New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[dbboy]

Firstly, the document that was posted is NOT the Council document that the objectors keep on referring to but is the

Technical Guidance on the re-use and reclamation of graves in London Local Authority Cemeteries.

Henryb, can you post the Council's document to substantiate your groups claims of digging up 48000 graves.

If they are re-interning remains in the same grave only deeper, or are increasing the hight of the existing grave, what is wrong with that. I think the new lawned graves in Camberwell old cemetery look well presented and are far better than it was before.

[Penguin68]

I wonder why this group is so mournfully protective of the long dead, with no one left alive to mourn them, but so despises the wishes of those who are about to be bereaved and wish to have somewhere local where they can mourn and commemorate their loved ones?

[henryb]

Sure.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7216/cemetery_strategy

6.3 Medium Term

Camberwell Old

Re-use of public graves (in consecrated areas and subject to a

Faculty) in which new lawn new layouts would be set out over public

areas where last burials took place more than 75 years ago. Any

remains found would be lifted and re interred in a new consecrated

grave at the ends of the new burial rows.

d. Re-use in these private grave areas and where consecrated, subject

to cancellation of rights under the 1975 Act, subject to Faculty. This

again would offer the opportunity to record

Long Term Options

Camberwell New

Assumes comprehensive

(90%+) Re-use of graves

converted to lawn burial (but

with memorial sited on plot)

[henryb]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I wonder why this group is so mournfully

> protective of the long dead, with no one left

> alive to mourn them, but so despises the wishes of

> those who are about to be bereaved and wish to

> have somewhere local where they can mourn and

> commemorate their loved ones?

What a ridiculous and offensive statement. Simply because a lot of local people think that preserving the cemeteries for nature and heritage is more important than providing new burial plots or that maybe there are better things to do with ?5M of public money than subsidizing a local burial service - doesn't mean they despise anyone.

[Otta]

edcam Wrote:

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

> It's about time we realised that burial isn't

> viable, especially in cities. Whatever your

> beliefs, the fact that it's now pretty much

> guaranteed that you're eventually you're going to

> be dug up again makes a nonsense of burial.

Completely agree. And people's beliefs should not excuse wasting land.

[Otta]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I wonder why this group is so mournfully

> > protective of the long dead, with no one left

> > alive to mourn them, but so despises the wishes

> of

> > those who are about to be bereaved and wish to

> > have somewhere local where they can mourn and

> > commemorate their loved ones?

>

> What a ridiculous and offensive statement. Simply

> because a lot of local people think that

> preserving the cemeteries for nature and heritage

> is more important than providing new burial plots

> or that maybe there are better things to do with

> ?5M of public money than subsidizing a local

> burial service - doesn't mean they despise anyone.

Penguin said they despise an idea, not a person or group. Not ridiculous and definitely not offensive.

[dbboy]

Ask yourself one simple question, what is the purpose of a cemetery? It is to bury the dead. The council have set out an extensive plan that details the history of the cemeteries in the borough, the provision of burials in the short, medium and longer term and looking towards the muddle of the 21st C As you read the strategy, the document clearly shows that re-use has been done in the past

The public consultation produced the following results, which is what the council are trying to do.

Preferred options

4.2.5 Respondents expressed preference for the various options, in the following

order:

 Re-use of public (common) graves- was considered the most

sustainable option with least impact on both the Borough?s open

spaces and bereaved relatives.

 Re-use of private graves.

 Use of burial chambers/mausolea where maximising the the use of

available space. The potential for vandalism and mechanism for

ultimate disposal of remains were raised as concerns.

 Working with other local authorities to source shared land for new

cemeteries.

 A new Southwark burial site outside the borough (not greatly

supported, for the reasons of reduced accessibility).

 Buying of grave space from a private supplier- was not a popular

option and considered to be problematic on account of lack of

confidence in the sustainability of the service.

 Stopping burial in Southwark -received very little support and even

those preferring cremation were in favour of people having burial as a

choice.

 Use of some or all of Honor Oak Recreation Ground for burials was

the least favoured option and the one that attracted the most comment

(214 comments were made objecting to the use of the park). A small

Southwark Council Cemetery Strategy

048-02/ Southwark Cemetery Strategy 33 25.4.12

number of respondents were favour of using some or all of Honor Oak

Recreation Ground for burial.

