Agenda item

Report of the Bereavement Services Manager

Minutes:

The Bereavement Services Manager, Graham Harrison asked Members to note the performance figures from June 2013 to August 2013 and the comparison to the same period for 2012, highlighting that there was a net decrease of 16 cremations, with a total of 393, with 168 from Durham, 36 from Spennymoor and 314 from outside of the area.  Councillors noted the decrease in this period offset the increase from the previous period, with figures being in line with budget forecasts.

 

Members were also asked to note that the number of memorials sold had decreased in comparison to the same period the previous year, with sales being £1,540.62 less than the comparable period last year.  It was explained that families were being contacted as regards renewals of memorial plaques and the assumption was that the renewal figures would increase in the coming periods. 

 

The Joint Committee noted that Durham Crematorium, in a joint bid with the South Road Cemetery, had retained its Green Flag Award making 3 years with the Award.

 

The Bereavement Services Manager reminded Members that at the meeting held 24 April 2013, the Committee had agreed for a Business Administration apprentice to be employed.  Councillors noted that interviews took place 5 September 2013, with an appointment was made shortly after, and it was added that the apprentice was fitting in very well.  Members noted a further report as regards the Superintendent and Registrar position was set out later on the agenda.

 

Councillors were reminded of the Recycling of Metals Scheme and noted the nomination of the Tees Valley and Durham Branch of Cruse for the next round of distribution of funds.  It was added that to date, £8,333 had been distributed to local charities since joining the scheme.

 

The Bereavement Services Manager asked the Senior Projects Manager, Neighbourhood Services, Richard Fenwick to speak to the Joint Committee as regards potential further Crematorium Improvement Works aimed at increasing capacity within the chapel.

 

The Senior Projects Manager thanked the Joint Committee for the opportunity to speak and reminded Members of the cremator replacement works that had been carried out very successfully.  Councillors recalled that it was agreed at the meeting of the Joint Committee held 26 June 2013 to progress a feasibility study to look at how the public areas of the Crematorium could also be further improved.  Members noted the first stage of a feasibility study had been undertaken and the relevant drawings setting out 3 options were attached to the agenda papers (for copy see file of minutes). 

Option A

 

The Joint Committee noted that Option A incorporated works to increase the size of the main chapel, relocating 3 of the 8 columns within the Chapel to create an extra 50% capacity, increasing from 60 to 90 seats.  It was explained this in turn would have a knock on effect requiring additional toilet facilities, one extra gents and one extra ladies facilities at the existing location.  Members noted that there would be removal and relocation of the Chapel of Remembrance to an external plot, creating a larger circulation area to the rear of the chapel. 

 

Councillors learned that the Office would have a dividing wall removed, providing space for an additional 2 people and the Waiting Room would be relocated to the newly proposed extension.  It was added that the Vestry would be moved from the rear of the building to the front allowing a clear view of people arriving for services, the current Vestry being unused.

 

The Senior Projects Manager explained that all options for works would involve disruption to the Chapel and for Health and Safety reasons there would need to be relocation to a temporary Chapel. 

 

Option B

 

The Joint Committee noted that the second option would retain the structure of the existing Chapel and gain 20 additional seats through reconfiguration, and gain 10 through extension into the existing Chapel of Remembrance area.  It was noted that as per Option A, additional capacity would necessitate additional toilet provision, through extending the building out onto the existing flower bed.  The Chapel of Remembrance would be relocated to an external location and similar Office works as Option A would be undertaken.  Councillors noted the additional works to the Waiting Area; creation of a single entrance; relocation of the Vestry; additional windows and exterior canopies.

 

Option C

 

The Senior Projects Manager explained that Option C was very similar to Option B, however, with some slight differences in respect of no entrance beside the new Vestry and further improvements to the Office to allow for a more welcoming second public entrance.

 

The Neighbourhood Protection Manager, Ian Hoult noted that the three proposals had been developed in response to feedback from users, notably the larger capacity for the Chapel and the creation of canopies to shield from inclement weather.

 

Councillors asked questions in relation to: whether the Chapel would need to close in respect of all options; whether structural engineers had given indications that the proposals in Option A were feasible, what the capacity of the Chapel would be under Options B and C; use of the Vestry; what form a temporary Chapel would take; how the coffin would be moved from the temporary Chapel as it would not be alongside the existing catafalque; and the timescales for each of the options.

