Public+services+-+Cemeteries+Controvery+Grows+-+19.11.2010

= ** The Future of Haringey's Bereavement Services - Have Your Say? ** = ** - Residents organisations are calling for public consultation not privatisation of our 2 cemeteries (in Tottenham and Wood Green) and our crematorium (in Enfield). ** ** - The full Council meeting on Monday Nov 22nd must halt the moves towards privatisation to enable public consultation and proper consideration to take place. [Residents are urged to join the Haringey Alliance for Public Services anti-cuts lobby outside the Civic Centre at 6.30pm] ** ** - Contact the Council Leader (claire.kober@haringey.gov.uk) and Cabinet Member (dilek.dogus@haringey.gov.uk) if you want our bereavement services to stay as a public service, or would like to be consulted having been given the full facts. ** ** An update ** ** 1. Letter of concern from borough-wide residents organisations - Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, Sustainable Haringey, and Haringey Friends of Parks Forum ** ** 2. Reply by Cllr Claire Kober, Leader of the Council ** ** 3. Appendix - Sustainable Haringey's detailed analysis of the options, as presented to the Council's cabinet meeting on 16th November **

** From: Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, Sustainable Haringey network, and the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum ** To: Claire Kober, Leader of the Council

17.11.2010

Following the Cabinet meeting on 16th November, we three concerned borough-wide organisations are writing to request an urgent meeting.

We hope that Cabinet members have now had a chance to read the detailed Sustainable Haringey deputation Statement regarding Haringey's bereavement services and the cemeteries and crematorium. [Enclosed below]. This detailed Statement was delivered only half an hour before the meeting because the key appraisal/options documents (dating from March 2009 - April 2010) were only made available to us the day before. Hence the Statement was rather rushed, and there are further points of significance which could be added.

We are sure that, if you have now read the Statement, there will be lots of thoughts stirred by it and questions that come to mind. At the Civic Centre on Tuesday evening, both you and Cllr Dogus stated that you didn't wish to privatise our cemeteries / crematorium, but felt you 'reluctantly' had 'no alternative'. We believe that not only is the privatisation course fraught with great risks and dangers, as well as being likely to provoke ongoing public disquiet and controversy, but that there are highly realistic and better alternatives more consistent with key Council policies.

Some of the material in the Appraisal documents appears to be inaccurate, contradictory, incomplete or unsafe. Indeed the Options Appraisal itself was not even a complete Appraisal as it was explicitly limited to the Enfield crematorium site. We understand that in July 2010, based on these documents, Recreation Services originally was only proposing the disposal of the Enfield site.

Hence we request an urgent meeting with you and Cllr Dogus, preferably before the full Council meeting next Monday if at all possible, to discuss the implications and possible ways forward from now.

We note that this is an extremely sensitive and important issue, and a major public service - and a matter in which there has been no public consultation as yet (which we believe is against Council policy on such an issue).

Our Statement proposes that:

**1. A project team of staff from Environmental Resources and Bereavement Services should work together to investigate and assess the most energy efficient / sustainable options (some of which are set out in this response) and to retain the service in house to ensure a continued income to the Council from this valued and award winning service.** **2. Before any decision or further consideration is given to disposal of the Crematorium or Cemeteries full public consultation should take place to assess residents views on this.**

//[See full Statement enclosed below, at end]//

We are committed to trying to work in partnership with the Council in finding the best solution. A pause to properly consider such an important issue can only be a good thing. As you stated in your reply to Tottenham Civic Society's objections: 'the report that the Cabinet it [is] considering recommends that approval to the actual transfer is brought back to Cabinet next year.'

In the meantime we ask that any action taken to progress this matter (including the earmarking of any further costs or officer time) be suspended until you have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with us.

We are happy to meet at any time, and propose for an hour, which could be during the weekend if that's easier for you.

Sincerely

Dave Morris On behalf of the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations, the Sustainable Haringey network and the Haringey Friends of Parks Forum 0208 211 0916

**From Cllr Claire Kober, leader, Haringey Council**

[19.11.2010]

Dear Dave

Thank you for your email and the detailed analysis of the documentation the Council provided you with.

Thank you also for your suggestions of alternative options to the ones agreed by Cabinet. It will not, however, be possible to meet before the full Council meeting next Monday to discuss these options.

The Council believes that leasing the service to a private operator is the best solution for safeguarding and sustaining the services provided from the three sites as well as meeting the revenue surplus that the operation currently targets, without risking borrowed public money on infrastructure investment. As agreed by Cabinet on Tuesday we will be going ahead with the transfer of ownership of bereavement services, without delay.

The Council is seeking to maintain the current levels of maintenance and visitor access to all sites and will ensure that, within the contract documentation, controls exist that would put at risk the operators business at Enfield Crematorium should Tottenham and Wood Green cemeteries not be maintained to at least their current standard. We believe that Friends groups and organizations such as Sustainable Haringey, and the Haringey Federation of Residents Associations will continue to have a role in highlighting and discussing their concerns, especially where operators are not fulfilling their role as responsible guardians.

As you rightly point out, before any ownership transfer takes place Cabinet will have to approve the terms of the proposed deal and, effectively, endorse the recommended contractor. It may be appropriate at this stage for you to meet with Cllr Dogus* and John Morris **to discuss how we can incorporate the ideas you have expressed in the councils evaluation criteria and assessment for potential operators. I will ask Cllr Doguss support officer to contact you shortly to arrange the meeting.** **Kind regards** **Claire** **Claire Kober** **Leader of the Council** Appendix
 * **Cabinet Member responsible for Bereavement Services**
 * **Assistant Director responsible for Bereavement Services**

Sustainable Haringey

Deputation re proposals for disposal of Enfield Crematorium and Tottenham and Wood Green Cemeteries.

//As presented by Sustainable Haringey in writing to the Haringey Cabinet meeting, 16.11.2010//

Summary

 * Sustainable Haringey is asking for a reconsideration of the proposals to privatise Enfield Crematorium and Tottenham and Wood Green Cemeteries. **


 * We understand the general financial constraints the council is facing. And we understand the specific problems relating to the crematorium in terms of meeting requirements to abate mercury emissions. **


 * However, there are a number of concerns arising from the report presented to the Cabinet tonight. In particular, not all costs and benefits appear to have been calculated for each option, making the comparisons flawed and the resulting recommendation unreliable. Further there has be only very limited reference and investigation of the environmental impact of the available options. **


 * We do not believe it is necessary to spend as much money as set out in the report in order to comply with mercury abatement targets and that the potential payback period for necessary improvement works could be considerably shorter than suggested in the report. As such the Service should be viewed as a valuable and publicly valued asset, which although needing initial investment (either from capital or borrowing), has the potential to return to providing much needed income to the Council within a reasonably short period. **


 * We also have concerns regarding the restrictions on public access to many of the reports, only recently released but with some key information withheld, as this makes it much harder to check what the recommendations are based on and their soundness. We believe it is in the interests of the Council and all residents for such documents, and the options appraisal in particular, to be publicly available decisions shouldnt be made without the public being fully informed and able to comment. Councillors are often overwhelmed by paperwork and concerned extra pairs of eyes from residents can provide a valuable addition to Councillors scrutiny of proposals. In this case, from the report to Cabinet it appears only limited options to have been considered. **


 * Sustainable Haringey proposes that rather than spending any more money on disposal costs at this point: **


 * 1. A project team of staff from Environmental Resources and Bereavement Services should work together to investigate and assess the most energy efficient / sustainable options (some of which are set out in this response) and to retain the service in house to ensure a continued income to the Council from this valued and award winning service. **


 * 2. Before any decision or further consideration is given to disposal of the Crematorium or Cemeteries full public consultation should take place to assess residents views on this. **


 * SH believes that the council should not sell off assets of public open spaces and facilities. We believe that such deals are often false economies, as any incoming operator will want to make profit and so the council will in any event probably find itself paying for much of the development works, but losing out on any increase in income generated by the improvements. **

Sustainability issues


 * The decision to dispose of the Crematorium and Cemeteries is largely being made on the basis of the need to meet the mercury abatement target. **


