Save Southwark Woods - link to Objections to Planning Applications

[henryb]

Yes eventually.

[Penguin68]

Yes eventually. - Within about 20 years, if left alone.

I too more frequently visit the Old Cemetery, which is closer to where I live, and certainly do not know cemetery topologies by their grid numbers. If the Old Cemetery were to be ceased as a burial place and turned into a wooded park I am sure that this would enhance my property values - but I am happy for a local cemetery to continue to be used for burials. Where there is a plethora of local natural space amenity, as there is in ED and environs, preserving bits of serendipitous 'wilding' doesn't seem necessary, when other, intended, uses can be made of it.

For many people (I'm actually not one of them, but I can sympathise with those who are) being able to bury bodies or ashes of loved ones locally and close, rather than having to trek out to somewhere less easy to visit is a blessing, and allows grieving and remembrance. To selfishly want burials at Kemnal Park - nearly 2 hours away by public transport so that you can enjoy your 'wood' amenity (and no doubt the rise in your property value) sticks somewhat in my craw.

[henryb]

Provided they want a burial type provided by Southwark..

The fact it takes 2 hours to get 5 odd miles by public transport maybe the more of the issue there. I am not sure bad public transport is a reason to chop trees but I do get your point.

If proximity is such priority for some it seems strange that LBS is subsidizing in-borough burials for people for whom it maybe isn't and who are prepared to travel. Certainly from the north of the borough it isn't much different.

[Penguin68]

The fact it takes 2 hours to get 5 odd miles

10 Miles according to Google maps

[henryb]

I measure it 5.8 miles with google maps.

[taper]

If you're not able to visit the woods in COC to decide for yourself whether they're worth protecting, there's a good description here.

http://www.baldhiker.com/2015/08/21/a-walk-on-the-wild-side-in-londons-southwark-woods/

[edhistory]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you're not able to visit the woods in COC to

> decide for yourself whether they're worth

> protecting, there's a good description here.

Oh dear.

[HopOne]

"Is it not better to clear the overgrown area and use it for burials rather than using more of Honor Oak Rec. This is surely the best option, as maybe when land for burials is full in the borough, an area of Peckham Rye Common could be next to be used as a cemetery and no one would be happy to see that happen."

The root issue here is being missed I feel. Southwark Council have a history of adding new burial space as they need it. This, as a strategy, is clearly not sustainable in an inner London borough.

What this boils down to is whether we should regard burial space as more important than quality of environment for the living. There is a balance to be struck but given that we are experiencing high pollution levels (above EU norms), chopping down mature trees (whether one regards them as part of a wood or not) in order to bury more people seems like an odd focus to many people.

I realise that this is a nettle to grasp but Southwark have the opportunity to lead the way in this but are choosing not to. The end result will be these trees will be lost and then in 40 years time, so will more of the Honor Oak rec or Peckham Rye, who knows? Then we will suddenly realise that we have lost much of the green space we value now. It is not sustainable and it is right that the community should debate this.

[Siduhe]

Nicely put HopOne, and I agree that a debate is useful and needed (albeit we're on different sides of the discussion). If this was a question of Southwark annexing Peckham Rye Common for burials, I'd be the first person objecting to it. I agree that's a space entirely for the living and massively important to be preserved as such.

But, at least to me, COC is different - it was bought, designed and maintained as a cemetery, its primary purpose has always been a cemetery, it's a place where people go to remember their loved ones and has always been actively used as such. I do think burial spaces and spaces for remembrance are as important for the living as well as for those who have passed on. I also think it's great that the same spaces can also be used by the living for recreation, but just not at the expense of their primary purpose.

I also think it's interesting that we now see the earliest markers of humanity (such as the Homo Naledi/Rising Star cave site reported on recently) being the fact of those cultures respecting and burying their dead, but don't necessarily seem to see the value of extending the same respect and treatment to our own. COC has always been a place of great peace, comfort and contemplation to me (and I walk though it at least once most days, more than many I would guess), and it's a shame if it can't continue to be that for other people in future because we don't make any space for burials in our local borough.

[dbboy]

Well put Siduhe.

[HopOne]

Thanks Siduhe. I suspect that our positions on this are not as divergent as you may think and appreciate your response.

