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

[Penguin68]

The irony of this meeting with the Church is that removal of self-seeded trees and shrubs falls absolutely outside the Church's remit, for consecrated ground in Municipal cemeteries, of having to grant (or not) a Faculty for 'substantial alteration'. So even if Lewis managed to execute some stay on the re-use issue (not the Church's general policy), the removal of the trees cannot be stopped by the Church. Nor could any work not in a consecrated area. Since it was the removal of the trees which is the prime mover in all this (with concern about ancient burials somewhat of a side-show) efforts with the Church, while ensuring an orderly approach by Southwark to its plans, cannot 'save the trees'.

[dbboy]

He says they have filed an injunction against Southwark Council??

[Sue]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> He says they have filed an injunction against

> Southwark Council??

Where does he say that?

On what grounds?

I thought they'd already taken legal advice which was that they had no case??

Does he mean SSW, or the church??

[dbboy]

save Southwark Woods ‏@SouthwarkWoods 2 hrs2 hours ago

.@lb_southwark You do not have permission from @SouthwarkCofE to cut trees in Area Z of Camberwell Old Cemetery. Injunction has been filed

It was my presumption that it had been served against the council

[Sue]

So who has filed the injunction against the council? The church??

ETA: I've just looked at SSW's twitter feed (correct term? I don't use twitter much)

They now seem to be trying to stop mounding over Commonwealth war graves??

And apparently the church says the council does not have permission to fell trees "over 75mm"

Eh?? Surely an 80mm seedling tree does not count as a tree??

There's also a reference on the page to "Grade 1 woods" - ???

Don't understand.

[edborders]

Save Southwark Woods met with the Diocese of Southwark today. Sitting in with us was Daniel Raven-Ellison from London National Park City

We were told that the Council has not been given consent to cut down any tree with a circumference over 75mm and 75cm tall.

And that due to having received over 500 paper objections and over 300 emailed objections, a hearing will be held regarding Southwark's plans. Up until that time Southwark doesn't have permission.

That is what we were told.

The Council plan to cut down over 12 acres of woods and dig up or mound over 1000s of graves to provide burial space for London's dead. These are the largest mass excavation plans in UK history.

Lewis Schaffer

Southwark Resident, 40 pounds overweight, deeply in debt.

[Sue]

What is the timescale within which this hearing has to take place?

What exactly is the reason/s for the hearing, and will these be published prior to the hearing?

Will the arguments for and against the council's proposed actions be published prior to the hearing?

Will the hearing be held in public? What form will it take?

Will people be able to make representations in writing prior to the hearing? Or verbally at the hearing?

And who will decide the outcome?

[edborders]

We believe the council does not have legal permission to proceed with the first part of the largest excavation and mounding programme in British history.

They want to drive roads over private graves whose rights have not been extinguished. They seem to not have permission to cut down trees over 75mm, which they are planning. They posted that they had permission to cut down trees that even they call "significant".

The Diocese of Southwark has sent emails that have said otherwise, and asked the council for "legal justification" for their proposed actions.

We asked the Church for an "injunction" to stop the works - their word. We wrote one out on the spot and gave it to them, which I think surprised them. Whether it has the intended result, we will see. My guess they didn't expect to get it and didn't want it!

One of the reasons the council is planning on doing illegal work right now is that they didnt expect the church to get THAT many objections - over 800 people spoke out against cutting down trees and mounding over and digging up graves. - That caused additional delay. The church has had to schedule a hearing. I got the feeling they didn't want that.

If anyone has the link to the London Live news report today (starring me!) would you please send me the link? Appreciated.

Video of me and my East Duwlich educated son in Camberwell Old Cemetery last summer.

See what I look like. See that i am a real person. Who are you?

Lewis Schaffer

Nunheader, Brooklyn Born, Newcomer

[Sue]

I think you will find that everybody on here is a "real person", whether they "star" in news reports or not.

So from what you say above, the church isn't in agreement with the views of your group either but has been placed in a position where they have to act because of the number of objections they have received? Objections instigated by your group?

I don't know about anyone else, but I find it quite disturbing that a group which - judging by what has been posted on this forum - has not given people the full and accurate facts or all sides of the argument should be able to hold things up in this way.

So can you answer the questions in my previous post concerning the hearing?

[Penguin68]

I still do not see why the Church has any rights over debating about normal cemetery management (removing unplanned scrub growth). This cannot be seen as a 'substantial alteration' to consecrated ground - you might just as well argue that the removal of fly-tipped debris, or even the mowing of grass, would equally require their authority. And the Church cannot set sizes on what trees are to be cut - the Council can, as part of its tree preservation work, but not the Church. It might require, where memorial trees have been planted, that these be preserved, but in the main this is not the case (and I'm not sure memorial (as opposed to landscaping) trees are planted on public (formerly pauper's) graves.

Nor does the Church have a specific remit over private graves, save where these are, inter alia, on consecrated ground.

But make one thing absolutely clear, the Church is never going to ally with the desires of the interest group to stop all burials and 'wild' the cemeteries.

