CHILTERNS CREMATORIUM JOINT COMMITTEE

 

 

 

MEETING 15TH JANUARY 2009

 

 

 

OPEN REPORT OF THE CLERK TO

 

THE JOINT COMMITTEE AND THE SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

 

1.     ANNUAL CONFERENCE

 

 

 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

1.1

The next Annual Conference of the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management (ICCM) will be held in October 2009.

 

 

 

1.2

It is usual for the Joint Committee to consider who should attend. In the current year, as has been customary, the Chairman and Superintendent were nominated, although in the event the Chairman was unable to attend due to other commitments.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

That the Chairman of the Joint Committee and the Superintendent be nominated to attend the 2009 ICCM Annual Conference.

 

 

 

Background Papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.

LIAISON MEETING WITH PERSONS TAKING SERVICES AND        FUNERAL DIRECTORS

 

 

 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

2.1

Liaison meetings have been held on an annual basis.  The last meeting was held in April 2008.  At the Joint Committee meeting on 18th September 2008 members resolved to agree the date for the 2009 Liaison Meeting at the next meeting of the Committee (Minute 8 refers).

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

That the next Liaison Meeting be held at 6.45 p.m. at the Crematorium in April or May 2009 (actual date to be agreed at the meeting) preceded by refreshments at 6.00 p.m.

 

 

 

Background papers: None

 

3.

CAR PARKING AND CCTV

 

 

 

Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

3.1

Since the extension of the car park, when the new Milton Chapel was built, parking problems have improved, but there can still be capacity problems when two very well attended funerals occur close together.  This issue was raised by funeral directors at the Liaison Meeting held on 9th April 2008, when it was suggested car parking attendants should be employed.  An alternative suggestion was for CCTV cameras to be installed to enable chapel/office staff to see a problem building up and contact the grounds maintenance staff to carry out car parking duties (Item 4 of the Notes of the Meeting refers).

 

 

 

3.2

Subsequent enquiries have shown that a minimum system would consist of three cameras which could be discreetly located on the building.  These would show views of the two car parks and the roadway between them which passes by the chapels.  The monitors would be in the music rooms for the chapel attendants to observe.  The cost would be up to £3,000 and this has been allowed for in the budget estimates.  Extending the system into the grounds to give views of the driveways has not been investigated at this stage because the cost would be significantly higher (needing underground cabling, poles erected to mount cameras etc) and also the Superintendent considers the cameras could be intrusive.

 

 

 

3.3

When the Milton Chapel car park was built, space was left at the far end, where the kerb was also set low, in anticipation that approximately 12 additional spaces could be created at a later date.  It was envisaged that this extension would be constructed using grass grids, both to keep costs down and to minimise the visual impact on the overall appearance of the landscaping.  This work could be done by the Crematorium’s own grounds maintenance staff.  The cost would be in the region of £4,500 and this has been allowed for in the budget estimates.

 

 

 

3.4

The CCTV would undoubtedly assist Crematorium staff in monitoring the flow of traffic in the car parks and also people around the building.  However, how much this would also assist in improving the management of car parking is less certain.  Consequently the Superintendent is reluctant to make a definite recommendation.  On the other hand, the creation of the additional car parking spaces would bring about a definite improvement by increasing capacity.  This would be achieved with minimum impact on the appearance of the grounds, and complete the Milton car park in accordance with the intention of the original design.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

1.

That members consider whether or not they wish to proceed with the installation of CCTV as outlined in the report.

 

 

 

2.

That the proposal to provide additional car parking spaces in the Milton chapel car park be approved.

 

 

 

Background papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

4.

WEB CASTING OF FUNERALS AND USE OF AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT

 

 

 

Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

4.1

During the last decade the Joint Committee have made a number of decisions in response to the changing pattern of funerals, in particular the extension of chapel booking times from thirty to forty five minutes, and the installation of the computerised Wesley Music system.

 

 

 

4.2

The structure of funeral services continues to develop and more recent changes include the increasing use of technology.  At the Liaison Meeting held on 9th April 2008 funeral directors asked if there were any plans to install additional equipment at the Chilterns (Item 2 of the Notes of the Meeting refers).  One such development is an internet ‘web casting’ service to enable relatives or friends who are unable to travel, or who live far away, to view the service whilst it is actually taking place; so much more poignant than viewing a recording at a later date.  Some crematoria are already providing this service.