The Joint Committee were informed that for Option A there would be a need to close the Chapel for a period but that it was possible for continued operation of the Chapel under Options B and C, however, there would need to be great care and close working between the contractor and the Crematorium Staff and the timing of work would need to be carried out around service times.  It was added that works would be completed in a shorter amount of time if the Chapel was closed and temporary Chapel was used.

 

The Senior Projects Manager explained that a structural engineer had been consulted on the issues regarding the columns within the Chapel and that with the use of an 800mm ring-beam and flying buttresses the alterations would be feasible.

 

Members noted that the capacity within the Chapel for all options would increase to 90, however for Options B and C, this would be through the addition of chairs rather than additional pews.  It was added that all options also included an additional amount of standing room and some multimedia screens to allow mourners at the rear of the Chapel to follow the service.  Councillors noted that in all options, the Vestry would be relocated and improved and the Book of Remembrance would be relocated to a new Chapel of Remembrance, outside of the existing main Crematorium building.

 

The Joint Committee noted that the were options as regards the form a temporary Chapel could take, however, a wooden structure would be the likely solution with similar types have been used by churches and Durham University previously.  The Senior Projects Manager added that as a coffin moved through the curtains at the temporary Chapel, it would be then transported via a small vehicle, likely electric, to the Crematorium main building.  It was noted that the Crematorium at Newcastle operated a system with twin chapels and they used electric vehicles which were very quiet and worked well.

 

The Head of Finance - Financial Services, Paul Darby explained that the issues as identified within the Service Asset Management Plan (SAMP) did not replicate issues within the improvement project and were for areas other than set out within the 3 options.  It was added that the costs associated with each option were indicative at this stage and that more detailed costings and timings would be produced on the options that members wished to consider more and brought back to the Joint Committee accordingly. 

 

It was also highlighted that the financing of the works could be a combination of use of balances and prudential borrowing and that there was a report later on the Agenda with regards to Fees and Charges that could help provide increased financial capacity to accommodate these costs.

 

The Senior Projects Manager explained that if all works were to begin in say April 2014, then Option A would take until November 2014, with Options B and C slightly less time being completed in October 2014.  It was added that this was an indicative timescale, was very optimistic and assumed the use of a temporary Chapel to maximise the amount of work being able to be carried out on the existing Chapel. 

It was added that a more prudent estimate would be for some works to be completed by the end of 2014, with the whole scheme for any of the Options to be completed by March 2015.  

 

While Members agreed that there was a need to enlarge the capacity of the Chapel, however, there were concerns as regards any works to the columns within the Chapel.  Councillors felt that Option A should not be pursued in respect of any risk to the columns and character of the Chapel, rather Options B and C should be looked at in further detail.

 

Members noted that for delivery of the desirable improvement works there were a number of options for how this could be delivered, including competitive tender and in-house delivery.  Councillors noted the success of the cremator replacement works, being on time and under-budget and that the internal team (main contractor) had done an excellent job. It was also highlighted that VFM was secured through sub-contracting arrangements.  The Joint Committee were reminded that while the main contractor was not tendered for and was taken on in-house as regards the cremator replacement works, the cremator replacement itself had been through the OJEU tender process, and the specialist roofing contract having also been subject to tender.  Several Members noted that they felt that tendering would be more competitive and expressed a desire for the works to be tendered this time.

 

Service Asset Management Plan (SAMP)

 

The Bereavement Services Manager reminded Members that the Service Asset Management Plan (SAMP) had now been update and redrafted, attached at Appendix 6 to the report.  It was added that the SAMP would be refined in line with the works in relation to the Chapel.  The Joint Committee noted that there were 4 aspects to the SAMP: urgent essential works; desirable works that would be within the main Crematorium improvement works that included the Chapel; other desirable works outside of the main improvement works; and longer term works.

 

The Head of Finance - Financial Services explained that there was £93,319 within the current budget, which was for urgent essential works that included: building maintenance; roof repairs; outside lighting; road repairs; and updates to the cremator software amongst other issues.

 

Resolved:

 

(i)       That the current performance of the Crematorium be noted.

(ii)      That the current situation with regards to the sale of Memorials be noted.

(iii)      That the continued success with regards to the Green Flag   Accreditation be noted.

(iv)     That the current round of money available with regards to the recycling     of metals be noted.

 

(v)      That the progress with the Feasibility Study be noted, with Options B and C from the Feasibility Study taken forward and further information brought back to the Joint Committee, including an indicative project plan and an appraisal of the tendering options.

(vi)     That the content of the Draft Service Asset Management Plan be    noted.

(vii)     That the current 2013/14 budget be utilised to fund the urgent essential           works as set out within the report.         

Supporting documents: