CHILTERNS CREMATORIUM JOINT COMMITTEE
 

 
 

MEETING 18th SEPTEMBER 2008
 

 
 

OPEN REPORT OF THE CLERK TO
 

THE JOINT COMMITTEE AND THE SUPERINTENDENT
 

 
 

Background Papers (if any) are specified at the end of each item
 

 
 

1

LIAISON MEETING WITH PERSONS TAKING SERVICES AND        FUNERAL DIRECTORS
 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263
 

 
 

1.1

A liaison meeting was held on Wednesday 9th April 2008 and the notes of that meeting are included as Appendix 1.
 

 
 

1.2

A number of matters were discussed, many of which are being followed up by the Superintendent.  Members are asked to consider the notes (Appendix 1) and any matters arising from them.  Two matters in particular are drawn to the Joint Committee’s attention for a resolution as follows:-
 

 
 

1.

Milton chapel window
 

A request was made for a blind across the side window in the Milton Chapel (see section 5 in the notes of the meeting headed ‘Chapels’).  This has since been discussed with the Crematorium chapel attendants who felt this was only a problem occasionally, mainly following funerals attended by exceptionally large numbers of mourners.  They also pointed out that drawing a blind across the window in the way suggested when retrieving floral tributes might have the opposite effect and make people wonder what was going on that needed to be screened from view?!  The window is a very attractive feature of the chapel, which in fact owes its existence to a suggestion at an earlier liaison meeting when proposals to build the chapel were being discussed.  It is considered that a blind across this window would detract from the overall appearance and ambience of the chapel.
 

 
 

2.

Families booking funerals
 

Some of the funeral directors questioned the Crematorium’s policy of accepting funeral bookings from persons other than funeral directors i.e. the public (see section 7 in the notes of the meeting headed ‘Miscellaneous - Families booking time slots’).  The Superintendent explained that, particularly as a publicly run facility, it would be inappropriate not to do so.
 

 
 

1.3

Liaison meetings have been held on an annual basis for many years and are considered to be a constructive public relations exercise, giving users of the Crematorium the opportunity to raise matters for discussion directly with members of the Joint Committee.  The meetings are normally held in April or May.
 

 
 

RECOMMENDATION
 

 
 

1.     That a blind should not be installed across the Milton chapel window.
 

 
 

2.

That the policy of accepting funeral bookings from the public should continue.
 

 
 

3.

That the next Liaison Meeting be held at 6.45 p.m. at the Crematorium in April or May 2009 (the date to be decided at the meeting, preferably not a Tuesday or Thursday), preceded by refreshments.
 

 
 

Background papers: None
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

2

SERVICE PLAN 2008 - 2009
 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263
 

 
 

2.1

The service plan for the Crematorium has been updated for 2008 - 2009 and the executive summary is included as Appendix 2.
 

 
 

RECOMMENDATION
 

 
 

That the Crematorium Service Plan for 2008 – 2009 be approved
 

 
 

Background papers: None
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

3

COLLIER AND CATLEY: COMPLETION OF BUILDING WORKS
 

     Contact Officer: Alan Goodrum (01494) 732001
 

 
 

3.1

At the meeting on 17th December 2007 members were advised that the relatively newly appointed Divisional Head for the Reading Division of Thomas Vale (based at Collier and Catley’s old head office at Reading) had taken a direct interest in the project, and had assigned a new project manager to the task.  Following this action a number of site meetings had taken place between client, architect and contractor and the officer’s were relatively confident that real progress would now be made.
 

 
 

3.2

During the first half of 2008 there were further delays, but the officer’s are pleased to be able to report that at last, during August, substantial progress was made on site in correcting the majority of the outstanding defects.  The Milton chapel was closed for funerals for 8 working days to facilitate the works, which included the replacement of 17 bespoke doors and sections of damaged copper roof covering, rubbing down and recoating the main wooden ceiling in the chapel and the relaying of a substantial amount of external paving and block work.  After a wait of over three years, this is considered to be a positive step forward!
 

