Mepal crematorium could be reconsidered over cost increases

Opposition councillors at East Cambridgeshire District Council called for the full council to look at the bereavement centre project again and decide if it is still worth pursuing.

However, the leadership said build cost increases were not a “massive surprise” and that the authority is still aiming to get good value for money.

The district council has been working on plans to build a new crematorium for a number of years.

Back in February the authority approved the outline business case for the bereavement centre, which is proposed to be built at the former outdoor centre in Mepal.

The project has faced backlash from opposition councillors at the district council, who have described the plans as “flawed” and questioned whether the facility was even wanted by people in the area.

Papers presented to councillors at a finance and assets committee meeting on September 26 set out the latest updates for the project.

Officers said the estimated completion date at this stage was July 2026, but that this could change when the authority goes out to tender to find builders for the project.

Councillors also heard that the estimated build costs for the crematorium had increased.

Officers said the authority would not know the final costs until the district council had done a full procurement exercise, but said the latest draft cost plan predicted an increase.

They explained that this increase was largely made up of a gap in the project’s contingency budget and an increase in build costs, and inflationary increases.

Exactly what the predicted costs of the project are and how much they have gone up by has not been made public.

Back in February the district council agreed to use over £9million of developer funding towards the crematorium project.

Officers said a number of options were being considered to try and mitigate the costs, or reduce how much the project will cost, including reducing the scope of the project, or building it in phases.

Opposition councillors on the committee raised concerns about the increased costs.

Councillor Lorna Dupré (Liberal Democrat) put forward an amendment asking for the report on the new estimated costs to be taken to full council, so councillors could decide if they still wanted to continue with the project.

Cllr Dupré said: “[We are] asked to note, simply to note, an update on the project where there are increases in costs which are potentially quite significant for the project.

“It is my belief that it is not appropriate simply to sit here and note while further work is being undertaken, and further costs being incurred, without this coming back to full council for consideration in view of the new information we have.

“That is why we have put together an additional recommendation that says in view of the size of that gap, which I am not going to disclose, in the budget and costs which have substantial implications on the project, that we should refer this item to the full council meeting next month.

“Full council can discuss the additional expenditure, the additional costs that have been identified and what the council’s view is of this project given that information.”

Councillor David Miller (Conservative) said the costs in the papers were estimates and that the authority will not know how much the project will actually cost until it goes out for tender.

He suggested it would be “more appropriate” to bring the project back to full council for discussion once the full costs are known for the project.

Councillor Anna Bailey (Conservative), leader of the district council, also stressed that the authority did not know the final costs at this stage until it had “tested the market”.

She said build costs are increasing and said it was therefore “not a massive surprise” that the estimates for the project had increased.

Cllr Bailey said the district council wanted to “get good value for money” and needed to make sure the project is affordable.

However, she said they could not make any decisions until the authority knew what the final costs would be.

Councillor Martin Goodearl (Conservative) highlighted that the officers had said amendments to the project could also be considered to reduce the cost of the work.

However, Councillor John Trapp (Liberal Democrat) said reducing the scope of the scheme or constructing it in phases would impact the quality of the final facility.

He said: “It might bring it down to budget, but it will reduce what we actually intended to have; a wonderful building is the unique selling point.”

Councillor Charlotte Cane (Liberal Democrat) added that making changes to bring the plans into the budget would “fundamentally change the nature of the project” from what full council had approved.

She also said if the project was phased, she could not imagine people getting a “peaceful experience” at the bereavement centre if building work was ongoing.

Cllr Cane also said the estimates for the project produced at this stage had come from professional advisors paid for by the authority to develop the scheme.

She said: “It seems to me that now is exactly the time to go back [to full council] and say these are the issues you need to be aware of, do you think it is value for money.”

The amendment failed to get enough support from the committee with five voting in favour and six against.