 * While mercury abatement is a very important step, it is not the only environmental issue that needs to be addressed in relation to the Crematorium and Cemeteries and should not be considered in isolation when large sums of money are to be spent. **


 * The report to Cabinet makes no reference to the Councils Carbon Management Programme or the Greenest Borough Strategy (except as a link to a priority) and it is unclear to what extent these have even been considered during the options appraisals and other processes carried out so far. If the Council is serious about reducing carbon emissions and ensuring long term sustainability for all, these policies need to be applied to all decisions made. **

Cremations
 * It is reported that each cremation produces on average 160kg of carbon dioxide emissions. As well as mercury emissions, other pollutants released include dioxins and carbon monoxide. The report to cabinet does not address these issues in relation to the options proposed.**


 * There is only a brief mention of mercury abatement equipment having heat recovery potential, and no reference in the report to reduction of carbon emissions and fuel bills. On leaving the cremator gas is up to 1000 degrees C, it has to be cooled to 150 C before can be filtered through the mercury abatement equipment. As part of this process heat exchangers can be used to recover this heat and use it to heat the crematorium buildings. Some crematoriums are already doing this. But there is also further potential as some companies are now marketing production of electricity from this source.**


 * As part of its Greenest Borough Strategy the Council should be adopting and ensuring the most sustainable methods possible, and we believe the Council can do this most easily with assets under its own control. But additionally the report does not appear to have taken into account the savings to be made either from heat recovery or electricity generation when calculating pay back periods and making it's final recommendation to privatise the service. Energy generation is a potential source of substantial income for the operator and the Council could lose out if it is privatised at a time when funds are most needed and electricity prices are rising. Fuel bill reductions and income from energy generation also need to be taken into account in relation to the viability of prudential borrowing.**

Open Spaces
 * Tottenham Cemetery is a designated Ecologically Valuable Site of Borough Grade 2 Importance, which has significant nature conservation value biodiversity issues are not even mentioned in the report.**
 * It is also a historical asset part of Tottenham's heritage - opened in 1856, and part of a conservation area. Part of the Cemetery is in an area of open space deficiency, so provides a valuable semi natural environment easily accessible to nearby residents. Heritage and open space are important factors in social well-being and sustainability.**

//Mixing recreation uses with the traditional cemetery functions may improve the publics appreciation of these spaces.//
 * The Council's Cemeteries and Crematorium Review in 2005 found:**
 * //6.2 The provision of burial space has a number of environmental impacts and benefits. The challenge for Haringey Council is to reduce the adverse environmental effects of burial while protecting and enhancing the contribution made to the natural environment through these important green spaces.//**

//**6.3 Recognising the role of cemeteries as an environment for protecting biodiversity and encouraging an appreciation of nature was considered of importance.**//

//**6.5 Tottenham cemetery is a valuable historical asset to the people of Haringey. In order to develop the Tottenham Conservation Management Plan a more robust ecological audit needs to be undertaken. The results of this will inform both the Conservation Plan for the Cemetery and the Biodiversity Plan. The ecological audit should include a full audit of historic features including landscape, buildings, boundaries and layout, distinctive features (such as the Civilian War Graves, the lake, the path under the public right of way) and an assessment of local significance; Additionally there should be a audit of ecological features of Tottenham Cemetery, including a tree survey, habitat assessment, and the role of the site in terms of open space. The development of the Conservation Management Plan will seek to involve the community in the identification of valued monuments and landscapes.**//


 * None of these findings have been addressed in the current report to Cabinet, and it is unclear to what extent they have been implemented.**


 * Any legal changes permitting the re-use of graves (B p6 6.2c) could mean that a private operator will gain massive income from this, and the Council will lose out on this income. Additionally, residents concerns about graves / cemeteries may not be listened to as an external operator would be profit driven and wouldnt be worried that they might have to face election later.**


 * There are serious concerns relating to the loss of control of assets and amenity value of sites, and also the quality of service after disposal. Although the report (7.1.11) says that the terms of the lease would include provisions concerning access, maintenance and use, no detail is given of the minimum requirements that will be expected or of restrictions on charges. At present the in house service provides good quality / award winning at all locations (App B, p4).**

