintenance (Phase 1) £150,000 2018-19 Structural Maintenance (Phase 2) £150,000 2019-20 - - 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £305,000 2.5 Landscaping and Gardening

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

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

Tree requiring removal

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

Cost Summary

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

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - 2019-20 Clearance and landscaping £90,000 2020-21 - - 2021-22 - - £170,000

2.6 Monuments and Memorials

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

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

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

- William Auffray Memorial (presently ‘at risk’)

Hundreds of monuments and memorials in the cemetery are in a similar condition where many them are in a dilapidated state of repair. Although many of them are not listed, their overall effect on the cemetery scape is still astoundingly negative, giving visitors an impression that the site is not well kept. Looking east on Doulton’s Path – this path has 4 ‘at risk’ monuments on this short length of path – none of which are even pictured

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

Highgate Cemetery – ‘fronting’ with straight memorials and planting to give the appearance of a high standard of memorial management Highgate Cemetery – off the beaten track where maintenance is restricted mainly to ivy and bramble clearance due to funding constraints

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

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

St Mary-at-Hill Plot

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

Ship Path

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

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

The Greek Cemetery

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

Unsafe and ‘at risk’ – monument in the Greek Cemetery Cost Summary

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

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

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

£1,715,700

2.7 Catacombs

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

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

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

 Restoration of the catacombs;  Building on top of the existing structure to create ground level catacombs, or;  A visitors / education centre (increasing floor levels to two + catacombs)  A community hub with meeting rooms (increasing floor levels to two + catacombs)  A chapel;  A bell tower that provides visitors with expansive views across London. Commissioning an architect to lead on shaping and developing the site for one, more or all of these ideas would seem like the most logical first step to take. However, Lambeth will need some assurances about the soundness of the structure and it is envisaged that prior to any formal commissions a structural engineering firm is employed to undertake a detailed assessment of the site to ensure that is safe to build upon and provide some basic design principles that the architect will need to adhere to in order to ensure the safety of the site.

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

Cost Summary

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

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

2.8 Railing and Entrance Gates

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

Example of railings peeling away at West Norwood Cemetery

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

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

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

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

2.9 Signage

The original way finding system in the West Norwood Cemetery was based on a grid overlay (appendix 3). All of the individual quadrants were once physically referenced with stone markers giving visitors a very detailed and clear navigation system around the cemetery. Suffice to say, finding graves during Victorian times was very simple, though given the way finding systems deterioration over time it has become increasingly difficult and increasingly frustrating for visitors – especially tourists, to find specific grave sites.

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

Cost Summary

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

2.10 Graves – General

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

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

2.11 Re-Use and Burial Capacity

As outlined in section 1.6 grave re-use is seen as a way forward in terms of creating more space within the three cemeteries. In the medium term it would be prudent for a section of public consecrated graves to undergo ground preparation for re-use in the West Norwood Cemetery. An area located in the south east of the cemetery measuring 4800m2 could accommodate about 500 new earthen burials. The area of land proposed for this is marked in hatched yellow (Appendix 2). Category Location Size Yield Potential Income Public Consecrated Yellow 4,800m2 500 earthen burials £1.8m hatched area (Appendix 2)

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

Public Consecrated Re-use:

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

Private Consecrated Re-use

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

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

Cost Summary

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

2.12 Street Furniture

As a part of the recently completed phase of works the street furniture – seating, water points and bins were upgraded. The water points have proven to be very popular allowing people to rest buckets on the tap fixtures whilst they are being filled. It is proposed that the remainder of West Norwood Cemeteries street furniture is upgraded in order to maximise the appeal of the site and keep these items consistent across the cemetery.

Cost Summary

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

2.13 Visitors Centre

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

2.14 Natural Play Area

This item is not an aspiration of the Scheme of Management, or Friends of Group – neither is it something that the officers had thought of through their assessments. However, it is a large part of what the HLF require in terms of qualifying criteria for the Parks for People programme. Their view is that cemeteries should become places for people to visit – with an emphasis on increasing users and attracting families to come and use the space for education, or play. Natural play does not involve specifically made play equipment, but rather focuses on utilising natural materials for climbing, hiding and navigating, for instance, a series of hedges could be made into a maze for children to play in. It is proposed at this stage that Lambeth will need to drive discussion with relevant groups to agree a scope and location of the play space, with a subsequent commitment in capital receipts to fund a design that would be presented to the HLF as a part of our submission.

