Agenda Template

WEST NORWOOD CEMETERY ADVISORY GROUP
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON
Wednesday 22 April 2015 at 5.30 pm
PRESENT:
Professor Robert Flanagan (CHAIR), Jill Dudman, George
Young, Councillor Deckers Dowber, and Councillor Fred Cowell
ALSO PRESENT:
Nicholas Long, Kevin Crook, Raj Mistry, Dick Tooze, Trevor
Uprichard, and Steven Wong
APOLOGIES:
Dr Brent Elliot and Carolyn Dwyer
The minutes reflect the order in which items were considered at the meeting
1.
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
The Chair welcomed all to the meeting and those present introduced
themselves. Apologies were received from Dr Brent Elliot and Carolyn
Dwyer.
2.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS ADVISORY GROUP
The Minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Advisory Group meeting held
on 21 January 2015 were scrutinised and noted as a correct record of the
proceedings.
3.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SCHEME OF MANAGEMENT GROUP
The Minutes of the West Norwood Cemetery Scheme of Management
Group were scrutinised. The Horticultural Society Memorial and the
stillborn babies and foetuses Memorial (agenda pack, page 11) were
mentioned in discussion, both would remain on the agenda for an update
from Alastair Johnstone; Kevin Crook would follow this up. The Chair of
the Scheme of Management Committee (SoMC), Nicholas Long,
reiterated that regularisation was needed and Raj Mistry confirmed that
Lambeth were checking the legal archive records.
4.
PROJECT OFFICER REPORT
Steven Wong introduced the Project Officer Report noting that the Asset
Action to be
taken
(For Officer
use only –
does not form
part of the
minutes)
Investment Management Group’s (AIMG) £13m programme extended
across three cemeteries and had been cleared by both AIMG and the
Asset Members Cabinet Advisory Panel (AMCAP). The first tranche of
£285,500 for West Norwood Cemetery would hopefully be agreed by
Cabinet Members on 18 May 2015, but subsequent tranches would
require sign-off each year.

There were plans to review the 2002 drainage feasibility assessment,
but it was intended that the brief would inspect more ambitious
measures than the 2002 proposals. This work would be dependent
on the progress of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) Round 1 progress.

The project officer confirmed that the Effra Culvert had been
overflowing and the clearance of any blockage was planned for the
summer.

The ditch along the south side of the northern boundary wall was to be
cleared to reduce pressure on the wall and allow for development of a
profiled design of the landscape by Conisbee. The struts and
deepening carried out 20 years ago, with advice from the Chief
Engineer of English Heritage, had attached to concrete bases so
should provide elasticity when under pressure; which had been
positively assessed by structural engineers recently. Professor
Flanagan mentioned that the weight of ivy on the wall meant ivy
needed to be kept in check, but that there was also substance creep
to the near wall, so the ditch needed to be deepened.

There was also to be emergency work on trees in the cemetery, with
the effect of landscape gardening on the surrounding road mentioned
during discussion. Steven Wong noted the tree assessment was
planned for next month, whilst the Chair corroborated that some
overhanging trees in the cemetery were dangerous. Jill Dudman
commented on a tree that came down one year ago in the
unconsecrated area which had damaged an obelisk and lay across a
grass path. Kevin Crook would look into this. The Chair also noted a
tree near the St Mary Hill plot that had blown over with no damage to
monuments or graves, been cut in half, with one half on each side of
the path, which needed to be cleared. Doubtless other trees would
need removal as they neared the end of their life.

Steven Wong said that the right-hand side of the entrance needed
new railings. This was to be done in conjunction with railing work on
the other two Lambeth cemeteries.

Grave reuse had not been ruled out for a smaller section of public
graves in the south east of the cemetery, although final numbers had
not been agreed as yet. Four private graves had been identified as
suitable in two strands of the pilot. These would be along the lift and
deepen model with full monument restoration (if there were a record of
such), with the new grave owner paying to restore the original;
however, a more detailed report was necessary to move forward.

The pilots would need to be pragmatic and conducted sensitively, with
different types of reuse to test the market instead of a blanket area of
public graves. Steven Wong expressed hope that these would
hopefully be sooner, with less than one year for the pilot, and that the
larger plan would only be approved if the pilot were successful.

The Chair confirmed the 1994 finding that private vaults and graves,
unless otherwise documented, were held by the owners in perpetuity.
Further development would maintain vaults and remains intact, whilst
making space available to ensure sustainability, keeping within the
spirit of the law and only reusing graves whose last interment was 75
years previous.

The Chair of the SoMC noted that a petition to the Chancellor for
authority was pending and this was why it was being talked through in
detail as regards a pilot; Steven Wong observed that this would also
teach us the difficulties of extending this across the cemetery –
namely accessibility, size of coffins, and demand for reuse. The Chair
stated that it was pioneering, and attendees agreed on the degree of
complexity involved.

