HopOne

"Stag beetles lay their eggs in rotting wood, not living trees." This is true but misleading. Dead oak wood is probably their favourite food and this is very often found on the tree itself. It is common management practice to leave dead deciduous wood for Stag Beetle larvae, as they are endangered, but this is not a direct substitute to leaving the woodland to provide a habitat instead. It is the very loss of these habitats that is why the Stag Beetle is endangered. There is woodland threatened on both sites that provide this habitat.

"Replacement planting of trees ? which will improve the situation ? over time should be no or limited net change. " This has no basis in fact. Many more trees are being removed than are being replaced. The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do). This neatly ignores the scrub growth that some here like to talk about! This is not being replaced and has significant water retention capacity. This is true even in winter.

"Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions." New Cemetery (68 acres) + Old Cemetery (30 acres) + One Tree Hill LNR (7 hectares = c.17.5 acres) = 115.5. You then need to take out a number of acres for the Rec. So yes, you can challenge but the total area SSW propose as a wild space would be approximately 100 acres. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camberwell_Cemeteries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Tree_Hill,_Honor_Oak

Check out languagelounger's post here (23/02/11 13:42), it is rather enlightening: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,645329,645338

"How would you respond to Penguin68's point regarding how these areas would be maintained safely in the future should they be left as they are?" The areas that are wooded do not need much maintenance in my view. The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. That these may be better left to nature, I would not dispute, but I agree that in order to do so then there would need to be a management plan for this if only to safeguard against development. Separate issue really - the first priority is to get the council to do some proper due diligence. "Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Though even this would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than mature ones." 100 trees today, another 100 tomorrow. Where does one stop? It is the unsustainable nature of this that I find maddening.

Sue, this is the nub of the issue isn't it? I do not regard a seemingly systemic need to allocate yet more burial space to be sufficient justification for removal of species rich habitat in an urban environment, especially given that there are other options. This is regardless of other local green space, as it is exactly the sum total of these green corridors that creates the valuable habitats in the first place. The London Plan is on message with this as, seemingly, are the majority of other councils. Bear in mind the other benefits that accrue from this - flood protection, air quality, climate change mitigation, amenity value. These are all important issues that should be considered adequately and I am yet to be convinced that this has been done.

Ok... to the extent that nearly every part of the British Isles is managed to some degree this is true. But this is a blunt instrument if you are talking about habitat conservation. The type of habitat is important and, in these isles, native woodland/scrub supports the most diverse range of species of all land types. So not a safe assumption to say that "space will simply change and be re-inhabited by existing and/or new wildlife".

Completely concur with panda boy on this. Re costings, I find it particularly striking that these have not changed yet the council have introduced a new revenue stream, i.e. sale of burial plots to non-locals, to this within the same time frame. Either this is regarded as insignificant, in which case one wonders why do it, or the accounting must have changed in a significant way beyond any expected detail costing work. One other possibility is that this was actually the plan all along. In all instances, some openness would be helpful. Panda boy, am particularly interested to know, as I think you said that you attended a meeting about this, what was the advice given by LWT to Southwark Council re their plans?

Sue, your followers will only see your tweets, re-tweets and your replies in their timeline.

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's not the hyperbole of this campaign that > saddens me so much as the self-indulgent shrill > naivety. You need to take the Council with you on > issues like this There is clearly a compromise to > be reached here; to preserve that which is worth > preserving and nurturing in COC, while allowing > for burials to continue for a time. But to tee up > the whole debate as zero sum, berate anyone who > has a different viewpoint, and alienate those who > you need to persuade, is just inept and serves > no-one. You make the rather charming assumption that Southwark Council have a mind to compromise. They do not. However, I do agree that there are other outcomes possible between the SSW and Council positions. Am trying to breathe to life into this - lets be rational and discuss the issues please. I see just as many shrill responses seemingly in favour of the council's actions.

andrewc, I would agree that there has been excessive use of hyperbole. However, most of those key points are pertinent! That is, flooding from water run-off and inadequate drainage, there are trees on One Tree Hill threatened, Southwark council do intend selling re-used grave space London-wide, the existing LNR (OTH) probably is a remnant of the Great North Wood and Southwark Woods is just part of a campaign name - nothing more.

Who are you suggesting is fooling whom? And about what exactly?

