Agenda item

Note:              Councillor D. Cotton retired from the room at 18:48.

The Chairman introduced application 136962 for a single cremator and chapel crematorium building with memorial facility, to include car parking facilities and related hard-landscaped areas as well as formal and informal landscaped gardens. The Development Management Team Leader advised Committee there were no other updates to the report and so the Chairman invited the first speaker, Karen Whitfield – Communities and Commercial Programme Manager, to address Committee.

The Communities and Commercial Programme Manager explained she was speaking in support of the application and highlighted that there was not currently a crematorium facility in West Lindsey. She explained to Committee that residents of West Lindsey had to travel significant distances, at what was already a very difficult time, and often had to wait several weeks for a cremation slot. She highlighted that space for burial grounds was decreasing both within the District and nationally; the amount of housing growth planned for the District and the ageing population with the District; and that currently 75% of funerals resulted in cremation. She explained that the Council had been mindful to ensure the development of the project and the planning aspects had been kept separate and independent, to this end, independent planning consultants had been employed to ensure a robust process was followed. She stated that the site for the proposed development had undergone a comprehensive site selection process to incorporate the requirements presented in the Crematoria Act 1902. Out of all sites considered, this location was deemed to be the optimum site identified. The Communities and Commercial Programme Manager gave further details as to the details of the development, such as the design to be in keeping with the area and for landscaping and additional planting to provide tranquillity and areas for quiet reflection.

The Communities and Commercial Programme Manager explained that there had been significant feedback to support the proposed development, not least from local funeral directors, celebrants and clergy who had welcomed the proposals and highlighted the need for such a site locally. It was explained that there was the additional provision to accommodate bariatric coffins which would negate the current requirement to travel to Peterborough. It was acknowledged that there were concerns amongst local residents, mainly in relation to traffic issues and risk of pollution. It was explained that a full traffic impact assessment had been carried out and considered by the local Highways Authority and the result of the assessment was that the development was not anticipated to cause a significant impact on the local highway or its operation. Additionally, it was highlighted that the entrance to the crematorium from the highway had been designed in such a way to allow vehicles to facilitate quick and safe turning. In view of local concerns about pollution, it was explained to Committee that as a new facility the proposed crematorium development would be fitted with mercury abatement and would comply with all current regulations, furthermore, the Environment Agency had raised no concerns regarding the plans.

The Communities and Commercial Programme Manager concluded by highlighting the additional benefits to the local economy, aside from providing a much needed service, such as new employment opportunities and value added, and thanked Committee for their time.

The Chairman thanked the first speaker and invited the following two speakers to step up to the microphone. He explained they had a total of 5 minutes to address Committee and that how the time was divided between them was at their discretion.

The first person to speak, Councillor David Belton, explained he and the next speaker, Councillor Anthony Morphet, were representing Knaith Parish Council, in opposition to the proposed development. He stated that the finances and estimated numbers of cremations at the proposed new site were unclear and he would like to know how the estimated cost of £6million would be paid back. He questioned the payback period of six years and felt the proposals had been presented with unclear financial details. Councillor Belton noted to Committee that the Parish Council disagreed that the site was the best option. He stated that more suitable siting could have been found for the development and this might have been identified had the rest of the proposed sites been more suitable. He felt that some of the alternative sites were ‘not funny’ in their unsuitability for the proposed crematorium. He concluded his comments with a quote from the website and handed over to his colleague, Councillor Anthony Morphet.

Councillor Morphet suggested to Committee that the facts and figures included in the application had not been accurate and that, as an example, by working out the number of cremations needed to meet the predicted profit margin, there was likely to be twice the amount of traffic than what had been presented to the Highways Agency. He felt this meant the Highways Agency had not been provided with sufficient details to accurately assess the impact on local traffic. He further highlighted that the funeral corteges would be travelling significantly slower than the 60mph speed limit and that this in itself would create problems. Councillor Morphet noted that there was no proposal put forward for traffic management as part of the application. With regard to the facts and figures presented for projected services at the crematorium, he queried how this could be accurate when there were two new crematoria being built in the area which would have an impact on the number of services likely to take place at the proposed Lea site. He again highlighted that he felt the report had been based on incorrect projections and as such was not a realistic business model.

At the conclusion of his speech, the Chairman thanked both Councillors and asked Committee to note that the objectors had been afforded six and a half minutes to speak, in contrast to the five minutes usually permitted. He felt this had allowed them fair chance to express their views however, several of the issues raised had not been of a planning nature and therefore would not be taken into consideration by Committee. He invited the Development Management Team Leader to respond to any points raised and it was reiterated that it was not in the remit of the Committee to look at the finances of the proposal. The Development Management Team Leader explained that the estimated traffic had been based on seven services per day, with the maximum attendance of 120 guests and only two guests per car (ie, 60 cars per service). This was considered to be the ‘worst case scenario’ and the Highways Agency found it to be acceptable. It was clarified that there had been no concerns raised regarding traffic movements and the likely reduced speed of corteges, it was accepted that it would be open to the Local Highways Authority to reduce the speed limit if they found it necessary to do so.

The Chairman invited comments from Committee Members and it was noted by a member of the Crematorium Working Group that, based on a visit they had made to another crematorium, their personal concerns about how it would work had been alleviated. It was explained to Committee that other crematoria in the area were at the point of reaching capacity and therefore any concerns about level of use and numbers of services were unfounded. It was highlighted that it was important to consider what was important for the district.

Another Member of Committee enquired whether there were any plans to link in with public transport providers as the nearest bus stop was a short walk away from the entrance. It was agreed that as the crematorium would not be opening until a point in the future, the County Council could liaise with bus companies if they felt it necessary. It was also noted that the expectation was that most attendance would be via private vehicles.

There was further discussion regarding predicted numbers of mourners attending services and it was acknowledged that some services would have high numbers of attendees where others may be less well attended. It was also noted that there was no reason to doubt the facts and figures put forward by the official report.

There were no further questions or comments and it was therefore moved, seconded and voted upon with unanimous agreement that permission be GRANTED in accordance with the conditions as set out in the report.