Cost Summary

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

3. Proposals and Reasons - Lambeth Cemetery

3.1 Drainage

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

Cost Summary

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

3.2 Roads

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

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

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

3.3 Cemetery Entrance

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

3.4 Landscaping and Gardening

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

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

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

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 Landscape and Gardening work £40,000 2016-17 Landscape and Gardening work £70,000 2017-18 - - 2017-18 - - £110,000

3.5 Railing and Entrance Gates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area H3 and I3 (Appendix 4)

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

Area S3 and N3 (Appendix 4)

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

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

The remaining 8,000m2 of public consecrated land is another interesting site with potential but requires a high level of investment in order to bring it into use. The site acts as a natural flood storage site for the nearby River Wandle, therefore prior to any work taking place a ground water assessment would need to be undertaken in order to obtain any necessary approvals from the Environment Agency. Concurrently, the site would need an engineering feasibility assessment carried out that will determine how this site could be re-worked for re- use in the future, these re-work options include: 1) Concrete burial chamber installation 2) De-watering the site to allow for standard earthen burials 3) Building up on top of the site to allow for standard earthen burials

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

Cost Summary

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

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

3.9 Street Furniture

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

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

Cost Summary

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

3.10 Grounds Maintenance Compound

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

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 Grounds Maintenance Compound £80,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £80,000 4. Proposals and Reasons - Streatham Cemetery

4.1 Drainage

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

Cost Summary

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

4.2 Roads

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

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

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - -

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

4.3 Cemetery Entrance

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

The current entranceway to Streatham Cemetery

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

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

Cost Summary

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

4.4 Footpaths

Streatham is criss-crossed with a number of 1.5m wide footpaths spread across the whole of the cemetery. The areas highlighted in orange (Appendix 5) provide some indicative lengths of footpath measuring 1350m2 that might be considered for about an additional 100 burials. It is thought that removing footpaths for burial use is considered controversial and should form a part of a wider consultation programme for the whole cemetery before any works are started.

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

4.5 Boundary Wall

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

2016-17 - - 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £25,000 4.6 Landscaping and Gardening

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

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

Cost Summary

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

4.7 Railings and Entrance Gates

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

The railings are beautiful, ornate and the first thing that a visitor will notice upon entry. If they are kept in a good condition, it gives visitors the impression that the cemetery is a well-kept place that might be suitable as a final resting place for their loved ones. Front entrance gates – rusting and close to being unsalvageable. Cost Summary

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

4.8 Graves – General

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

Cost Summary

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

4.9 Re-Use and Burial Capacity

There is currently no capacity for traditional earthen burials at Streatham Cemetery – nor are there any cast chamber burial spaces left at Streatham Cemetery. However, as mentioned in 1.5 a separate piece of work is being undertaken outside of this capital bid process to place an additional 47 cast burial chambers at Streatham Cemetery. This piece of work will help to accommodate existing demand for cast chambers over the next 2-3 years. In terms of traditional earthen burials, it stands to reason that re-use must be initiated in the short term so that burials can resume in the next 2-3 years after some planning and preparatory ground works.

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

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

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

Cost Summary

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

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

4.10 Street Furniture

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

Cost Summary

Financial Year Item Cost 2014-15 - - 2015-16 - - 2016-17 Street Furniture £120,000 2017-18 - - 2018-19 - - £120,000 5 Finance

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

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

5.2 West Norwood Cemetery

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

The key points to the above programme are as follows:

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

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

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

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

Heritage (up to £2m): Catacombs

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

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

5.3 Lambeth Cemetery

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

5.6 Streatham Cemetery

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

5.7 Revenue

Most of the project streams in this report have been indentified due to a lack of maintenance expenditure over the past 40 years. All three sites desperately need a capital injection in order to cull an escalating backlog of maintenance repairs that the Council has not been able to stay on top of. The aim of this proposed programme is to bring infrastructure items such as roads, pathways, drainage, walls, railings and street furniture to a ‘year one’ condition level so that the Council is then in a better position to manage them more effectively going forward. A robust maintenance plan will be required going forward and will form a large part of the Cemetery Management Plan (section 1.8).