Burials
 * Concrete chambers - manufacturing a single vault can use considerable quantities of concrete, producing substantial CO2 emissions in the process. Alternative technologies should be explored for making family vaults or double layered graves. For example using more sustainable materials, or possibly even bales of recycled hardcore encased in wire netting (like smaller scale bales of ballast used in sea defence works)**


 * Woodland burial is considered a more sustainable alternative to traditional burial, and could be explored with neighbouring Enfield and/or Essex and Hertfordshire districts a little further away. There is increasing demand for woodland burials as a more sustainable option and maintenance / running costs are much lower than traditional burial plots.**


 * The 2005 report mentioned earlier states:**
 * //7.6 Haringey Council currently owns land near Enfield Crematorium and cemetery that could be used for future burial space. Currently the land is leased to Forty Leisure Ltd. At present there are no plans to use this land before the current lease expires.//**


 * It could be financially viable for the Council to provide such a service on this site the land is still owned by the Council.**

Transport options

 * Some of the proposed options for the Crematorium include increased parking provision and new roadways. However no detail is set out in the report of the costs of these, or of clear justification for their inclusion. In the Environmental Considerations section of the Options Appraisal (S12) it is noted that opportunities should be explored for improving public transport links to the site, and reducing the need to access the site by car, but these issues do not appear to have been taken up elsewhere within the appraisal or reports. Improved public transport access to the Crematorium should be promoted in line with sustainability objectives. **

__Alternative options to disposal of Bereavement Services__


 * The basis of the recommendation to dispose of the Enfield Crematorium and Tottenham and Wood Green Cemeteries is that a minimum capital investment of 6.6m is required to sustain cremation and burial services that return a revenue surplus to the council. (para 5.1) Elsewhere, the suggestion is that up to 13.4 m investment is required. There is no detailed breakdown of how the figures were arrived at.**


 * The report by the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management The Installation of Abatement Equipment at Enfield Crematorium gives figures of 1.1 - 1.4M for the new cremators and abatement equipment, and suggests payback costs of between 176,000 p.a. and 224,000 for the first year, reducing over10 years (S6). The lower figure is actually less than the surplus expected to be achieved by Bereavement Services this year, despite the anticipated income shortfall. We have not seen cost figures for the civil work options suggested by the ICCM report (S4), but there appear to be several options available with costs of a relatively minor magnitude, such that it should be feasible for improvement works to be paid for by service income, given that income from cremations is over 1M p.a. While it may be desirable to upgrade buildings, there is no real evidence that this is required in order to sustain current levels of use - providing prices do not increase substantially.**


 * Additionally, there are a number of alternative options which dont appear to have been considered, some of which could be considerably cheaper than either of these amounts or which could result in a shorter pay back time for funds acquired through prudential borrowing, and these could result in the Council receiving a revenue surplus without substantial fee increases, in a much shorter time frame. This would provide a valuable and reliable source of income to the Council rather than to a private company.**


 * In order to comply with the CAMEO scheme the Council has to reduce emissions by 50% on 2003 levels. This is calculated by reference to the number of cremations that were carried out in 2003 approx 2,800. Installation of mercury abatement equipment may not be the only way to comply with the requirements of the scheme it is suggested it could also be met by reducing the number of cremations to approx 1,400 by Dec 2012.**

Option 1
 * Alternatives to Cremation have now been developed which are said to have zero mercury emissions and require up to 80% less energy than cremation and therefore far lower CO2 emissions.**


 * These include Resomation, Aquamation, Cryomation and Promession. As yet none are in use in the UK; however both Resomation and Cryomation are expected to become commercially available in the near future. In the case of Cryomation, this may be as soon as next summer. The equipment for both these processes costs less than or in the range of mercury abatement equipment; however the size of the equipment is much smaller about the same size as a cremator. This would mean that it should be unnecessary to carry out major building works in order to install the equipment, and potentially the mercury abatement targets can be met and revenue surpluses restored within a much shorter timeframe**
 * making it viable and a very attractive proposition to keep Bereavement Services in house.**


 * There are four cremators at Enfield Crematorium (B p7 6.3), with two chapels. In 09/10 there were 2,070 cremations - 56% of crematorium capacity (B p3 4.1). As such, if one or two of the cremators were replaced for example with Cryomation equipment, the crematorium would not need to close for a substantial period, if at all, and cremations could continue using the remaining cremators until such time as the Council decided to replace them (either with mercury / energy compliant cremators or alternatives).**


 * The equipment could be funded through capital investment or prudential borrowing. Income from cremations is over 1M p.a., with a surplus in recent years of 400k. With alternative methods also available there is potential for this income to be increased.**


 * Although there may be some initial hesitancy over the new concept there is also likely to be demand for more sustainable alternatives to cremation from residents concerned about environmental issues, and it would also be possible to market the service on this basis as part of the Greenest Borough Strategy, perhaps even attracting interest from further away.**


 * Additionally the reduction of energy bills by up to 80% would mean that the borrowing could be repaid more rapidly.**

Option 2
 * Use capital spend / prudential borrowing / sustainable investment or spend to save funds / a mixture of these, to install energy efficient cremators and mercury abatement equipment with heat exchange system and / or energy generation. If the building needed to be structurally altered or enlarged the south facing parts of the roof could be replaced with photovoltaic roof tiles or panels to generate further energy. Income from energy generated and cremations can then be used to fund pay back on a much shorter timescale or without such high price increases per cremation which the report indicates might deter clients. It may be possible for the Council to benefit from the Feed-in Tariffs (FITs) scheme, with a pay back of up to 41.3p per kilowatt hour (kWh) generated.**

Other possible options
 * Seek / develop woodland burial facility a potential source of income without high maintenance costs.**


 * The Council could also explore a partnership with Enfield Council for the crematorium to share the costs of improvements.**


 * Pacemakers are already removed prior to cremation, so it has been suggested that the Council could carry out investigations / consultation exercise to determine whether feasible / residents would object to removal of fillings prior to cremation as this could be far more cost effective than mercury abatement equipment. It is considered best practice to tackle toxic substances upstream rather than at the end-of-the-pipe. This could mean, for example, people being encouraged to make wills that include the right to remove any mercury-based fillings prior to cremation. Alternatively, it could mean seeking relativespermission to do this, and a cost reduction could be offered as an incentive. Public perceptions could be changed people may be happy to consent to avoid pollution and reduce the need for huge capital expenditure.**

Note 1: Detail on alternatives

Cryomation **uses Liquid Nitrogen to freeze the body to -196 degrees C until the body is brittle. The body is then fragmented, foreign metal objects removed, and body materials returned to the process. The remains are then freeze dried under a range of vacuumed conditions to remove the moisture. The process has now been fully tested and proto-typed and is now moving to the full pre-production build of the first Cryomator. This unit will be available by September 2010 with full tests completed by January 2011. The developer is starting to look for 4 pilot sites for this process**


 * Cryomation has a** CO2 **footprint reduction of up to** 80% when **compared to most traditional cremations. Cryomation produces NO emissions and eliminates poisonous mercury emissions altogether.**

Promession **similar method about to be adopted in Sweden, South Korea and East Cheshire**

Resomation **is a process that uses water and alkali rather than high heat to quickly decompose a body. The body, enclosed in a silk coffin, is placed in a steel chamber along with potassium hydroxide at a pressure of 10 bar. This is said to have lower carbon footprint than cremation and uses an** eighth of the energy.
 * The high pressure and the temperature dissolve the body in two to three hours, leaving just bones to be crushed in a similar fashion to cremation and placed in an urn. As with ecological burial, dental amalgum can be easily separated from the ash. Process used in some states in USA.**

Aquamation **is based on an alkaline hydrolysis process: the way in which a human body naturally breaks down in an organic or watery environment. It uses a blend of potassium, water flow and heat. It is said to be highly energy-efficient and reduces the energy consumption level of cremations by 90 per cent.**

Woodland burials **- further information is available on [] or [] for the St Albans model scheme, or []** Involvement of local residents as stakeholders / investors in the development of bereavement services**.**
 * In the USA (and some other countries) people pay up front years before they near the end of their expected life span for a family burial plot - has this option been explored as a way of raising funds for new graves and/or to generate a profit for the capital costs needed for mercury abatement/crematorium improvement ?**

=__ Questions and concerns raised by the Report __=
 * The recommendations do not include public consultation on the proposals, which is vital given likely public concerns over a number of issues related to disposal.**

Key questions used to appraise options
 * Key questions 7.1.13 to be considered in selecting the appropriate course of action are flawed, they should include:**


 * - What are the key sustainability issues in relation to the activities and how can the Council ensure the best outcomes in relation to these.**
 * - Do the services provide a valuable source of income for the Council which could be useful in maintaining other services once prudential borrowing costs had been paid off.**
 * - Would capital investment, including Spend to Save or the Sustainable Investment Fund mean that it was possible to increase the revenue surplus from the service.**
 * - Are the services / assets valued by local residents and would award winning standards be maintained if an external operator took them over.**

Costs and benefits


 * While not having sight or detail of all the appraised options the figures given throughout the report are not consistent, there is no clear breakdown of how some figures were arrived at, what was included, and it appears some important information has not been taken into consideration**


 * It is proposed at 4.5 That approval is given to the disposal on the open market of 1 and 2 Grenville Cottages located at the north-east end of the Enfield Crematorium site, and the associated receipt ring-fenced to support the one off business disposal costs. It is proposed that this should take place by March 2011 (7.1.12)**
 * However, the Options Appraisal notes in S10 that sale of the site would result in a need to relocate the displaced Grounds Maintenance facilities. The report does not indicate that this has taken place, and there is no indication of the costs of either temporary or permanent facilities being provided at this stage.**


 * These are 2 x 3 bed semi-detached houses with large gardens (B p7 6.3). If its thought appropriate to sell off these cottages, why not ring fence the receipts for use to pay towards the crematorium improvements.**

Mercury abatement costs


 * The figures provided are hard to make sense of. The figure of 13.4m(pr 6.1), seems to be a combination of issues including mercury emission requirements and new burial provision. No clear breakdown is given of how figures were arrived at. The feasibility report at Appendix B has no mention of this figure and no obvious way of reaching it.**

Crematorium

Income **from cremation for last 4 years averages** just over 1M **(B p8 7.2)**
 * 2 chapels (B p2, 1a)**
 * 2,070 cremations in 09/10 (B p3 4.1) down from over 3000 in 1996.**
 * Out of 12 other crematoria in region 9 increased numbers of cremations from 07/08 to 08/09**
 * Cremation plant and equipment cost 1.1M - 1.4M**
 * Asset condition only minor repairs needed in next 5 years, to value of 39k (B p7 of 14).**


 * It is not clear why it is considered necessary to spend 13.4m (pr 6.1) to make the Crematorium a viable concern for the Council. It appears four issues are being combined mercury emission requirements, new more attractive design, site infrastructure roads / parking and new burial provision. A clear explanation of how these figures were arrived at is not provided and we challenge the assumption they are necessary or right.**


 * Eg. In para 7.1.9 it is said it is unclear if a buyer would want to invest in burial spaces. It is not clear why it is suggested that the service is not viable in house unless the burial provision is extended, but that an external operator could create a profit without creating the burial spaces.**


 * Ref in 7.1.4 & 5 to downturn in burials and cremation, mostly attributed to life expectancy, supply and fitness for purpose. However App B p 8 para 7.2 indicates likely cause is decision to increase costs of burials and cremations as part of efficiency saving measures (B p8 7.2) 9 other crems increased the number of cremations over the same period (App B p3 para 4.1), fees are now substantially higher 535 - up from 440 in 07/08 (B p8 7.2), than average 497 for nearest 12 crematoriums (App B bottom p 7).**


 * So efficiency measures may be counter productive and driving clients away. Why is reducing the price to the level of nearby competing crematoria not considered as an option and has any analysis been done of the sensitivity of volume (demand) to price.**


 * 8.3.1 Suggests there may be a possibility of re-using the sites in future years and the lease option would give Haringey the opportunity to benefit from this income. However if the lease is for 90 years, or even 30, it would seem unlikely that the external operator wont have made maximum re-use of space by the time the lease has expired.**


