1

SINGLE MEMBER APPROVAL

INDIVIDUAL EXECUTIVE DECISION MEETING

THORNTREE CEMETERY BOUNDARY WORKS

EXECUTIVE MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND LEISURE

COUNCILLOR BARRY COPPINGER

DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT: IAN PARKER

17 JANUARY 2007

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

  1. To provide background information on proposed works to extend the north boundary of Thorntree (Protestant and Muslim) Cemetery, and report on the outcome of an exercise to obtain competitive quotations for the works.

BACKGROUND AND CONSULTATION

  1. On 27th September 2005, the Executive considered a Development Plan for our cemeteries and crematorium that included priorities for a series of potential improvement works. High priority was given to boundary improvements in Thorntree (Protestant and Muslim) Cemetery and Thorntree Roman Catholic Cemetery. Subsequently, through the capital programme £60,000 was allocated to fund this work, of which £50,000 was provisionally allocated to the Thorntree (Protestant and Muslim) Cemetery.
  1. The proposed works in Thorntree (Protestant and Muslim) Cemetery are in response to concerns around privacy and reported anti-social behaviour within the cemetery, and also in the vicinity of a large earth mound located near the northern boundary.
  1. Five design layouts were initially considered and discussions took place in the multi-faith Bereavement Services Forum, with the Muslim community and with the Executive Member. However, all five initial schemes were judged to be impractical and/or unaffordable. A new scheme was designed to stay within the £50,000 budget which involved the following:-
  • Relocating the existing footpath north of a boundary extension
  • Extending the cemetery boundary to add an existing earth mound into the cemetery
  • Re-shaping the earth mound
  • Providing a new 2.4 metre high fence
  • Relocating the existing light columns onto the new footpath
  • A footpath closure order, an application for planning consent and a land transfer from Erimus Housing to the Council
  1. The scheme is part of an overall commitment to improve standards in our cemeteries. For example, in the two Thorntree Cemeteries the Council has recently:-
  • Improved grounds maintenance and created two on-site gardener posts
  • Spent £109,000 re-fixing headstones
  • Provided new water points
  • Carried out path and road improvements
  • Upgraded CCTV facilities
  • Committed to carry out boundary improvements, some of which are in progress
  1. An application for planning consent was made for the scheme referred to in paragraph 4 and attached as an Appendix. A comprehensive neighbourhood consultation exercise was undertaken in response to the planning application and over 190 residents were informed in writing of the application. Four objections were received and details were reported to the Planning and Development Committee. The objections were:-
  • The height of the new fence
  • The graves should not be so close to the fence
  • Vandalism and anti-social behaviour is not present, or rare
  • Environmental problems on the existing path and surrounding grassed area
  • Anti-social behaviour associated with the existing footpath
  • Detrimental impact on the value of properties
  • Invasion of privacy to nearby residents
  • The presumed cost of the work
  1. The Planning and Development Committee were informed that there were no objections from the council officers consulted with expertise in transportation, environmental protection and community safety. The Committee were alsoinformed that the Community Council had been informed of the application and had not asked to be consulted any further.
  1. A planning officer informed the Planning and Development Committee that the appearance and layout of the locality would not be significantly changed by the proposed works. The existing footpath is currently opposite 11 Creekwood and the proposed relocated path would be opposite 9 and 10 Creekwood, where it would remain distanced from the properties by a highway. The report added that in terms of loss of light or privacy, the proposed works would not impact on nearby housing.
  1. The Planning and Development Committee granted planning consent for the proposed scheme on 27th October 2006.
  1. Officers in the Community Protection Service, Transport & Design and Streetscene Services subsequently spoke to residents about their concerns, and a letter was sent to 26 houses in the immediate vicinity of the northernboundary of the cemetery. This led to two suggested amendments to the overall scheme as follows:-
  • A chicane has been designed into the new footpath (in response to complaints of motor cycles using the footpath) and this is shown on the map in the Appendix in an indicative position.
  • A beech hedge along the rest of the footpath boundary scheduled to be planted in 2007/8, has been programmed for planting in March 2007. A letter signed by 17 local residents supported the planting of beech hedge with no objections received.
  1. One resident (and possibly 2 residents) living in Creekwood continue to express strong dissatisfaction with the proposed works. A letter was sent to the main objector and copied to a supporter on 28th November 2006 responding to 9 issues. These residents concerns relate to:-
  • Dissatisfaction with the planning application process and the decision reached by the Planning and Development Committee
  • The presumed cost of the work
  • That the works benefit one faith group more than others
  • Community Safety concerns
  • Disputes about the level of anti-social behaviour
  • The relocation of the footpath
  • The height and style of the new fence
  • The level of consultation undertaken
  • The need for a higher fence/more substantial boundary on other cemetery boundaries

Officers consider that a proper response has been given to each issue raised.

  1. Transport and Design Service have obtained quotations for the proposed works. Four contractors have provided a quotation. The quotations in order of price are:-

CONTRACTOR / QUOTATION PROVIDED
Contractor A / £33,315.87
Contractor B / £43,777.52
Contractor C / £54,345.02
Contractor D / £56,940.26
  1. In addition to the above quotations, there are additional costs of approximately £13,000 to cover legal fees for the land transfer, technical officer and design fees, footpath closure order costs, a chicane on the new path, the planning application fee and landscape planting. A beech hedge along the rest of the boundary will be funded mainly from Community Protection and Streetscene revenue budgets in 2006/7. The range of quotations for the work is therefore, between £46,315 and £69,940, excluding nearly 200 metres of the proposed beech hedge along the remaining boundary.
OPTION APPRAISAL/RISK ASSESSMENT
  1. The proposed works have been prioritised through the Executive and capital programme process. Several design layouts were initially considered before seeking quotations for the preferred scheme that was judged to be practical and affordable within the available budget.

FINANCIAL, LEGAL AND WARD IMPLICATIONS

Financial

  1. The available capital programme allocation for the works in Thorntree (Protestant and Muslim) Cemetery is £50,000 in 2006/7. The lowest cost quote is £33,315.87, which with the additional costs in paragraph 13 amounts to £46,315. The work can therefore, be carried out within the allocated budget.

Ward

  1. The Executive Member has kept local ward councillors informed in writing on progress with the proposal. No written objections have been received.

Legal

  1. The work involves a land transfer from Erimus Housing, a footpath closure order. Planning consent has been granted.

RECOMMENDATION

  1. That the boundary extension works are authorised as identified on the plan in the appendix.
  1. That Contractor A is awarded the contract for all works included in the quotation documentation at a cost of £33,315.87.
REASONS
  • The proposed works are needed and the selected design is practical and affordable.
  • A Value for money quotation exercise has been carried out.
  • Contractor A has carried out work on other schemes for the council and the standard of work has proved satisfactory.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

No background papers were used in the preparation of this report

AUTHOR

Jeff Duffield (Tel 728197)

Alan Lawson

Website http://www.middlesbrough.gov.uk

1