The major issue facing the industry at the present time is sustainability. In some areas there is only a few years capacity of land left available for burials. It is reported that some London Boroughs have no land available for the burial of the dead. Some of the legislation governing burial dates back centuries and is mainly concerned with the dignity of the deceased. Against this background the Government has set up a committee to look into the whole issue of burial and in particular the delicate issue of “re-use” of graves.
Britain is one of the only countries in Europe with a policy of not re-using graves, elsewhere it is commonly accepted as part of the culture. In previous centuries burial grounds in this country were continuously re-used and were ordinarily capable of accommodating the dead of the parish indefinitely. However following massive urban expansion in the 1820’s the existing grave yards were unable to cope and both the private and the municipal cemetery came into existence. This Victorian innovation for the veneration of the dead, brought about the concept of a grave “in perpetuity”. Hence, the problem of substantially full cemeteries, with little available land. This results in little income to meet increasing costs. Under current legislation LA’s are not legally required to provide a cemetery but where they do under the L.A. Cemeteries Order 1977 they have a duty to keep them in good order and repair. There is a particular health and safety problem with regard to old, unsafe headstones.
Cremation rapidly expanded in the later half of the twentieth century being promoted as the environmentally friendly alternative, settling at around 72% of the funeral across the country. However, with the European regulation on environmental emissions and in particular mercury, this is now coming into question. An emerging development is Natural Burial, although this is still only a small proportion of the funeral sector at present.
No rental evidence is available for this class. If any rents come to the notice of a VO, they should be notified to CEO (Rating).
Accounts returned have not disclosed any instances of operating profits being earned from this class of hereditament. Cemeteries operated by parish councils sometimes show a surplus, but this is normally found to be produced by precepts levied which are intended both to cover costs and to produce a fund for future capital expenditure. It may be concluded that since most local authority cemeteries are not capable of being operated for profit, they must be valued on the contractor's basis. Natural burial sites operated by local authorities, are an exception to this rule (see Practice Note 2), although the presence of a Natural Burial site within a conventional cemetery or crematorium should not justify a departure from the valuation approach recommended below.
A few private cemeteries may earn an operating profit, but no such accounts have been passed to CEO. It is likely that many private cemeteries are operated as part of a group and disaggregated accounts are claimed not to be available. If any accounts which demonstrate an operating profit come to the notice of a VO, they should be notified to CEO (Rating). It is however known that Natural Burial sites are capable of profitable operation (see Practice Note 2).
Where a hereditament consists wholly of a woodland burial site, whether operated by a Local Authority, a Charity, or commercially, it should be presumed that it is capable of profitable operation and should be valued at £5,500 RV provided that the unexhausted land is 1 acre or more. Where the unexhausted land is less than 1 acre then the value adopted should be based on £5,500 per acre of unexhausted land.
3.1 The majority of cemeteries are likely to be valued on the contractor's basis. This section provides guidance on the valuation of cemeteries using the contractor's basis. The method is similar to that adopted for R2000 which was discussed and agreed with representatives of cemetery operators in England and Wales.
3.2 Land Value
Different parts of the cemetery will attract different land values. The full land value depends upon the context of the hereditament:
3.2.1 The following parts should be assessed at the full land value:
3.2.2 - Land needed for interments for between the next 10 and 15 years (where present) should be assessed at 50% of the full land value. The remainder of land needed for interments (where present) should be valued at 10% of the full land value.
3.2.3 - Land already used for interments (utilised land), ignoring any areas which are completely neglected, should be assessed at between 10% and 50% of the full land value. A single percentage in this range should be adopted for all utilised land. For guidance where the utilised land has been used for burials wholly within the last 10 years, the appropriate percentage will be 50%, wholly within the last 30 years 25%, and wholly within the last 40 years 15%. Where to pitch within this range will depend on the mixture of burial dates, and:
3.2.4 Areas of utilised land which are completed neglected should be ignored.
3.3 Site Improvements
Add the cost of site improvements: drainage, fencing, lighting, paths, roads, hard standings, and connections to services. Caution should be exercised where an amenity land value has been adopted which is drawn from evidence of transactions in playing fields or sports grounds, since such values are likely to reflect to some extent all the above improvements.
