From out of the ashes

July 25, 2009
Francis Day sees his plan for a new crematorium in Hope as just another stage of a lifetime's service to the Nelson community. Others see it differently. Geoff Collett reports. -------------------- It's such a serene spot - ill- suited, surely, to the anxiety and upset it has been attracting lately. Almost four hectares of attractively planted gardens tucked away in a far corner of Hope, it is not hard to see why some people could imagine it as an appealing place from which to be farewelled from this Earth, maybe even the ideal situation in which to have their mortal remains reduced to ashes.
Francis Day certainly had the vision. To the Nelson funeral director - the head of a long- established family firm which has come to be the dominant force in the region's funeral business - the Gardens of the World site was tailor-made for the next stage of his company's growth.
With its large and handsome trees, rich birdlife, waterways and lawns; its peaceful setting handy to Richmond, well established on the tourist trails, he envisioned a place where people could drop by for a cup of tea, relax in the sylvan setting, gather for celebrations, and ultimately, perhaps, be cremated.
He came up with a plan which would see a new cafe and reception area built, to cater for casual visitors and larger gatherings - weddings, for example; a small chapel; a devoted memorial garden for the departed; and a crematorium to provide for his business's sizeable share of the region's cremation needs.
He was confident enough of the vision and sure enough of the site to go ahead and buy the land - local gossip has it for more than $1 million - without having all the necessary approvals lined up.
And now the dream is in, if not quite tatters, certainly disarray. The Tasman District Council has said "no", spurred by some determined arguments driven by the immediate neighbours of Gardens of the World.
As those neighbours point out, in an increasingly exasperated way, there was rather more to the Day proposal than just a crematorium, and a lot more to the council's decision than responding to neighbourly discomfort about the prospect of having that crematorium in the neighbourhood. They are fed up with being portrayed as not-in-my-backyard sorts who have cast about for any excuse to drive away the undertaker and his cremator. (See page 14.)
Day, who is planning an appeal against the decision, is both surprised and not really surprised by the council's decision - surprised in that he was convinced the evidence and the planning rules were in his favour; but not really in that he knows better than most about public squeamishness towards his line of business.
People don't like to be reminded of their mortality, he says, and yet as funeral directors that very mortality "is something that we represent".
To which it could be added that Francis Day represents funerals to the people of Nelson more than anybody. His family has been in the business since the 1940s, associated with it for decades more than that. Today, they run three funeral businesses - Marsden House in Nelson, Motueka Golden Bay Funeral Services in Motueka, and Waimea Richmond Funeral Home in Richmond - along with a crematorium in Motueka and the monumental masons, G Miller and Sons.
The Day name is well-known across Nelson; as letters to The Nelson Mail over the Gardens of the World decision have demonstrated, the family have their admirers, and it has to be said they are not without their critics.
Their main business rival speaks of their determination to be the dominant player in Nelson.
Objectors at the planning hearing argued the Gardens of the World project was essentially a commercial initiative to gain a competitive edge.
The crude figures indicate that Day family companies deal with roughly two out of three funerals across the region. Most funerals, 70 per cent, now end with cremation; the Days' Motueka crematorium handles roughly 300 a year; the remainder - more like 100-150 a year - go through the region's only other crematorium, owned by Nelson City Council, at the Wakapuaka Cemetery.
Francis Day has made no secret of his view that the council should get out of the crematorium business and leave it up to private enterprise - his company would be willing to take over the Wakapuaka operation.
He has a long-standing criticism of the council's management of its crematorium, which comprises two cremators (both using relatively old technology but which have been refurbished and upgraded over the years).
The main cremator is used solely for human bodies. The second is maintained as a back-up facility, but rarely used for anything other than pet cremations and, occasionally other "bits and pieces", as city council facilities superviser Arthur Nelson puts it (such as the odd confiscated cannabis crop for the police).
Day objects strongly to the prospect of humans being cremated in the same facility which handles pets, and argues that a council cannot run such an operation as efficiently and expertly as a business like his. Ratepayers inevitably end up subsidising the council crematorium when "it's not a burden ratepayers should be carrying".
The other funeral director in Nelson, Shone and Shirley, is the main customer for the council's crematorium. Its manager, Dave Hoffman, is uneasy at the prospect of Day companies taking over Wakapuaka and gaining a monopoly over the region's crematorium services. If that happened, Shone and Shirley "would have a problem", he says.
Its arrangement with the city council works well, he says. The cost ($350 a cremation) is reasonable and the facility well run. Besides, Shone and Shirley, which is Christchurch owned, has no real alternative. It has previously considered building its own crematorium but decided against it, and now it has its hands full with the need to build a new funeral home following the sale of its existing central Nelson site.
Asked whether a Day-owned crematorium closer to Nelson would be an option for Shone and Shirley to use, Hoffman responds: "I would go so far as to say he (Francis Day) wouldn't allow us.
"He is opposition. If he can find a way to get us out of town, he will do it. That's putting it bluntly." (Day denies it, and says Shone and Shirley would be welcome to use his company's crematorium.) As it is, and although Arthur Nelson says the city council will be conducting one of its regular reviews of its crematorium ownership later this year, there is no sign that the current arrangement will change, and so the Days have cast about for other opportunities - a search which led to Gardens of the World.
Day says that the Motueka cremator is handling close to the maximum amount of work it is designed for.