 * 8.4 Other options considered. Whereas in the option of moving to an external operator, the funds from the sale of the two cottages are ringfenced to pay for process of disposal to the operator, these funds have not been taken into account in the other options considered, eg to reduce the amount of prudential borrowing for example. For example, in 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 if these funds were taken into account it might be unnecessary to increase charges so the risk of a decrease in clients would be mitigated.**


 * 8.4.3 There are 3 figures given for the minimum investment required, but only two items listed.**


 * Also in App B p13 no 14.**


 * 8.5 Significant costs have been incurred to date, the figure of 90k for this financial year was said to be 126k in the report to cabinet in July, how did this discrepancy arise? Have all these costs come out of prudential borrowing or have some been paid for out of the Service budget, so reducing the surplus income figure?**


 * It is not clear what proportion of these costs are relating to disposal of these assets, but it is clear that if the disposal does go ahead the costs will swallow up the money raised from disposal of the cottages on the open market this money could be better spent by the Council on continuing to run the currently award winning Bereavement Services.**

Terms & conditions of lease


 * The report does not set out:**


 * - Expected / minimum acceptable income for council if disposed of**
 * - Value of potential burial plots from re-use of grave space as a result of changes to law.**


 * Very concerned re para 4.1 heads of terms of lease to be agreed by Head of Corporate Property services this would mean there was no Councillor or public scrutiny, and no accountability over assets belonging to residents.**


 * 7.1.10 states that the marketing process for the sites will require external operators to indicate their preferred length of lease if this decision is not subject to agreement at a subsequent council meeting residents will have no say in this issue. The difference between 10 or 30 or 90 years and the potential loss of income to the Council is huge and such an important decision should be open to public and Cllr scrutiny.**


 * 7.1.11 states that the lease based agreement would include provisions in relation to five issues set out, however, it gives no indication of the likely terms of those provisions and whether they would be acceptable to residents. The provisions do not include biodiversity or other environmental issues, nor any requirement for a private operator to work with residents / families / community groups such as Friends, nor what charges the external operator would be permitted to make. Or protection re re-use 6.2c.**


 * 9.1. The covenants listed do not include environmental, biodiversity or heritage issues. The Heads of Terms are the only form of protection and there should be full public consultation on this.**

Rush not beneficial**

7.1.13 Portrays that there is a need to make the decision to externalise now - driven by need for compliance with mercury emissions by Dec 2012, but even if adopt disposal now, takes 18 months to appoint company May 2012 (App B p12). It is not clear how the dates in 7.1.12 for disposing of the service were arrived at, they do not co-incide with the dates in the background documents, and the timetable seems very unlikely. For example the sale of Granville Cottages is timetabled to occur by March 2011, yet the Change Implementation refers to the need to gain vacant possession of the cottages. (B p12) Report says procurement of mercury abatement equipment should start no later than June 2011(App B p5), so disposal will delay for at least a year after this & council will have to pay abatement charge for this delay period (until at least June 2013, likely longer). CAMEO website says procurement of suitable abatement plant is a process that is likely to take a minimum of 2/3 years to complete so wont meet deadline til May 2014-15 if outsourced. May have to pay abatement charge in any event (approx 45 per cremation).

CAMEO estimate that 45 is also the likely surcharge needed per cremation in order to fund mercury abatement equipment through prudential borrowing - including the capital cost, interest over 15 years at 6%, and running and maintenance costs. This is based on equipment for 2 cremators, costing 500k, with an income of 200k p.a.

There are also possible savings on the cost of buying mercury abatement equipment if the Council joined with other Councils to purchase the equipment possibly as a council consortium. This may even be cheaper than a private operator. This is a good argument and probably extended to other kinds of cost too, especially since both private profit and transaction costs of tendering and of monitoring the private contractor are avoided. Council could set up a joint enterprise.

Funeral facilities are a potential and historic source of income for Council which assists with the long term financial sustainability of the Council. Privatisation would mean the Council will lose out on significant and fairly reliable income from burials and cremation over the period of the lease. (Bp11 10)