 
 

3.3

No progress has been made on site however in correcting the most significant defect which is the mould growth on the timber (birch plywood) covering the underside of the walkways.  This is particularly unfortunate as it is the defect which is most noticeable to users of the Crematorium and it is very bad – in many places the entire surface of the underside of the walkways is now completely covered in dense black mould which is detracting from the overall ambience of the facilities.
 

 
 

3.4

This defect has been reported to a previous meeting (Minute 5 of the Meeting on 2nd July 2007 refers) when it was noted that Collier and Catley had commissioned a timber report by TRADA, but the results were not known at that time.  In the event the results of the report were inconclusive, but indicated the likely cause was from condensation forming on the timber through lack of insulation (through design) between the panelling and the copper over-covering.  This was challenged by the architects, Haverstock Associates, who claimed that if the timber had been correctly treated with preservative and varnish in accordance with the specification then the mould growth would not have occurred.
 

 
 

3.5

A further investigation was carried out by TRADA, and also by an independent consultant commissioned by the architect, to try to establish whether or not the timber had been treated correctly.  Unfortunately the results were still inconclusive, to the extent that the TRADA report indicated that even if the timber had been correctly treated it was likely the mould growth would still have occurred.  In the meantime it had been noticed that mould growth was also occurring on birch plywood surfaces not associated with the copper covered parts of the walkways.  These observations lead to the architect considering that the problem could be with the plywood, or at least the use of it for this particular application.
 

 
 

3.6

In May 2008 a letter was received from the architects stating that “In order to maintain the goodwill between us we will specify the remedial work and organize the procurement so as to avoid as far as possible any costs falling on the Joint Committee”.  The intention then was to carry out the work during the summer months of 2008, but in the event there were further delays as the architect sought assurance that the mould growth would not reoccur on the replacement soffits.
 

 
 

3.7

In the end the decision was made to overlay the soffits using tongued and grooved treated timber rather than plywood, but by then it was too late to organise the works in time.  The works will cause significant disruption to the running of the Crematorium, necessitating a period of closure of one or other of the chapels for at least six weeks.  For this reason the Superintendent considers it necessary for the work to be done during the summer months.  At this time the demand for funerals is usually less and the weather and light levels are more conducive to completing the job more quickly.
 

 
 

3.8

The opportunity is also being taken to include a number of outstanding items of work in the same contract.  These are items which arose as the work on the second funeral chapel project progressed and would normally have been added to the Collier and Catley contract.  However, in the event they were not included because of the increasing problems and deteriorating relationship which was occurring with the contractor at the time.
 

 
 

3.9

In terms of budget provision, £87,500 remains outstanding as retention to the contractor and an allowance of £5,000 exists for the additional works referred to above.  The scheme remains in budget.
 

 
 

3.9     This item is included for information.
 

 
 

Background Papers: None
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

4

COMPLAINTS AND COMPLIMENTS 2007
 

Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263
 

 
 

4.1

Service provision questionnaires are sent to the applicant for cremation for all cremations carried out.  The majority of compliments, comments and complaints received come from this source.  In 2007 from the 2,900 questionnaires sent out 209 were returned from people who were satisfied (some with added compliments) and 39 from people who were mostly satisfied but including comments about matters they thought could be improved.  A brief summary of the responses to the questionnaires are given in Appendix 3.  During the year 9 complaints were also received.
 

 
 

Changes made as result of comments
 

 
 

4.2

Further work was carried out on the public address system in the Milton Chapel.  This has resulted in a significant improvement in its effectiveness and a consequent reduction in the number of comments/complaints from people saying they could not hear clearly, but unfortunately it still hasn’t cured the problem completely.  An expert brought in by the sound engineers during the year has confirmed that poor acoustics are a contributory factor which could be difficult to overcome.
 

 
 

4.3

There has always been an issue of last minute requests for music (often as the cortege arrive at the chapel door!).  Although the Crematorium always tries to meet these requests they do inevitably sometimes result in families being disappointed when they can’t have what they wanted or the music doesn’t go quite as they had planned.  This then leads to a negative response on the service provision questionnaire.  During the year this issue was once again raised with funeral directors and people taking funeral services with the aim of reducing the number of incidents.
 