BrandNewGuy, You need to get this from the context: "In some areas, the designation is subdivided, or additional, more local designations are also used. For example, in Greater London SINCs are divided into the following grades:[3] Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation (Grade I and Grade II) Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation" Penguin68, No worries. I do not think that is a clear assumption, you need to have a mind for what actually gives the designation in the first place. It is true that the cemetery, in addition to the woodland (scrub is a type of that, it grows up, and the council's own docs draw a distinction between what they refer as scrub and significant trees on both sites), can have scientific value. The question is to what extent is this diminished by removing the parts that harbour the greatest diversity of wildlife, i.e. native woodland or scrub if you must call it that! As for the law point, it is interesting to note that the act (IIRC 1974?) in question specifically excludes these Camberwell cemeteries. However, your point is right to a degree. There are plenty of graves that could be reused now, it is just that the council would need to research where these are as they didn't record it! Still, probably cheaper than what they are doing. As for SSW, I used to be sceptical myself of some of their strategies. Having met them, I realise that they are actually well thought out and chime almost totally with my own views. The devil is in the detail and I recommend attending one of their meetings, as I did, to find out more. Where I do agree with you is that I think the communication of this has been poor sometimes. Am not saying that I could do better and I appreciate the energy they have put into this.

That is a sub-designation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Site_of_Nature_Conservation_Interest

Re SINC designation, you can look this up yourself: http://www.gigl.org.uk/online/ Am not on a device that makes it easy to post direct links but you will see there are a lot of local designations including the ones I have referred to. It is not sustainable to grab more burial space, that is areas not in use for burial, each time that more burial space is needed. This has been the history of burial at these sites. It would be far preferable, and sustainable, to use out of borough space designed specifically for such use. I was merely suggesting that Southwark could have reused the existing burial space years ago and this could have avoided important tree and habitat loss. This didn't happen due to their own mismanagement, by their own admission. Sadly, it seems that the management, or at the very least the communication of it, has not improved, so should we really be trusting this exercise unchallenged? I am very happy to be challenged but, let's be clear. The constant accusations of lying on this thread have amounted to a smear campaign. I hope everyone is big enough to move on from this. I appreciate your efforts in this regard penguin68.

Penguin68, are you accusing me of lying? If so, then provide an example please.

Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem arguments, of which there have been countless on this thread, are unpleasant in any discourse. To continue doing this, when an individual is banned so cannot defend themselves, is just not cricket is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the subject or leave it alone. To do neither is trolling IMO. BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I find the constant accusations of lies against anyone wanting to preserve mature trees to be objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have raised many important issues that should be debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to wonder whether that is possible on this forum.

Sue, this is off topic. Please start a new thread about goose related matters.

Sorry I didn't realise that obfuscation was a rare word. Still, adumbrate was a new one on me. So I looked it up and learnt something. You are on the internet, no? You are obfuscating by talking about picnic areas which no one has plans for when there are serious environmental issues which continue to be not addressed on this thread. The link you posted relates to an event organised by SSW. I am thankful to them for publicising this issue. As for Lewis, I suggest you contact them directly if you have a complaint. Now can we get back to the root issues?

Sue, you are not dreaming just obfuscating.

It is a problem getting a routine appointment in a reasonable timeframe. However, I think it is not fair to suggest that this practice is in meltdown. I needed to see a doctor urgently yesterday and was accommodated, very professionally, within the hour. Can't fault that.

Indeed he could even adumbrate it, though I think it would be a large sentence. Cool word penguin68, thanks for that. Am not aware of any picnic area plans and even if anyone has any would consider that a distraction from the main issues right now. Agree with all the points re conservation areas. My fault for using the phrase, I just typed it quickly as it was meant literally. Those who care, and have some understanding, about the local environment would very much like the council to act sensitively as regards to grade 1 SINC woods. The best way to do that is to preserve them! To suggest otherwise is like saying that we would best conserve rainforests by razing them and replanting with similar new trees. Nonsensical, sorry. As far as I am concerned, the council could still retrieve some face by reusing the currently used space that they have for local burial - I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for some people but it is what it is. Their current path is non-sustainable, bad for the environment, public health and flood protection. This is all demonstrable and has been covered at length in this thread.

So sorry, these are conservation sites. That include woodland. It is very interesting that the council felt the need to find out what works they could do without faculty. They seem to think they needed permission. Even if they are acting without it.

Loz, perhaps but now it's fenced off, not so easy. It would be much easier if the council were open about this. Penguin68, that is very interesting but nevertheless it seems that the council felt that they needed faculty consent and the diocese responded with a list of preparatory works that they consented to: http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/evidence/4591683001 Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area. So is your contention that the council was seeking permission, that they didn't need, and are now working without that permission? The bottom line is still trees vs grave space. This is a London wide issue - we need to preserve urban woodland for sound environmental reasons. City Hall get this. Why don't Southwark? Any councillor care to comment?

It looks like the council have been felling on consecrated ground: That is Underhill Road in the background. There is a 4m margin alongside the road that is unconsecrated. Compare with page 21 of this doc which maps the consecrated sections: http://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s29467/Appendix%20A%20Southwark%20Council%20Cemetery.pdf If this is so, then they do not have permission to do this.