There is nothing wrong with cemetery space and see no reason why we can't keep trees and burial space. I just think that we should re-use it. This is normal in most places but has been made difficult in this case due to mismanagement. Rather than correct this approach, Southwark Council's preference seems to be to continue in the same vein.

[mynamehere]

You do not need to stand at a reused hole in the ground to remember . Throw ashes into the wind. Plant a tree, they live for hundreds of years and have babies. Because land in a field in 1850 was called a cemetery we have a miracle gift from the past exactly when we need it: a place to leave wild and let a seed bed from the ancient past regenerate

[edborders]

I have learned my lesson and put my post in an ongoing thread. Sorry for making a new thread!

Trees to be cut down on One Tree Hill - Act now if you prefer trees to graves.

Southwark Council plan to cut down almost two dozen trees (and probably more) including oak trees Exclaimation and drive a road up the side of One Tree Hill in Camberwell New Cemetery - right next to the One Tree Hill Nature Reserve.

Why? For 140 graves - less than 9 months of grave space. And when that is filled there will be a scar on the side of the hill the need to destroy more of the wild places - or potentially wild places - in the cemeteries.

The Diocese of Southwark, the Church of England can stop these plans as this is consecrated ground. The Church is consulting with the public. Save Southwark Woods is asking you to write the Church immediately. Deadline is Wednesday 25 November for receipt of objection to the council's plans.

Please write on paper and mail or deliver (no emails)

Mr. Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar, The Diocese of Southwark, Minerva House, 5 Montague Close, London SE1 9BB and tell him that One Tree Hill is sacred ground and shouldn't be marred or scarred. There are places for burial elsewhere.

Watch this news report on ITV [youtu.be] We didn't tell them they were "veteran" trees and besides a few other minor points, it is all true.

Please go to [www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk] Save Southwark Woods Object page for more information.

And please act now to stop the scarring of One Tree Hill.

Lewis Schaffer

Local Person, Nunhead Resident, Tree Lover.

[Penguin68]

As this post has now appeared back from the lounge - here is my comment (necessarily also lounged) on it - apologies for repetition:-

It's a cemetery - where they bury people. It got over-grown through neglect, now they are putting that right. There are loads of real 'wild' spaces and woods around the area, which are properly managed as woods, and 'wild' spaces. This is now being properly managed (at last) as a cemetery. Get over it.

[James Barber]

Hi P68,

Lots of us take a different view to you. I will never "get over" large amounts of public money being wasted.

[nxjen]

Thread hasn't appeared back from the Lounge, edborders has resurrected an old thread.

Another ridiculous argument that because the ground is consecrated trees should not be cut down to make way for burials. The church consecrated the cemetery to allow for Christian burials so that people may be buried on consecrated ground, not to be a protected site where shrubs are free to grow. Or should all consecrated ground be neglected to revert to shrubland? Good luck with that, it would be a bit too pagan for the Church of England.

[nxjen]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hi P68,

> Lots of us take a different view to you. I will

> never "get over" large amounts of public money

> being wasted.

You really believe that providing for burial spaces within Southwark is a waste of money?

[edborders]

Burial in Southwark is waste of money when it is going to cost twice the amount (or more) to provide a gravespace in Southwark than providing a gravespace on land outside the borough. That that land outside won't have trees or your great-grannies grave on it.

The Cemetery Plans, as far as I can tell, is mainly a vote-getting scheme by Southwark Labour and a giveaway to Conway and the local morticians. Is your tax money is being wasted? Yes.

[dbboy]

edborders Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Burial in Southwark is waste of money when it is

> going to cost twice the amount (or more) to

> provide a gravespace in Southwark than providing a

> gravespace on land outside the borough. That that

> land outside won't have trees or your

> great-grannies grave on it.

>

> The Cemetery Plans, as far as I can tell, is

> mainly a vote-getting scheme by Southwark Labour

> and a giveaway to Conway and the local morticians.

> Is your tax money is being wasted? Yes.

Firstly - EDB, As Penguin68 put it so elegantly

"It's a cemetery - where they bury people. It got over-grown through neglect, now they are putting that right. There are loads of real 'wild' spaces and woods around the area, which are properly managed as woods, and 'wild' spaces. This is now being properly managed (at last) as a cemetery. Get over it."

