Rother acted 'proper'

That is the finding of the authority's director of services after study of a national report by the local government Ombudsman.

But Tony Leonard's report will also show that some of the Ombudsman's recommendations - such as putting temporary supports on suspect memorials and offering owners a hardship fund are not current Rother practice.

Rother wasnot reported to the Ombudsman following public outcry over its testing and lowering policy but voluntarily took part in the Ombudsman's national review.

Monday's cabinet meeting will receive a report from the director of services, recommending that the comments of the Ombudsman and the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium should be noted.

Mr Leonard says in a summary: "Having considered the Ombudsman report and the actions detailed in the executive summary, it is clear this council has behaved in a proper, diligent and compassionate manner and has made significant steps towards protecting the community from unnecessary risk.

"The report, in its recommendation, does expect local authorities to review and update their methodology and policies in relation to cemetery memorial safety.

"Of the 20 recommendations contained in the executive summary this council currently meets 13 in full, two in part, leaving five areas to be addressed.

"The Ombudsman report is clear in its message that if councils do not adopted the recommendations they could, in the event of a justifiable complaint, be in danger of maladministration.....

"The council is actively working with local monumental masons in a review of memorial safety, which result in a high standard of workmanship and guarantees being offered to purchasers of new memorials."

In a risk assessment statement he says: "The Ombudsman report has clearly identified areas of cemetery management and maintenance or memorials which require attention. If these concerns are not actioned by local authorities it could place all councils, including Rother, in a vulnerable position.

"Failure to adopt a comprehensive methodology in this regard could still leave the public susceptible to both physical injury and upset."

Councillors will be told of areas that are not current Rother practice.

The Ombudsman report says:

*Councils may offer demonstrations of their safety testing procedure to owners and interested members of the public

*A temporary support and warning notice is likely to cause less public outrage than laying large numbers of memorials flat.

*Laying down may be necessary but only to prevent a genuine hazard to health and safety that cannot be remedied by temporary support.

*Temporary stabilisation for a reasonable period affords owners the opportunity to repair memorials.

*We commend the practice of councils that establish hardship funds to assist owners who cannot meet some or all of the repair costs, and councils that pay for all repairs themselves in the interests of preserving the amenity of their cemeteries of where no responsible person can be found.