Steven Wong stated that four consultants had been invited to tender
for the HLF consultative work and their submissions had been
received, with a 24 April 2015 date set for selection, which would use
a double matrix (50% quality / 50% price) evaluation. Trevor
Uprichard and Raj Mistry confirmed that it would be low value
recruitment and well within the £60,000 budget. Raj Mistry agreed
that Professor Flanagan would be kept informed during the selection
process.

The outstanding items remaining from last year’s programme, the
Birkett memorial repair and the seating of the Gilbart railings were
discussed. A York stone ledger of adequate size was not forthcoming
for the Birkett repair, and the Chair suggested that use of smaller
pieces of stone might be acceptable. If the repair had to be done
using two slabs, then this might pose problems around the weight of
the central portion of the monument. The monumental mason Ron
Knee would have to be consulted.
Nicholas Long said it was a short report but a huge amount of work had
been done and offered his thanks, there had been much sitting around for
a long time, but now the group was moving forward like never before. The
Chair echoed this sentiment.

5.
TECHNICAL OFFICER GROUP (TOG) REPORT
Steven Wong went through the Technical Officers Group (TOG) Update;
with the grave re-use policy, capital investment plan, and HLF bid
discussed above, in item 4.

It was mentioned that an agreed way forward for the future
governance arrangements was needed for the petition to the
Consistory Court during the HLF approval stage in late 2018. There
was confidence that funding had been improved with the Council’s
delivery on capital investment and other actions. Nicholas Long
enquired about defining the required capital element; working towards
identification of dates and mechanisms; and the regulatory side for
handover, best addressed by the Council’s annual report plan. The
Chair noted that the Advisory Group would take on the role of the
SoMC to become the advisory board for the Cemetery, with an
increased scope and an important role to fulfil of monitoring
operations within in the Cemetery and ensuring that the agreed
management plan was adhered to.

Professor Flanagan commented that the proposed West Norwood
Cultural Hub was to be linked into round one of the HLF bid with the
cinema to be part of the development with a non-manned display
space. The Chair of the SoMC had raised this with Councillor
Edbrooke during a positive discussion, during which the Cabinet
Member for Neighbourhoods said that the display would be more
easily accommodated in the library, especially as the Council had
greater authority over this body. The Chair noted that both options
had to be considered, but since the cinema overlooked the cemetery,
a space in Nettlefold Lower Hall was the more suitable.

Dick Tooze mentioned that there had been a dispute between the
cinema and the Council over plans for the West Norwood Library site.
It was stated that there had not been an update on this for a while,
since these were ongoing conversations, but Raj Mistry confirmed that
someone from the commissioning cluster would provide an update at
the next meeting.

Steven Wong said that late 2018 was the date for timetabling the
petition to the Consistory Court, with another petition for grave re-use
also due at that time; a visual guide was to be provided at the next
meeting detailing key dates on West Norwood only.

There had been an in depth discussion on the management plan,
which would form part of stage two of the HLF bid, on the 22 April.
Progress had been made but was slow and a rethink through a
workshop was required, with Trevor Uprichard and Steven Wong to
focus on the HLF bid, and Kevin Crook on the management plan.
Kevin Crook recommended that these be firmed up now so the
consultant knows what to tackle, which would make the HLF bid
easier, though it was emphasised that due to costs it should be
consultant-light. It was confirmed by officers that there was only to be
one consultant and one management plan.

Trevor Uprichard stated that the HLF bid required a management plan
for the cemetery to be agreed in advance of the bid but a
management plan was essential regardless of HLF bid. Professor
Flanagan said that several components of the management plan such
as the landscape historical survey and nature conservation plan had
already been worked up and only required updating.
The Chair thanked Steven Wong for his report.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
6.

The Chair mentioned the West Norwood Feast – a monthly street market
event – and a proposal for an event to be held in the cemetery in the
evening of 13 June 2015; though Jill Dudman said this was still awaiting
confirmation. The Chair commented that this needed to be approved by
the Council, but noted encouragingly that these events bring in new
people and alert others of the ongoing work in the cemetery.

Trevor Uprichard enquired whether the next cycle of meetings could be
delayed until the HLF bid was ready in September; but the Chair said he
would rather stick with the current cycle and await developments. It could
be that a joint meeting of both committees would be the best use of time.
The meeting ended at: 6.25pm
Date of next meeting: Wednesday 24 June 2015
Date of Despatch:
Friday 1 May 2015
Contact for Enquiries: David Rose
Tel: 020 792 61037
Fax: (020) 7926 2361
E-mail: drose@lambeth.gov.uk
Web: www.lambeth.gov.uk