The American company which installed it, Matthews International, has urged his company to invest in another, and from the business point of view, there is an obvious logic in having a crematorium much closer to where most of the work comes from; Richmond is fast-growing with a high proportion of old people and hence a steadily growing market for funeral services.
But Day himself is offended by the suggestion that crude commercial motives are his driving force. Funeral directing is a "calling", he says, a service industry but a service to the community, too. He argues the community need for a crematorium near Richmond is becoming compelling, and while he won't deny that his business looks for opportunities, its bigger picture is one of ensuring it can meet long- term community needs.
The city council - and Dave Hoffman - argue that there is no shortage of total crematorium capacity in the region. The Days' Motueka operation might be close to its maximum, but Wakapuaka could handle up to 1000 a year. It is, apparently, Francis Day's aversion to using it which means his companies are determined to go their own way.
The Days have tried and failed to get a crematorium in the Richmond area once before, back in 1990, when they planned one for the Waimea Richmond Funeral Services site on the corner of Champion and Salisbury roads. That caused an outcry with neighbours and ended up with the then Planning Tribunal (the equivalent of today's Environment Court), which found that public anxiety about having a crematorium next door wasn't necessarily unreasonable.
As its decision said: "Objectors were distressed that their lifestyle, which includes outdoor living, barbecues, etc, would be compromised by the sight of the cremator vent with its potential heat shimmer (which could last some three hours) visible from their outdoor living and eating areas. They were particularly concerned if such an event should happen following the funeral of a person known to them. We don't consider this reaction unduly sensitive."
Day argues that modern cremators are so efficient and discreet that much of this sensitivity should be unfounded. He points to Wellington, where new facilities have been allowed close to houses.
Technology these days includes all sorts of systems to prevent the cremator releasing unwanted smoke or fumes. He himself has visited his company's Motueka site and not been able to tell that the cremator was operating. They are typically housed in low-key buildings and people's impressions of large chimney stacks are misplaced, he says. Such images were used by objectors to the Gardens of the World project, "which shows the understanding the community has of a crematorium, and in reality it's nothing to do with that . . . the [perception] goes back to Auschwitz and places like that".
Day describes his recent experience through the Gardens of the World hearing as "humiliating".
But he remains convinced that Gardens of the World is the place for the cremations of the future. He prides himself on his and his forebears' foresight: he recalls accurately predicting both the surging popularity of cremation and the emergence of Richmond as a major population centre.
He is well-used to objections when his business moves to a new area - been there, done that, he could say. But while he may have become resilient, as he ponders the work of providing for the death of others, he concedes: "It's not an easy thing to live your life, representing that to your community."
Neighbours see more than crematorium at stake If funeral director Francis Day sees the Tasman District Council as flying in the face of the evidence with its refusal to allow his Gardens of the World project to go ahead, neighbours who have fought his plan think the public should be singing the council's praises.
The plan for the gardens was strongly opposed within the rural neighbourhood surrounding the property, on the corner of Paton and Clover roads in Hope.
Many of the opponents joined under an umbrella group, Living in Hope, which told the hearing considering Day's plan that of the 36 submissions in opposition, 29 came from people living nearby; of the 47 supporting submissions, only one came from somebody living within 2km of the site.
While the opponents' arguments won through, their patience is apparently running short with the string of others who have written to the Nelson Mail to side with Francis Day. One of the objectors, Andrew Greenhough, whose vineyard and winery is one of the gardens' nearest neighbours, says the letters are "misinformed", reflecting what he thinks is the one-sided reporting and public awareness of the issue.
For one thing, there was much more to the plan than a crematorium. Day also proposed building a reception area and cafe, and promoting the place both to casual visitors and for larger functions. He wanted to establish a memorial garden, with commemorative plaques for the deceased, under the long-term management of his company. And, of course, he wanted to build the crematorium.
The prospect of a crematorium in their community was prominent among the objections. The Living in Hope members took to describing the plan as "the garden of emissions".
Greenhough himself said in his evidence to the hearing that not only did he fear the effect of toxic emissions from the crematorium on his grape crop (the emissions were a common concern raised through the hearing), but he also spoke of the "potential for negative perceptions should it be revealed that one of the neighbouring buildings is a crematorium".
Still, as Greenhough points out, it wasn't any one argument or "knock-out" piece of evidence which convinced the council hearing panel to turn the Day proposal down.
In fact, the council's decision did not place significant weight on arguments about the merits of having a crematorium in the area, focusing instead on issues such as the loss of valuable, fertile rural land; the fact that Day's plan would lead to the site being fragmented, further reducing its availability for future use; concerns about traffic and the ability of the roads to cope; the disruption from gatherings at the gardens, including at night; the emissions from the crematorium; and the fear that the regular presence of funeral parties at the gardens would inevitably lead to pressure on neighbours to restrict their own activities for fear of causing offence.
Greenhough and his partner, Jenny Wheeler, and another objector, Russell Aubrey, see the council's protection of the productive soils as particularly significant. That, Greenhough says, deserves praise, not criticism.
He wonders why Day took the risk of buying the Gardens of the World before he had resource consent lined up. He sees Day's motives as commercial, "designed to create a market edge", which should be taken to a more appropriate site. Aubrey suggests the Day-owned Waimea Funeral Services site in Richmond.