If you do not belief in burial then can I suggest you leave of us who do alone so we can remember our relatives where we buried them in OUR LOCAL cemetery. If you want to walk in woods, well there are plenty around, what you describe as woods are over grown consecrated grounds that are being brought back into use for burials as was intended when COC was created back in the 1850's and now to prevent further recreational ground being used. Secondly - your petite piece on ITV London last week was SO MIS-LEADING and UNTRUE.

Thirdly, James - REALLY, what planet are you on?????

AND FINALLY southwark woods do not exist, never have done, never will.

I SUPPORT THE MAXIMISATION OF BURIAL SPACE IN COC.

[James Barber]

Hi nxken, dbboy,

The plans Southwark are embarking on will cost millions of pounds and effectively subsidise future burials in Southwark. They have no plans for a sinking fund or endowment so still we maintain these cemeteries on in year revenue. For a number of religions stacking coffins is a no-no. So it's only a subsidy for people of some religions or none.

Alternatives exist that don't require huge capital subsidies and could offer cheaper burials with no religious restrictions within 3 miles of Southwark - a Southwark Council cemetery in a nearby borough.

Many councils no longer have new burials in there boroughs. So yes, really, I don't believe in wasting tax payers money to provide more expensive burials that only some can use.

[edborders]

Is there a way to change the name of this thread?

We are no longer dealing with Southwark's planning applications for the cutting down of woods on One Tree Hill or in Camberwell Old Cemetery. We are now asking the Diocese of Southwark to not give approval to Southwark's plans on One Tree Hill to cut down dozens of trees. And after the 25th of November 2015 there will be other issues. This matter isn't going away.

Could we change it to

"Creation of Nature Reserves in Southwark's Cemeteries"

Or even: What to do with Southwark's Cemeteries.

Lewis Schaffer

Host of Nunhead AMerican Radio on Resonance FM., 6:30PM Mondays

[EDOldie]

I'm really not trying to be silly but would something like this be appropriate in this location? Might satisfy both sides of the argument? http://woodlandburialtrust.com/woodlandburialplaces.htm

[Penguin68]

Mr Barber wrote:- So yes, really, I don't believe in wasting tax payers money to provide more expensive burials that only some can use

I wonder how he is unaware that all proper management of amenity spaces costs money - the fact that the cost is so high reflects the lack of investment and maintenance when the areas were allowed to degrade so badly - oh, when his party was in power (part of the time, anyway).

Only commercial woodlands (planting and harvesting commercial crops of wood, which I am sure would upset the nature mavens stimulating this 'protest')) are self-financing - parks and other amenity areas cost money to maintain - for the benefit of all those who use them as spaces, not just the dead. I walk daily in the Old Cemetery, and enjoy all the local cemeteries as maintained areas of tranquility.. The only 'cheap' method of handling the space is as was done in the past, to neglect and ignore it so it becomes overgrown, dangerous and impenetrable. Oh - and the target for indiscriminate fly-tipping, as in the past.

I cannot believe that Mr Barber is so foolish as to believe that there is no cost associated with just maintaining parks and cemeteries, even if there were no future burials. Or can I?

[edhistory]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The plans Southwark are embarking on will cost

> millions of pounds and effectively subsidise

> future burials in Southwark. They have no plans

> for a sinking fund or endowment so still we

> maintain these cemeteries on in year revenue.

Which plans are these?

I'd like to read them and see the budget projections.

John K

[dbboy]

There are NO WOODS either on one tree hill.

Why don't Southwark Council begin reclaiming Nunhead Cemetery and bring that back into use, turning old gravestones and re-using plots that are more than, lets say 100 years old? Yes it would incur an expense, but in teh longer term you would have burial space for another , I guess 50 years?

edborders Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is there a way to change the name of this thread?

>

> We are no longer dealing with Southwark's

> planning applications for the cutting down of

> woods on One Tree Hill or in Camberwell Old

> Cemetery. We are now asking the Diocese of

> Southwark to not give approval to Southwark's

> plans on One Tree Hill to cut down dozens of

> trees. And after the 25th of November 2015 there

> will be other issues. This matter isn't going

> away.

>

> Could we change it to

>

> "Creation of Nature Reserves in Southwark's

> Cemeteries"

> Or even: What to do with Southwark's Cemeteries.

>

> Lewis Schaffer

> Host of Nunhead AMerican Radio on Resonance FM.,

> 6:30PM Mondays