In a dramatic reversal, the City of Wolverhampton Council has abandoned plans to introduce a controversial surcharge—dubbed a "fat tax" by critics—on wider burial plots at Danescourt Cemetery in Tettenhall, following a storm of public backlash and national media scrutiny.
The proposal, first approved by councillors in May 2025, would have seen families charged £2,700 for a 6ft wide burial plot, a steep 20% premium over the standard 5ft grave. The council said the move was a response to rising demand for larger graves, citing the city’s obesity rate of 33.3%, significantly higher than the national average of 25.9% according to a 2021 survey. But the plan quickly became a lightning rod for debate, with accusations of discrimination, insensitivity, and a lack of transparency swirling around the Labour-run local authority.
Funeral director Ross Hickton, of Hickton Family Funeral Directors and president of the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, was among the most outspoken opponents. He told the BBC, “Essentially it’s a fat tax. You know people have paid into the system their entire life, paid their council tax to Wolverhampton Council, and for them to be told [the grave is] 20% more because of the size of their loved one, it’s not really acceptable or fair.” Hickton warned that the surcharge risked pushing more people into funeral poverty, adding, “If you live in Wolverhampton, you have the right to be buried here without extra costs. You shouldn’t be paying a premium for a basic right. It shows a lack of empathy for what a family goes through.”
Many residents echoed those concerns. Rosemarie McLaren, a Wolverhampton local, described the planned fee as “discrimination, it’s not acceptable.” She told the BBC, “Someone like me who’s a bit bigger, is going to be charged [more] because I’m fat.” Another resident, Selena Harris, questioned the fairness of the move, especially in a city with high levels of deprivation. “It doesn’t seem right, especially in a deprived area,” she said, suggesting the council was trying to recoup costs amid financial struggles.
The council, however, strenuously denied that the surcharge was a revenue-raising measure. A spokesperson told the BBC and Daily Mail that the extra costs reflected “the increased costs incurred in providing them, including disposing of the additional soil.” The spokesperson also emphasized that “many other local councils, including Birmingham and Walsall, charge higher fees for larger graves,” and argued that Wolverhampton’s proposed fees were similar to or even cheaper than those in neighboring authorities.
Indeed, the issue of higher charges for wider burial plots is not unique to Wolverhampton. According to a survey by the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors, about a quarter of 165 respondents said their local councils charged more for wider plots. The BBC contacted 27 local authorities across the West Midlands and found that just over a third imposed extra fees for larger graves. Telford, Birmingham, Walsall, Coventry, and Staffordshire were among the councils already implementing similar policies. Houghton Regis Town Council in Bedfordshire, for instance, doubled its fees for larger coffins back in 2009, stating on its website: “Where the coffin width is such that the burial encroaches into the next available burial plot, such that it cannot be used, the above fees will be increased by 50 per cent.”
Despite the prevalence of such charges, the Wolverhampton proposal struck a particularly sensitive nerve. Critics like Hickton argued that the council’s consultation process was inadequate, noting that while 25 local funeral directors were contacted, only 10 responded and just one objected. “The consultation was meaningless and didn’t involve the public at all,” Hickton told the BBC. The plan also raised practical and emotional concerns for bereaved families. One funeral firm asked what would happen if a couple wished to be buried together but one required a bariatric plot and the other was already interred in a standard grave. According to an email seen by the BBC, families might “have to consider burying the bariatric partner elsewhere, purchasing a second grave or exhuming the first partner to ensure they can be buried together.” Hickton called this “an extra stress, burden and worry that a family really shouldn’t have to go through.”
While some defended the rationale behind the charge, others questioned its framing. Matthew Crawley, chief executive at the Institute of Cemetery and Crematorium Management, told the BBC that the fee seemed reasonable given the “finite amount of space” available and the additional equipment needed to safely dig larger graves. He suggested the term “fat tax” was misleading, proposing instead to view it as a “concessionary fee for appropriate land usage.” Crawley noted that the charges reflected changes in the population’s size and the practicalities of cemetery management, and that the alternative—refusing burial to larger individuals—would be even less acceptable.
Public anger, however, proved decisive. Following widespread criticism and a BBC investigation, the council reversed course on August 14, 2025, announcing it would not proceed with the extra charges. In a statement, a spokesperson said, “No formal decision was ever taken on plans to charge more for larger burial plots. This is a common practice taken by councils around the country where higher charges cover the costs of providing a larger plot. However, while under consideration, we have decided not to proceed with the plans.” The council reaffirmed its commitment to “ensuring our bereavement services continue to provide dignity and accessibility for all families,” and clarified that, while space allows, families could still place larger coffins at the end of existing rows at Danescourt at no extra cost.
Not everyone was opposed to the idea of higher fees for larger graves. Russell Smallman, a resident from Castlecroft, offered a less sympathetic view, telling the BBC, “There’s a lot of obesity these days. A lot of [people] bring it on themselves and they’re not interested in doing anything about it, so I don’t know whether you can sympathise really.”
The debate in Wolverhampton highlights a broader challenge facing local authorities across the UK: balancing the rising costs of public services with fairness, dignity, and public sensitivity. While the council’s U-turn has been welcomed by many as a victory for compassion and common sense, the underlying issues of obesity, cemetery space, and funeral affordability remain unresolved—and are likely to resurface as communities continue to grapple with these complex questions.