4.2.6 In respect of re-use options people felt that all efforts would need to be

made to contact living family members and that records should be kept of reused

graves with alternative memorials to the deceased created.

4.2.7 Interest was expressed in woodland burials, these being thought of as

sustainable and environmentally friendly, albeit this may have been

considered as appropriate outside the Borough as part of a package of

options offered

The scrub land in camberwell old cemetery which the main thrust of the objectors protest seems to hang on, was land designated for burial. That was its original purpose. That is why there are graves there, It becoming overgrown is purely down to the council neglecting their responsibilities, however in realising space was running out they are doing what is common sense, and that is to clear the area so new burials can take place. And in other graves where only one burial has taken place to add a new internment on top whilst maintaining the original headstone,

[edborders]

WORK TO POSSIBLY START NEXT WEEK.

Local people may want to be buried in their local cemetery but in order to do this the Southwark Council (ie Southwark Labour) will dig up OR mound over the remains of other local residents. The local people who are then buried there will have 75 years to RIP before THEY are dug up or mounded over.

Every grave is to be eventually dug up OR mounded over.

Watch the Labour Councillor in charge of burials Darren Merrill on ITV News: https://youtu.be/0eklxkk30bQ

The council is also going to cut down trees on One Tree Hill just to get a few months of burial space. One Tree Hill doesn't stop at the nature reserve boundary, no matter what Sandy Pepperall of Friends of One Tree Hill says. She says the group will be happy if the Council tosses the logs over the fence.

Over in the Old Cemetery, the first two acres of trees are to be cut down and 48,000 paupers' graves will be mounded over with a metre (or two) of dirt. New burial plots will then be sold off.

Who knows if local people will care about this. I don't have my loved ones buried there. I have no one who was sold a plot in perpetuity but will now be exhumed and reburied in a communal grave or below the new grave, with their headstone thrown away.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Really, so they are going to exhume the deceased's

> remains, can you post the document that states

> that. Because if the council started to do

> anything like that, and as I am sorry to repeat,

> the residents in the borough would be in revolt

Scaremongering? No, facts.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunheader, cemetery woods and heritage lover, one parent buried, one parent cremated.

[Otta]

Maybe a local bike shop will lend you some chains to chain yourselves to trees with.

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

One Tree Hill doesn't stop at the nature

> reserve boundary, no matter what Sandy Pepperall

> of Friends of One Tree Hill says. She says the

> group will be happy if the Council tosses the logs

> over the fence.

>

"Tosses"? Can you not just describe something without using these ridiculous emotive terms?

I'm sure the Friends of One Tree Hill will be happy.

Logs are really important for a wide range of wildlife, including stag beetles, which are an endangered species.

I'm surprised you didn't know that.

[Jennys]

I have now stopped going into shops which display a poster or petition about this.

[Loz]

The SWW people have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in the time spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a grave.

I think this is unacceptable. Would the pro-SSW people on here like to comment?

[edcam]

Loz Wrote:

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

> The SWW people have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery

> in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min

> trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in

> the time spent in the cemetery, that would be

> about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a

> grave.

>

> I think this is unacceptable. Would the pro-SSW

> people on here like to comment?

Cremation is the way forward.

[edborders]

Camberwell cemeteries are much closer for local people.

Burial in a Camberwell cemetery will have a price for local people, too.

The graves of other local people will be dug up to provide you with your plot. Or other local people will be covered over with dirt.

Those other local people's bones will most likely be reburied under your body. If the ground is mounded over, you will definitely be buried on top of other local peoples' bones.

[ Video of ITV New report, if you haven't seen it. https://youtu.be/0eklxkk30bQ ]

The headstone of the other local person will be removed. Where it will be placed, I don't know.

Your new headstone will be removed when your lease is up, too. Your grave will not be forever but for 25, 50, or 75 years. Your bones will be dug up and put under someone else's body or put in a communal grave.

But not only that. So you can be buried locally you will be responsible for cutting down trees.

Your choice.

Lewis Schaffer

My mother is buried 3,459 miles from me.

[Penguin68]

Your choice.

Which is precisely what you wish to take from us.

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Camberwell cemeteries are much closer for local

> people.

>

> Burial in a Camberwell cemetery will have a price

> for local people, too.

>

> The graves of other local people will be dug up to

> provide you with your plot. Or other local people

> will be covered over with dirt.

>

So what?

> Those other local people's bones will most likely

> be reburied under your body. If the ground is

> mounded over, you will definitely be buried on top

> of other local peoples' bones.