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

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

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

6. Legal and Democracy

6.1 MANDATORY: DO NOT DELETE OR AMEND TITLE OF THIS SECTION. COMMENTS REQUIRED FROM ENABLING: INTEGRATED SUPPORT: HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES (OR RELEVANT LAWYER). This paragraph helps ensure the Council operates within the legislative framework and safeguards against costly legal challenges. Specific legal powers and advice provided by the) on how to exercise them. Depending on the subject of the report it will need to be cleared by the relevant lawyer (see Section G of Making and Reporting Decisions) 6.2 FOR ALL REPORTS TO BE PUBLISHED, COMMENTS ALSO REQUIRED FROM ENABLING: CORPORATE AFFAIRS: DEMOCRATIC SERVICES: [email protected]. Comments will include Forward Plan, pre-decision publication arrangements. 7. Consultation and co-production

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

8. Risk management

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

9. Equalities impact assessment

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

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

West Norwood Cemetery

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

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

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

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

11. Timetable for implementation

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

Audit trail

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

Raj Mistry Environment Delivery 27/8/2014

Andrew Maynard Capital Tax and Major Projects

David Thomas Legal

Natalie Finance Woodcock/Paul Badiani

Christina Thompson Director Integrated Support

Jane Edbrooke Councillor

Bharadia Hamant Business Partnering

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

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

Background information N/A

Appendices None. APPROVAL BY CABINET MEMBER OR OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEME OF DELEGATION

I confirm I have been consulted on this report:

Signature ______Date ______

Raj Mistry

Programme Director Environment Delivery

I approve the above recommendations:

Signature ______Date ______

Guy Ware

Strategic Director of Enabling

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

Signature ______Date ______

Councillor Sally Prentice

Cabinet Member for Culture and Leisure

Any declarations of interest (or exemptions granted): Issue Interest declared Appendix 1 – Worst Areas of Flooding Appendix 2 – West Norwood Cemetery Appendix 3 – Grid Map (West Norwood Cemetery) Appendix 4 – Lambeth Cemetery

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

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

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

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

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

Re-Use of public Implement access Re-Use & Burial consecrated improvements to Yellow hatched area Highways Capacity graves new burial site on map 4800m2 £400,000 £0 £0 Contract 2018-19 Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any Graves - Programme - gravestones that are General Phase 3 a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 £0 £0 Full EU Tender 2018-19 £415,000 £1,410,000 £0 Catacombs / HLF Bid - Project Management Parks for People Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2019-20 Project Client Management Management Management of Scheme n/a n/a £0 £60,000 £0 n/a 2019-20

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

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

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

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

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

Construction Client Side Project Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £0 £40,000 £0 n/a 2022-23 Two of the 16 'at Monuments and risk' monument Memorials Monuments repairs Various Locations n/a £0 £50,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Monument repair Monuments and and pathway Memorials Doulton's Path formalisation Doulton's Path n/a £0 £300,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Monuments and Further monument Memorials Greek Cemetery repair Greek Cemetery n/a £0 £500,000 £0 Full EU Tender 2022-23 Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2022-23 £0 £950,000 £1,000,000 Catacombs Catacombs Restoration Work n/a n/a £0 £0 £1,000,000 Full EU Tender 2023-24 £0 £0 £1,000,000 GRAND TOTAL £3,501,200 £4,260,000 £4,000,000 Appendix 7 - Lambeth Cemetery Financial Breakdown