 

 

 

4.3

Another relatively recent change is the use of audio visual equipment during the funeral service, using still photographs or video film showing various stages of the deceased’s life, with background music or commentary, or even the voice of the deceased him/herself.  These ‘photo and video montages’ are used to augment or replace the funeral eulogy and may be produced by the family themselves, or alternatively commercial organisations are emerging who will produce them professionally on behalf of the family.

 

 

 

4.4

There are practical and cost implications to the Crematorium in providing these services.  Installing the ‘web casting’ facility is relatively straightforward as the Wesley Music system already has the capability of having it added for an estimated cost of £2,100.  An audio visual system is more complex as there are various different options to choose from, including forward or rear-projection onto a screen, or through the use of large ‘TV’ screens, all of which can be provided either in mobile form or permanently installed into the building.  From research carried out it would seem that, in view of the likely initial low use, a mobile option is preferable as only one unit would be needed which could be wheeled into either chapel when required.  It may also be preferable initially to rent rather than purchase.  Should the Joint Committee decide to proceed with an audio visual facility then choosing which type of system to use would be subject to demonstrations to establish the best option.  The costs would be around £800 for renting a mobile rear-projection system for one year, up to around £3,500 to purchase a mobile ‘TV’ screen system including new electrical sockets and wiring and a plug-in facility to the existing chapel sound systems.  This expenditure has been allowed for in the budget estimates.

 

 

 

4.5

In reaching a decision about whether or not to proceed with an audio visual system there is also a practical/health and safety consideration.  Currently, when a family wishes to have a photo and video montage shown this involves them bringing their own equipment, or hiring it.  The equipment, which may or may not have been safety tested, has to be brought in and set up at the beginning of the service and taken down at the end, and also involves trailing flexes to the nearest electrical socket.  The latter issue could relatively easily be resolved by installing new sockets, but as demand for this service increases the impact on the chapel attendant and the time needed to erect and dismantle the equipment will become more significant, particularly when funerals are running close to their time limit.

 

 

 

4.6

Although a small charge could be made for the use of both a ‘web cam’ and an audio visual facility to help offset costs, neither should be viewed as a potentially profit making venture.  Instead, the provision of these facilities should be viewed as enhancing the level of service, in the same way as is already the case with the provision of an organ and the Wesley Music system in both chapels.  This is the reason why these additional facilities are being recommended by the Superintendent.

 

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

1.

That a ‘web casting’ facility be added to the Wesley Music system in both chapels for an estimated cost of £2,100.

 

 

 

2.

That an audio visual system be acquired for an estimated cost of up to £3,500 depending on the system selected and whether it is hired or purchased.

 

 

 

Background Papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.

DEER DAMAGE TO COMMEMORATIVE ROSES

 

 

 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

5.1

Due to its location there is an abundance of wildlife within the grounds of the Crematorium, which is environmentally positive and greatly appreciated by visitors.  Unfortunately there is a downside in that some of the wild animals cause damage to young trees, shrubs, flowers and floral tributes.  The main culprits are rabbits, and over the years steps have been taken to minimise their effect with the use of discreet temporary wire-netting fences around the rose beds in particular, and also by engaging professionals from time to time to keep their numbers in check.

 

 

 

5.2

Muntjac deer have also been known to come into the grounds occasionally when they eat the commemorative roses, which they consider to be a particular delicacy.  However, until 2008 the levels of damage were relatively low.  Moreover, these incursions were confined to certain parts of the garden where the planting of particular varieties which the deer don’t appear to like eating had kept the problem to manageable levels.

 

 

 

5.3

Unfortunately during 2008 this situation changed, with Muntjac deer being frequently seen in the gardens and devastating damage being inflicted on the roses.  This has potentially serious consequences for the Crematorium, not only in the likelihood of complaints being received from visitors with commemorative plaques on the rose beds, but in the longer term it could also lead to a loss of patronage of the rose bed commemorative plaques.  The rose bed plaque has, up to now, been the most popular form of commemoration at the Crematorium, with income in 2007/08 of £46,691.