So what?

> [ Video of ITV New report, if you haven't seen it.

> https://youtu.be/0eklxkk30bQ ]

>

> The headstone of the other local person will be

> removed. Where it will be placed, I don't know.

So what?

> Your new headstone will be removed when your lease

> is up, too. Your grave will not be forever but for

> 25, 50, or 75 years. Your bones will be dug up and

> put under someone else's body or put in a communal

> grave.

So what?

> But not only that. So you can be buried locally

> you will be responsible for cutting down trees.

This is the only bit that you should be writing. You want to keep the trees, concentrate on that. The rest is a nonsense.

> Your choice.

Good, then let me make it.

[edborders]

Save Southwark Woods wants trees AND the graves to be saved, so that Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries will be like Nunhead, Highgate or Tower Hamlets cemeteries. These would be the first cemeteries allowed to return to nature.

The council wants to cut down the woods that are there, dig up or cover over every grave and throw away every monument.

[Aerial video of Camberwell Old Cemetery Woods - to be lost. https://youtu.be/b76wj7BO8yI ]

If you are buried in there now you will be dug up after 75 years. And your body will be in a cemetery that every year gets uglier as trees are cut down and old graves are excavated.

Lewis Schaffer

Save Southwark Woods

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> If you are buried in there now you will be dug up

> after 75 years. And your body will be in a

> cemetery that every year gets uglier as trees are

> cut down and old graves are excavated.

So what? I'd be dead, who cares?

[Sue]

And so it goes on, over and over and over again ......

ETA: I'm referring to edborders' repetitive posts, not anybody else's.

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> If you are buried in there now you will be dug up after 75 years. And your body will be in a

> cemetery that every year gets uglier as trees are cut down and old graves are excavated.

I really won't notice. As I don't have kids, they can probably safely re-inter me in another area, or chuck someone else in with me in about 40-50 years and probably no one - especially me - will be terribly bothered. Burying and headstones aren't for the dead - they are for the living. It's just part of the grieving process.

I suspect more people will be more upset that their loved ones are buried too far away for them to visit in the emotionally vulnerable decade or so following their passing. A frail old lady realising that she will never be able to do the four-hour round trip to put flowers on her beloved life-long partner's grave would be devastating.

Saying, "but hey! look at the tree we saved" will be no consolation to people like her whatsoever.

[Sue]

Here's the solution:

https://urnabios.com/

[edborders]

The Council has started destruction on "Area Z" of Camberwell Old Cemetery Wood starting TODAY. The 20th Anniversary of the end of the Newbury ByPass battle. Not sure if any major bypasses were built after the people "lost" the battle to save those woods in Berkshire.

From what we can tell, the Council says it doesn't need Church permission to cut down the trees, dump the dirt over poor people's grave, drive over the bodies of dead children and remove their headstones,

https://twitter.com/SouthwarkWoods/status/691258379617071104/photo/1 This morning, this child's headstone has been removed.

Lewis Schaffer

Always surprised at immoral how Southwark Council is.

[Loz]

Lewis,

You are still avoiding my question.

You have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each way by public transport from ED. Add in the time spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four hour trip just to put flowers on a grave.

Do you really think it is acceptable to make old people to travel for four hours to put flowers on the graves of their loved ones? Isn't *that* thoroughly immoral?

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> dump the dirt over poor people's grave, drive over the

> bodies of dead children and remove their

> headstones,

You're just doing this for fun now, right? Like a child looking for a reaction when they say something naughty.

[Penguin68]

From what we can tell, the Council says it doesn't need Church permission to cut down the trees, dump the dirt over poor people's grave, drive over the bodies of dead children and remove their headstones

The council doesn't need Church permission to do its job of cemetery maintenance, nor to remove grave furniture (either for safety or to temporarily remove and replace for maintenance purposes). It does need Church permission for 'public' graves to disinter for any reason (other I think than an exhumation under warrant by the police). So it will only be 'driving over the bodies of children' in the sense that it is driving over the ground 6ft or so under which children are buried (which is what their mowers do many times a year). But then there have been many links on this thread setting out exactly what councils have to do under law - I referenced the key page 12 of one attachment which sets out all the prohibitions on councils in orderly cemetery re-use for burial purposes, one of which is to make a clear record of where bodies are inhumed when grave markers are moved or covered.