3.3.1 As overall guidance, it is recommended that a cost of £17,000 per hectare (location factor 1.0), excluding fees, is adopted to cover the full range of site improvements, other than buildings. Where the hereditament has minimal hard surfacing, lacks services and is bounded by hedges or fences rather than walls, this cost should be reduced to £12,000 per hectare (location factor 1.0). However, it is considered that existing site improvements on utilised land are largely superfluous. Therefore, as regards burial land, only unused land up to 15 years worth of supply and utilised land which is frequently visited should continue to attract an addition for site improvements. Burial land which is not frequently visited should have no addition for site improvement. In judging the amount of utilised land frequently visited regard should again be had to the presence of floral and other tributes. This will normally include up to the last 10 years of burials
3.4 Buildings
Add the cost of any existing buildings, provided that they are required. Buildings such as chapels which are now disused should be left out of account. Chapels which are in use, and which are not exempt, should be costed at between £600 and £825 per sq m (location factor 1.0), depending upon quality of required finish. Apart from chapels, a limited range of buildings are normally found within cemeteries: stores and sheds are usually found; less common will be waiting rooms for mourners. These may be costed at between £150 - £600 per sq m GIA (location factor 1.0) depending upon quality. Costs for freestanding toilet blocks may be taken from the Practice Note for Public Conveniences.
3.5 Obsolescence
Deduct allowances for obsolescence. For this class of hereditament allowances on the age-related scale for non-industrial buildings (see Cost Guide) should be made only in respect of buildings. Exceptionally where buildings are larger than required to meet current needs, an additional allowance should be made; the object in such cases should be to arrive at an ARC which is consistent with the size of the required structure. No allowances should be made on land cost. Allowances in respect of site improvements such as fencing, roads and pathways should only be made where they are dilapidated, and should be related to the excess of abnormal repair costs over normal maintenance expenditure.
3.6 Stage 4 and 5
The final two stages of the contractor's basis (decapitalisation and "stand back and look") proceed in the normal way. VOs should not accept that the results of the contractor's basis need to be adjusted in the light of receipts evidence. If accounts evidence for private cemeteries suggests a higher value than the contractor's basis, this will tend to suggest that a profits basis approach is the preferred option.
3.7 Exhausted Cemeteries
Cemeteries which are maintained but exhausted should be valued as indicated above, but there is a greater likelihood that certain existing buildings will now be surplus to requirements and may be omitted from valuation. Cemeteries which are wholly derelict and overgrown cannot be said to be in rateable occupation.
3.8 Judgements as to unused land
VOs will need to judge the extent of unused land required to meet interment needs over a 10 and 15 year period on the basis that cemeteries meet a long-term need and that the hypothetical tenant will require a long prospect of continuance (paragraphs 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 above). To make this judgement, VOs may require evidence of current annual burial numbers. In requesting this information they should seek:
(i) the average annual aggregate number of new graves opened and plots leased/sold in the period 1999-2003. Where these statistics are not available, the average annual number of interments (excluding cremated remains) over this period will be an acceptable proxy, but may exaggerate land requirements where burials have been taking place in existing graves
(ii) standard (or average) plot sizes.
4.1 The following arguments are recommended to justify the practice of valuing so-called "exhausted land".
(i) The motive for occupation of a cemetery is the provision of a public service, not profit; the appropriate valuation basis is therefore by reference to cost and not to revenue. Cemeteries do not earn net income, even where the proportion of unused land is very high. As in other cases involving valuation of hereditaments occupied for the public good, no account should be taken of revenue which fails to produce a surplus over operating costs (see the Plymouth appeals [1995 RA 69]). There is therefore no valid distinction to be made between land within a cemetery which is capable of producing a gross income and other land which is not.
(ii) Land which is incapable of accommodating further interments is often maintained in a tidy condition by the operator of a cemetery who is motivated by a need to provide a fitting resting place for human remains and to satisfy the needs of the bereaved. The use made of such land is very similar to that of memorial gardens within crematoria. The maintenance of such areas within cemeteries, often at considerable expense, will not be undertaken unless some benefit is derived; this benefit, which is social rather than commercial, indicates beneficial occupation and requires a value to be ascribed. Neglect of such areas may indicate that no such motive exists and could justify a lower or nil value.
(iii) Land occupied by existing graves may be capable of accommodating additional interments. In some cemeteries there are requirements that the first body to be deposited in a grave is buried at sufficient depth to allow further burials above. This practice is likely to become more common, especially in areas where land availability for cemetery use is limited. In the cemetery featured in the case of Bingley UDC v Melville VO (1969 RA 681) more burials were actually taking place in existing graves than in unused land. While the practice of multiple burials in a family grave may be less common than previously, unrelated burial within existing graves is possible where the previous burial right has lapsed.
(iv) Previous practice for the 1990 List (where that involved assigning nil value to so-called "exhausted" land) does not bind the VO for subsequent Lists. Revaluation is an opportunity to reconsider approaches to valuation and the determining considerations should be those raised above; in this instance they should be regarded as of greater weight than precedent. Precedent is, in fact, not entirely consistent. In the leading case on valuation of this class, Bingley UDC v Melville (VO), the VO succeeded in resisting the suggestion that a profits basis was mandatory; in doing so the VO valued all the land within the 88% "exhausted" cemetery. This practice was not challenged.