 

 

 

5.4

Consideration has been given to steps which can be taken to resolve the issue.  The boundary fence to the garden of remembrance was substantially ‘refurbished’ in the mid 1990’s, but the bulk of it is still the original fence which was erected when the crematorium was first established in 1965 and is now in very poor condition.  Replacing it with a fence guaranteed to keep out deer is not really a practical proposition, both for reasons of cost and appearance, but the Superintendent is advised that a substantial stock fence could well deter Munjac deer and £20,000 has been allowed in the budget estimates for such a fence to be erected.  In the event that this fails then the roses will have to be replaced with an alternative plant which is unattractive to deer, but this would be the subject of a further report to a future meeting.

 

 

 

5.5

In view of the possibility that this issue may give rise to a number of complaints, and the potential for loss of income if it cannot be resolved, the Superintendent considered that members should be made aware of the situation and so this item is included for information.

 

 

 

Background Papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.

SCANNING OF MANUAL CREMATION REGISTERS AND DECEASED ON LINE

 

 

 

     Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

6.1

With increasing interest in genealogy a commercial company, Deceased on Line (DOL), has seen an opening and developed an internet based system which enables people researching their family tree to search burial and cremation records.  To be really useful it requires as many burial and cremation authorities as possible to sign up, and they are being encouraged to do so with the suggestion that this is a potential source of income.  Researchers are charged to use the system, with a percentage of the income going to both the authority and DOL.

 

 

 

6.2

In order for the system to work the records have to be computerised, and so for many authorities there is an associated cost in getting their pre-computerisation manual registers scanned.  This is something many would wish to do anyway to protect the information through the gradual deterioration or catastrophic loss of the paper records, and also to avoid staff having to handle the heavy registers on a regular basis when looking up records.  DOL argues that having scanned the records, putting them on line enables the scanning costs to be recovered over time.

 

 

 

6.3

During the year the Superintendent was asked to look into the potential of DOL in terms of income generating possibilities for the Crematorium, whilst at the same time risk assessing the security and use of the paper cremation records (approximately 62,000 records were hand written before the computerised cremation administration system was installed).

 

 

 

6.4

Some indicative costs were obtained from the scanning company associated with DOL, and the cost of scanning the manual cremation registers was in the region of £4,100.  This would simply provide an electronic copy of the record as back-up in the event of the manual version being lost.  The alphabetical index could be scanned for around £500.  However, this would not be sufficient to enable the main register record to be readily accessed electronically (the handwritten index is fine for humans to read, but cannot be ‘read’ by a computer).  To enable this to happen would require the index data to be manually captured which would cost a further £5,000, and this would be necessary to make the records accessible to the DOL system.

 

 

 

6.5

By contrast the income generating potential of the DOL system for Chilterns is considered to be low.  The numbers of genealogy enquiries currently being made are relatively few, probably because the Crematorium has only been open for just over forty years, and so details of those cremated here are still largely within living memory.  DOL’s own estimate of initial income to the Chilterns of £600 per annum would have a fifteen year pay-back time, and to reach this figure would require an enquiry every week which is not currently the case.

 

 

 

6.6

The security and use of the paper records has also been assessed and is considered satisfactory.  The registers, which are not particularly heavy, are stored in two substantial fire-proof safes.  The registers are placed on shelving approximately waist high enabling them to be lifted in and out without bending down or reaching up, and a table of similar height is located nearby on which the registers are placed and opened when looking up a record.

 

 

 

6.7

For the reasons outlined in the report the Superintendent considers that, relative to the costs involved, there is currently no justification either for the business case, or the risk in security and use, in scanning the manual cremation registers or putting them onto the DOL system.  The only possible exception is the alphabetical index which, in the unlikely event of catastrophic loss, would give a back-up list of all the cremations carried out here prior to the computerisation of the records, and would also be useful for office staff when searching for old records.  Also, these books are deteriorating and will need replacing at some time.  Allowance has not been made for expenditure on scanning the old cremation registers in the budget estimates.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

1.

That for the reasons outlined in the report the manual cremation registers are not scanned and put onto the DOL system.

 

 

 

2.

That this matter be kept under review in light of the future number of genealogy enquiries being made to the Crematorium and the success (or otherwise) of the DOL system.

 

 

 

Background Papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

7.

BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE AND LEATHER MEMORIAL PLAQUES

 

 

 

Contact Officer:  Charles Howlett (01494) 724263

 

 

 

7.1

The calligraphers, F.G. Marshall Ltd (FGM), have provided and serviced the Book of Remembrance, Miniature Memorial Books and Memorial Cards, since the Crematorium opened in 1966.  In 2000, when the new Chapel of Remembrance was opened, they provided the touch screen (visual referencing system, VRS), which compliments the Book of Remembrance by enabling an image of entries in the Book to be seen at any time, and also the Leather Memorial Plaque Scheme which is fixed on the walls of the Chapel.  In 2007-08 expenditure on the Book of Remembrance was £15,000 and the income was £34,000.

 

 

 

7.2

Provision of these services was last reviewed by the Joint Committee in 2003 when it was resolved to suspend standing orders in order that the company’s services might be retained for a further period (Minute 32 of the Meeting on 10th April 2003 refers).  There were a number of reasons for this decision.  FGM were one of only two long-standing calligraphy companies specialising in Books of Remembrance, who together serviced the majority of crematoria in the UK in roughly equal proportions.  At the time, two new companies had recently emerged but were only servicing a relatively small number of crematoria.  The standard of service received from FGM was excellent, and the Superintendent expressed concern that although another company might be able to provide the service at a lower cost there would be a risk that the service could be compromised.  Consistency is an important factor in servicing the Book of Remembrance, and retaining the services of the same calligrapher has this advantage.

 

 

 

7.3

Allowance of £2,500 was made in the 2008-09 budget estimates to upgrade the VRS system and also make the Book of Remembrance available on the internet through the Crematorium’s website.  Unfortunately, in the event it was found that the existing computer running the VRS is not sufficiently powerful to run the upgraded system and would need replacing, and more significantly that the existing wooden cabinet in which the system is housed could not be adapted and would also have to be replaced.  As a consequence the upgrade has not been carried out, but an amount of £5,500 has been allowed for in the 2009-10 budget estimates for the work to be done.  In the event it also seemed prudent not to proceed until a decision has been made about whether or not FGM’s services are to be retained.

 

 

 

7.4

There has been little change in calligraphy provision to crematoria since the Superintendent’s report to the Joint Committee in 2003, with the two main companies still providing the majority of the service to crematoria.  At that time there was some concern about copyright in relation to the use of the VRS by a company other than the one that had originally made the inscriptions in the Book, but to date there has been no legal case against any crematorium who has changed provider and it now seems less likely that this will happen in the future.  However, the service provided to Chilterns Crematorium by F.G. Marshall Ltd continues to be of the highest standard. The Superintendent acknowledges that if the service was market tested another calligrapher might come in with a lower price, but for the reasons outlined he is concerned that this could be at the expense of continuity and the quality of service currently enjoyed.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

Members are asked to consider whether they wish the provision of the Book of Remembrance and the Leather Memorial Plaque scheme, both currently provided by F.G. Marshall Ltd, to be market tested, or whether standing orders should be suspended and the services of the current provider be retained for a further period.

 

 

 

Background Papers: None

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.     PROPOSED CREMATORIUM: AYLESBURY

 

 

 

Contact Officer: Alan Goodrum (01494 732001)

 

 

 

8.1

Further to the report last time, discussions have continued with Aylesbury Vale District Council and other interested parties on the proposed site at Quarrendon, with the use of our planning consultant.  Essentially the Chilterns Crematorium Joint Committee’s preferred site (Q1/A1) was supported by Aylesbury Vale District Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee, but is experiencing sustained objections from the heritage lobby.  It is not in the Chilterns Crematorium Joint Committee’s interests to get involved in a protracted wrangle, not least to minimise costs, and we have been open to other suggestions (Q2 or the dumb-bell site) and made our own proposals (Q3).  This is set out more fully in the Clerk’s letter to Aylesbury Vale District Council (included as Appendix 8.1, part b).

 

 

 

8.2

Until the siting is resolved, it would not be appropriate to expend further resources on the business case for the Chilterns Crematorium Joint Committee owning and operating the facility.

 

 

 

8.3     The Committee are asked to note the report.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

 

 

Members are asked to note this report.

 

 

 

 

 

Background Papers: None