Agenda item

Mike Redman, Director of Environment

In recognition that the concerns that members (and the public) had voiced regarding the recent shutdown of the cremators at Bouncers Lane Crematorium, the committee had requested an overview of the issue, details of how it had been resolved and what lessons had been learnt.  The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member Clean and Green Environment, the Director of Environment and a Building Surveyor from Property Services.   

The Director of Environment introduced the discussion paper which had been circulated with the agenda and whilst he did not propose to talk through it, he did refer members to Section 7 (Lessons Learnt) and the principle lesson learnt related to communications.  The council had relied heavily on Funeral Directors to communicate relevant information to their clients on their behalf and from the small number of complaints received it was clear that consideration needed to be given to the council’s role in communicating any future business continuity issues.  Similarly, members views on how they felt they should be briefed in future given that during the recent issues members were briefed at the same time as the press, often in the form of a press release.  It was also noted that the Building Surveyor had been liaising closely with the maintenance contractor with regard to the existing, sub-standard plant equipment.

The Cabinet Member explained that communications would be a key issue in terms of the next 12 months with the existing equipment and admitted he was in a dilemma about which approach the council should adopt: contact bereaved families directly or leave it with the Funeral Directors to communicate business continuity issues.  He explained that there were two schools of thought: it was a council service and therefore the council should take responsibility for all communications or: the bereaved families had a relationship with Funeral Directors which made it more appropriate for them to communicate any issues.  Discussions were ongoing and he would welcome a view from members, highlighting that any procedure would apply beyond the context of the defective plant equipment. He had acknowledged at the time, in a statement to Council, that members’ were receiving information in the form of a press release, at the same time as the press and whilst this was not his favoured approach, it had been necessary at the time he queried whether members had thoughts on an alternative approach, perhaps including text messages or phone calls.  He was also aware that a resident had contacted a Gloucestershire County Council representative who was not aware of the issue and did members have any thoughts on this going forward.      

The following responses were given to member questions:

·         The existing cremators had historically operated at the higher end of temperature that you’d expect and this had created problems with flues and other parts, as well as causing the electrics to fail.  The chapel was small and cremators obviously generated heat, normally 40 degrees but in the case of the defective cremators this ranged from 50 – 66 degrees and where you would ordinarily mitigate this by installing more windows, for example, this was not possible because the chapel itself was a listed building.  In the short term the number of fans had been increased and discussions were ongoing with the Planning Team with regard to other options, though clearly this process would take time given the listed status of the building.  The advice from those running the maintenance contract was that maintenance should be undertaken very 3 months but this had been reduced to every 6 weeks in light of the recent issues and the council had also increased the level and range of stock parts.     

·         The Emergency Planning Team had been made aware of the difficulties posed by the defective equipment and the recent shutdown had highlighted a deficit of capacity in the locality. 

·         The council had previously be given assurances from neighbours that they had spare capacity should cremations have to be transferred to other crematoria in the locality (Gloucester and Worcester) but at the time of the issues they were catering to higher demand and were therefore not in a position to take displaced cremations from Cheltenham.  Instead, Westerleigh, a private funeral provider which had sufficient capacity at their brand new facility in a countryside location just outside of Newport. 

·         With the robustness and reliability of the defective plant still a concern, transitional arrangements for the coming 12 months were being considered.  This included the option of a temporary installation, but there was a process to be gone through, which would take time and there was a judgement to be made about the cost/benefit of doing this given the new equipment was due on line in Spring 2019.  Discussions with the suppliers of the new plant equipment about accelerating the programme was another option being explored, but this also involved discussions with those delivering the service to establish how the service would be delivered whilst maintaining a sufficient level of dignity.     

·         Coffins were transferred to the place of cremation by private ambulance (free of charge) and the ambulance was used to return the ashes the next day, which for cremations carried out at Cheltenham generally took 3 days.

·         In his time as Cabinet Member, Councillor Coleman and the team had worked hard to improve relations with Funeral Directors, which had been badly affected by the issues with the sub-standard equipment.  The plan was to engage with Funeral Directors about their views on who should communicate business continuity issues in the future and whilst he would welcome member views on this, he would not go against the decision of the Funeral Directors. 

·         Obviously CBC councillors were concerned about residents of Cheltenham but wat about the larger, catchment area, for want of a better word, people who lived outside of the Borough but who used the crematorium.

A number of members took the opportunity to commend everyone involved for their handling of what had been a very unfortunate situation. 

The Cabinet Member added his thanks to officers for how they had dealt with the crisis, which he could not fault and seized the chance to thank Councillors Payne, McCloskey and Ryder who had formed part of his Cabinet Member Working Group for the last 4 year, as he was aware two were standing down.  He had found this an invaluable sounding board and urged groups to nominate replacements following the upcoming elections.     

Members were of the view that the Funeral Directors were best placed to communicate any business continuity issues, having a relationship with the bereaved which the council did not.  A member commented that this would not be acceptable to all but that it would be impossible to develop a procedure which met the expectations of everyone.

There was consensus across the committee that members of Gloucestershire County Council should, along with Borough Councillors, be made aware of any issues at the first opportunity and where possible, in advance of the press, though members appreciated that this was dependent on the circumstances of a particular issue. 

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for their attendance.