FINANCIAL CATEGORY ITEM DETAIL LOCATION SIZE COST TENDER TYPE YEAR Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site Engineering scope and financial Capacity investigation modelling Area 1 on map 8700m2 £5,000 Direct Tender 2014-15 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site GPR Surveys to identify Capacity investigation electrical ducting Area 1 on map 8700m2 £5,000 Direct Tender Highways Drainage Drainage CCTV / Gully survey - clearance Whole Site n/a £40,000 Contract 2014-15 Granite Paved Entrance area Highways Roads Entranceway Detailed Design (Orange on map) n/a £10,000 Contract 2014-15 Kerb Reconstruction - Kerb reconstruction at edge of Highways Roads Phase 1 c/w Various Locations n/a £42,000 Contract 2014-15 Road Resurfacing - Highways Roads Phase 1 100mm plane and surface Various Locations 5000m2 £200,000 Contract 2014-15 £302,000 Granite Paved Entrance area Highways Roads Entranceway Detailed Design Continuation (Orange on map) n/a £7,000 Contract 2015-16 Road Resurfacing - Highways Roads Phase 2 100mm plane and surface Various Locations 9000m2 £400,000 Contract 2015-16 Kerb Reconstruction - Kerb reconstruction at edge of Highways Roads Phase 2 c/w Various Locations n/a £126,000 Contract 2015-16 Railing and Entrance Gates Railing - Phase 1 Replacement Blackshaw Road side 184m £86,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Re-Use & Burial Virgin Burial Site - Capacity design Detailed Design Area 1 on map 8700m2 £60,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 Re-Use & Burial Excavate redundant roadway to Redundant road Highways Capacity Redundant roadways make use for burial (pink on map) 384m2 £25,000 Contract Landscape and Highways Gardening Vegetation General Clearance Work Various Locations n/a £40,000 Contract 2015-16 Management Project Management Client Management of Scheme n/a n/a £30,000 n/a 2015-16 Construction Project Client Side Construction Management Management Management n/a n/a £20,000 n/a 2015-16 Graves - Cemetery Make Safe Making safe any gravestones General Programme - Phase 1 that are a H&S risk Various Locations n/a £15,000 Full EU Tender 2015-16 £809,000 Road Reconstruction - Entrance area Highways Roads Granite sets Construction Works (Orange on map) 256m2 £900,000 Contract 2016-17

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

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

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

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

If the drainage system is left its current state of repair, the Ground movement affecting cemetery will see an increase in ground water flooding that roads, footpaths, graves, could lead to part closures of the site and irreparable monuments, boundary wall / damages to the drainage infrastructure, roadways, footways, 1 Drainage Flooding railing. H H VH VH H VH 4 4 5 5 4 5 27 monuments and the boundary wall. Pedestrian trip or The remaining roads to be resurfaced are in a poor state of road traffic Council liability for accident or repair. In particular, Lower Road is worst and should it cause accident, road death, part closure of a trip or traffic accident resulting in injury or death the 2 Roads collapse cemetery H L M M M VH 4 2 3 3 3 5 20 Council will be liable. Many of the footpaths have longitudinal cracks along the lengths of them presenting pedestrians with 25mm trip Council liability for accident of hazards (at worst). Should they cause a trip resulting in 3 Footpaths Pedestrian trip death M L M M M H 3 2 3 3 3 4 18 injury or death the Council will be liable. Vegetation has been allowed to overgrow in many areas of Perpetual damages to the cemetery, causing damage to the boundary wall, roads, Structural structures leading to escalating footpaths, railing and monuments. If left, the vegetation - Landscape & damages, tree maintenance costs. Council particularly ivy, will cause structural damage that can 4 Gardening falling liability for accident of death H VL M H H VH 4 1 3 4 4 5 21 exponentially increase if left unkempt. Paint on railings is peeling off - with some panels exposed to the elements. If the railing is not treated ans painted the Sections of railing fail requiring damages can become far removed from simple maintenance 5 Railing & Gates Rust full replacement M L H H VL VL 3 2 4 4 1 1 15 and require full replacement.

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

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

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

There are 4 English heritage 'at risk' register monument in the Greek Cemetery that require urgent repair. If left, the list will grow as it has been some time since the entire site was Not formalised as reviewed by EH. Further to this, should one of the a pedestrian Poor reputation for LBL, loss of monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or death the 10 Doulton's Path thoroughfare valuable assets H M L H VL H 4 3 2 4 1 4 18 Council will be held liable. There are 3 English heritage 'at risk' register monument in the Greek Cemetery that require urgent repair. If left, the list will grow as it has been some time since the entire site was Not formalised as reviewed by EH. Further to this, should one of the a pedestrian Poor reputation for LBL, loss of monuments cause an accident resulting in injury or death the 11 Ship Path thoroughfare valuable assets H M L H VL H 4 3 2 4 1 4 18 Council will be held liable. There is currently no capacity for earthen burials at WNC. No further burials in WNC will Unless re-use is initiated now, the WNC will increasingly Re-use investment result in no income for earthen become reliant on Lambeth Cemetery (and Streatham) to 12 Grave Re-use not made burials VH VH VH VL M VL 5 5 5 1 3 1 20 fund its maintenance.

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

Appendix 9b – Risk Assessment Lambeth Cemetery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 9c – Risk Assessment Streatham Cemetery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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