 
 

4.4     More chairs were provided in the Milton Chapel.
 

 
 

Actions taken in response to complaints
 

 
 

4.5     The following complaints were received:-
 

 
 

Complaint 1:  The word ‘all’ in an entry in the Book of Remembrance showed up in the image on the touch screen to look like ‘ill’ which was upsetting as the person commemorated had died after a long illness.
 

Response: The computer image was manipulated by the calligraphers to clarify the letter ‘a’, and when the Book was next returned to the calligraphers for the latest entries to be added the ‘a’ was changed to ensure that it appears clearly as an ‘a’ in all future photographic images on the touch screen.  An apology was made by ‘phone and followed up by letter.
 

 
 

Complaint 2:     The language used in a ‘standard’ letter sent to an applicant for cremation about the cremation ashes was “curt, insensitive and impersonal”.
 

Response: The criticism was accepted and the wording of the letter was changed.  As a consequence of this complaint the wording of all the ‘standard’ letters sent out from time to time was reviewed and in most cases changes were made.  The complainant was seen in person when she came to the office and this was followed up by a letter of apology.
 

 
 

Complaint 3:     A specific complaint was made about not being able to hear in the Milton Chapel.
 

Response: See 4.2 above
 

 
 

Complaint 4:     An applicant complained that the music she had requested herself from the Crematorium office for a service was not played.
 

Response:     The applicant had visited the Crematorium prior to the service and one of the chapel attendants had spent some time discussing her music requirements and also playing a selection from the Wesley music system for her to choose from.  No decision was made at the time and the chapel attendant was left with the impression that she would advise the Crematorium of her requirements in due course.  In the event no music instructions were received, but it was accepted that particularly in view of the applicant’s visit the Crematorium should have realised something was potentially amiss and followed it up.   A letter of apology for the Crematorium’s mistake was sent to the applicant.
 

 
 

Complaint 5:     An applicant was unhappy about receiving an invitation to pay a fee to renew the lease for a memorial at the Crematorium.  She queried the justification for this and the “excessive” amount.
 

Response:     A letter was sent explaining the reasons why a periodic renewal fee is levied (to help pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the chapel and garden of remembrance and to help ensure there is space for more recently bereaved families to have a memorial), that the renewal policy had been in place since the Crematorium opened in 1966, and that it is a system operated by nearly all the crematoria in the UK.  It was also explained that an alternative lease period of 3 years (for a correspondingly lower fee) was recently introduced to help those who found it difficult to pay the higher fee for 5 years.
 

 
 

Complaint 6:     A widow complained that her husband’s ashes had been scattered in the garden of remembrance even though her wishes were that she wanted them collected from the Crematorium for disposal elsewhere.  The applicant for the cremation was the widow’s step-son.
 

Response:     Normally cremation ashes are not retained at the Crematorium for longer than 3 months (and this is clearly stated on our application form), but in this instance 5 months elapsed before they were scattered.  We have a strict procedure in these circumstances for contacting applicants, or at least attempting to contact them, before actually going ahead with the scattering.  In this instance the ashes were kept for longer than 3 months because at one stage the applicant indicated he was coming to collect them from the Crematorium, although in the event this didn’t happen and no further communication was received.  After the ashes were scattered the applicant claimed he had telephoned in response to a letter sent by recorded delivery advising that the ashes would be scattered after 28 days if no action was taken, although we had no record of the call.  A letter of apology was sent for any mistake on our part in the incident and the procedures were reviewed and changed with a view to reducing the likelihood of a similar incident occurring.
 

 
 

Complaint 7:     The company supplying our stone memorial plaques forwarded a complaint which had been sent to them by a person who had ordered a plaque from the Crematorium.  This person was complaining about the length of time it had taken for the memorial to be placed in the garden of remembrance because the first plaque made was the wrong size, and she had been given the impression that this was the fault of the supplier.  The supply company was complaining that their contact details had been given to the Crematorium’s customer, particularly as the mistake for the wrong size plaque was the Crematorium’s and not theirs!
 

