TITLE
/ Risk Management Fund Report – MemorialsREPORT FROM / Director of Finance and Procurement and Director of Area Management /
CONTACT
/Name
/ Heather PearceSimon Waller /
Tel / 01642 444228 /
DATE
/ 1st November 2005e-mail /
/ CATEGORY / 1
DECISION MAKER (S)
TYPE OF DECISION
(Tick applicable box)
Policy Matter / Budget Setting / In-year decision / üDelegated Decision / Information only
Key Decision / Date in Forward Plan
1.0 PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To seek approval from Members regarding the application made to the Risk Management Fund concerning memorial safety following its consideration by the Strategic Corporate Governance Group.
2.0 ANALYSIS
2.1 AIMS AND DESIRED OUTCOMES
To provide funding for a Memorial Officer for 12 months to undertake testing on memorial stones and to undertake consultation with relatives on the most appropriate maintenance action to ensure that the Authority’s cemeteries are a safe environment.
2.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2.2.1 There have been a number of tragic accidents in cemeteries around the country, resulting in death and injuries to visitors from falling headstones and memorials.
2.2.2 The Risk Management Officer and the Authority’s liability insurer have conducted a risk management review of the cemeteries examining, in particular, monument stability, it also considered the physical condition of paths, roads and cemetery furniture. This risk management review resulted in an action plan, which recommended an inspection and maintenance regime for monument stability and resulted in the purchase of a ‘topple tester’ with relevant training. Further work has also been undertaken on regulating the work of the Monumental Masons since then who undertake work on the memorials within the Authority’s cemeteries and specific criteria is now used in securing headstones to avoid unstable structures and present danger.
2.2.3 An initial survey of all memorials across the Authority’s eight cemeteries was undertaken during 2002/03. This survey highlighted the stability and condition of the memorials and dangerous ones were laid flat at the time, after endeavouring to contact grave owners and families concerned.
2.2.4 A recent spate of vandalism in Eston and Brotton cemeteries has highlighted the issue where some memorials have been deliberately pushed over and rendering them unsafe. In June 2005 a neighbouring Borough was subject to publicity as a result of having to lay down unsafe memorials without being able to contact the grave owners prior to this happening. However, Redcar & Cleveland and is not the only Authority with this problem, as vandalism attacks etc have also happened at many cemeteries, notably Anfield, Workington, Derby and Berkshire cemeteries.
2.3 CONSULTATION
2.3.1 This application was discussed at the Strategic Corporate Governance Group held on the 14th September 2005 and it was considered by the group that the bid should be supported.
2.3.2 There have been a number of failed bids in recent years to establish a Memorial Officer post.
2.4 OPTIONS APPRAISAL
The Authority has two options to consider with regards to the fund application.
2.4.1 The first option is to leave this as status quo. This means that the memorials and surrounding infrastructure would be left to fall into further disrepair as only infrequent ‘ad-hoc’ inspections are undertaken. The Bereavement Services Manager and small operational team within cemeteries are fully occupied in arranging internments. This option could leave unstable memorials in place which could result in an injury to a member of the public and also exposing employees working in the cemetery to an injury whilst undertaking their duties.
2.4.2 The second option available is to agree to fund the Memorial Officer post and provide some funding to carry out emergency repairs if the relevant grave owners cannot be contacted. Having a Memorial Officer in post will ensure that any work being undertaken within the cemeteries by memorial Masons is monitored and complies with nationally recognised procedures stipulated by the Authority. Any unsafe memorials will be dealt with so that both members of the public and employees are in a safe environment when visiting the cemetery. The Authority will have a more proactive approach to ensuring that other defects are highlighted and dealt with on a prioritised improvement basis.
2.5 REASON FOR RECOMMENDED OPTION
2.5.1 Option two is the proposed option to implement. This would bring the following benefits to the Authority: -
· Restricts work being undertaken within cemeteries by Monumental Masons to ensure work is to the correct standard.
· Proactive approach to the monitoring of the memorials and surrounding areas.
· Unsafe memorials will be dealt by contacting grave owners or the Authority making safe.
· The Authority will be managing the consultation and public relations in relation to memorials, which is a very emotive area.
· The Authority will be able to demonstrate that it is inspecting and monitoring the cemeteries should any claims arrive.
3.0 RECOMMENDATIONSIt is recommended that Cabinet should:
3.1 Approve the funding application for Memorials work to the Risk Management Fund at a total cost of £30K.
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
4.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES
There are a number of measurable performance indicators, which are as follows: -
· Number of memorials tested.
· Number of memorials made safe.
· Number of grave owners contacted.
4.2 TIMESCALE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
This work is to be started within one month of the funding being made available. Further work will be undertaken once funding is complete by self-financing through charges made within the cemeteries area.
4.3 RESOURCE APPRAISAL
This initiative will create the post of a Memorial Officer, which is an additional human resource to the Area Management Department.
4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH LEGISLATION & REGULATIONS
There is no negative impact on: / Please tickHuman Rights Act 1998 considered / ü
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 considered / ü
Children Act 2004 considered / ü
Diversity and Equalities Impact Assessment form completed / ü
4.5 RISK
If this bid is unsuccessful then the Authority could be exposed to the following risks: -
· Increased risk of possible legal action.
· Increased risk of adverse publicity to the Authority.
· Increased risk of the number of associated complaints.
4.6 REVIEW PROCEDURE
Responsible Council (or other) Officer / Ray RichardsonSimon Dale
[Appropriate] Member’s monitoring committee / Glyn Nightingale
Deadline for Review / April 2006
5.0 APPENDICES
A copy of the fund bid has been deposited in the Members Library.
6.0 INFORMATION SOURCES
Risk Management information is held at Redcar and Cleveland House, Kirkleatham Street. Information relating to cemeteries is held by Simon Waller at Fairway House, Dormanstown.
Heather Pearce
Risk Management Officer
Simon Waller
Head of Environmental Maintenance