Response:     The Superintendent wrote to both parties apologising and taking full responsibility for what had gone wrong.  He also took action to make sure staff are aware that when there is a problem with a supplier this is matter for the Crematorium and clients should never be involved.  The complainant wrote back expressing her satisfaction with the way the matter had been resolved.
 

 
 

Complaint 8:     A disabled person who had attended a funeral complained that access was difficult for wheelchair users coming by bus from High Wycombe because there was no dropped kerb from the pavement on that side of the entrance drive (although the complainant acknowledged in her letter that the kerbs were lowered on the Amersham side), and also that the font used in the Crematorium’s leaflet “Accessing our Services” was not the most suitable for people with impaired sight.
 

Response:     A letter was sent apologising for the inconvenience experienced by the complainant when attending the funeral which also explained that most of the kerbs had already been dropped as part of a phased programme of works.  The kerb in question would be dealt with as a matter of priority (it was lowered the following week).  The leaflet font was also changed and a new batch printed.  The complainant replied expressing her appreciation for the prompt action taken to resolve the problems.
 

 
 

Complaint 9:     Lack of information about buses and bus routes to the Crematorium on the web site or inclusion of links to the bus companies web sites, and failure on the bus companies web sites to acknowledge the bus stop at the entrance to the Crematorium.
 

Response:     Bus route information and links to the bus company sites were added to the Crematorium website and the bus companies were written to asking them to consider including information about the Crematorium on their own websites.  A letter was sent to the complainant outlining the action that had been taken to improve the situation.
 

 
 

4.6     This item is included for information.
 

 
 

Background Papers: None
 

 
 

 
 

5

PROPOSED CREMATORIUM AT AYLESBURY
 

Contact Officer:  Alan Goodrum  (01494) 732001
 

 
 

5.1

At the Meeting on 17th December 2007 the members were asked to review the options for the site of a crematorium at Aylesbury and for the reasons given in the report decided that site A1 be regarded as its first preference subject to reassurances on the programming of the link road and access (Minute 32 refers).
 

 
 

5.2

The site is next to an ancient monument (SAM) and this is one of the reasons why the officers are attracted to it because it would complement the open landscape most suitable for a crematorium and also help retain the attractiveness of the site by preventing encroachment of any future development.
 

 
 

5.3

However, the location next to the SAM is unfortunately causing concern to the County Archaeologist, which may in turn give rise to public sector objections through the LDF process which could well result in making progress with the site impossible.  The officers have been asked to look at alternative configurations within the area but they do not work.  Currently our planning consultant is in the process of producing some design parameters and arranging another on-site meeting between AVDC Planners and the County Archaeologist in an attempt to allay the objections.
 

 
 

5.4

There are indications that AVDC planning officers agree with the Joint Committee’s reasons for selecting the site as its first preference and will support this position in the report to their scrutiny committee on 23rd September.  In terms of securing the site and working out whether the Joint Committee wants to develop the site themselves, the officers believe a decision on this will be needed within the next six to nine months and will be the subject of a further report to the next meeting.
 

 
 

5.5     This item is included for information.
 

 
 

Background Papers: None
 

 
 

 
 

6

ORGANISATIONAL CHANGES AT CHILTERN DISTRICT COUNCIL
 

     Contact Officer:  Alan Goodrum  (01494) 732001
 

 
 

6.1

As part of the need to keep the organisation under review, and the impact of a senior staff vacancy at Chiltern, the Council has agreed to make a number of changes which will be implemented on a phased basis.
 

 
 

6.2

One of these will be the transfer of line management responsibilities of the Crematorium Superintendent from the Chief Executive to the Head of Engineering and Contract Management at Chiltern.
 

 
 

6.3

This reflects the increasing time pressure on the Chief Executive but also that the next project, the filtration system, will heavily involve engineers.  In terms of projects, the Chief Executive, acting as Clerk, will oversee the completion of the refurbishment works and retain involvement in the Aylesbury project.
 

 
 

6.4

The formal arrangements for the Joint Committee and role of Clerk remain unchanged, but the new arrangements will be more resilient and consistent with other joint committee arrangements.
 

 
 

6.5     It is anticipated this change will be made by the end of the year.
 

 
 

Background Papers: None