[nxjen]

?One of the reasons the council is planning on doing illegal work right now is that they didnt expect the church to get THAT many objections - over 800 people spoke out against cutting down trees and mounding over and digging up graves. - That caused additional delay. The church has had to schedule a hearing. I got the feeling they didn't want that.?

I have today written to the Diocese of Southwark expressing my support for the works to be undertaken by Southwark Council. It would be helpful to the Diocese to receive a more balanced view of the community?s wishes about these works, works that have gone through the democratic consultation process. Contact details gleaned from the SSW website are:

Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry:

[email protected]

Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese:

[email protected]

Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar

[email protected]

It is odd that the campaigners are seeking and expecting the support of the Church of England to turn a space used for Christian burial, which the Council are seeking to extend, into an area to be used for secular pursuits that deny any ongoing Christian involvement.

[edborders]

Please write the Diocese of Southwark expressing your support for the works to be undertaken by Southwark Council.

Dear Mr. Petchy,

I approve of Southwark's plans for Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

Their plan to dig up or cover over with dirt the buried dead of East Dulwich is fine by me.

I recognize that they were buried in perpetuity and might even be some of my relatives, or my neighbours's relatives. It is a tough call but the living today have the right to buried forever near our homes with our families. We have that right even if it means digging up those family members we want to be buried next to and eventually having us dug up, too.

I, in no way, mind being buried above the dead (in area prone to flooding, made worse by cutting down the trees). We aren't superstitious and will rest just as easily in a grave above the newly reburied remains (ie bones, teeth) of the former occupants, having replaced their headstones with ours.

I cannot imagine a time I will go looking for the remains of my relatives, or others will want to come looking for me.

Finally, I prefer to be dug up in a few years. We need to make space for someone else to be buried. After all, the Funeral Directors need to work, too. (And what of the horses who pull the caskets?) I know I will have spent a lot of money for the plot and headstone but if that is the price for local burial for local people, I am willing to pay it.

(Insert something about who you are, how you are just like them, and go to the Church all the time)

Oh, I have never been to Nunhead Cemetery so I don't know what they are on about. These places are overgrown scrubland.

Signed

Local Resident

Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry:

[email protected]

Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese:

[email protected]

Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar

[email protected]

Prepared by Lewis Schaffer when i should be working.

[dbboy]

Yet another extremely insensitive and sick post by edborders and one that makes no sense whatsoever. This behaviour has got to stop or be STOPPED.

ADMIN - Please can you intervene.

[Siduhe]

You do not have permission from @SouthwarkCofE to cut trees in Area Z of Camberwell Old Cemetery. Injunction has been filed

We asked the Church for an "injunction" to stop the works - their word. We wrote one out on the spot and gave it to them, which I think surprised them. Whether it has the intended result, we will see. My guess they didn't expect to get it and didn't want it!

To get a legally binding prohibitory injunction in England and Wales you need to do the following:

Complete an application notice (Form N244).

Prepare a witness statement in support.

Draft the order.

File copies of application notice, evidence and draft order at court, and pay the current court fee.

Serve the application notice, evidence and draft order on the respondent, at least three clear days before the hearing if possible.

Go to Court, argue your case and win in front of the judge.

Handing over a bit of paper in a meeting asking the Church to intervene isn't 'filing an injunction'. I'm also not aware that the Church of England has the power to issue a legally binding injunction to stop what Southwark are doing - they would need to go to Court like everyone else and ask a judge to issue an order.

[nxjen]

There's a joke somewhere about edborders digging his own grave but it's probably in bad taste so will refrain.

[edborders]

Don't get mad at me.

The council is going to be digging up or mounding 1000s of graves in Camberwell Old Cemetery.

And cutting down the trees to get to those graves. Inevitably children's graves will be dug up or mounded over.

I am not doing the digging or even the proposing. I am just the messenger.

Southwark Labour, Southwark Council, Victoria Mills, Gavin Edwards, Fiona Colley et al will be digging up and mounding over the graves of local people to lease off. And not to forget the main guy, Peter John.

Sorry for mentioning this.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead, coughing, want to be back in bed, going back to bed

[dbboy]

edborders try looking up the meaning of decorum, respectability, correctness, etiquette or restraint.

[edborders]

It took me a year to understand the duplicity of Southwark Labour/Peter John-run Council.

They are digging up or mounding over the graves of the local dead and are telling local people it is good for local people.

People who want to be buried locally with their families will find that their ancestors have been covered over or excavated, and the memorial moved away.

Even the people who have no family there being sold a plot of land in a flooded cemetery for only 75 years.

The only people this is good for are the Funeral Directors, the contractors, and Peter John. I am sure the other councillors would wish this would all go away.

ADDED: Calling Victoria Mills, Gavin Edwards, Renata Hamvas, Harriet Harman, Helen Hayes.

Southwark Labour's plans (and only they support it) are not good for local people. If they were, they would be telling everyone.

Lewis Schaffer

Save the graves and the trees.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> edborders try looking up the meaning of decorum,

> respectability, correctness, etiquette or

> restraint.

[Loz]

edborders Wrote:

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

> We asked the Church for an "injunction" to stop the works - their word. We wrote one out on the

> spot and gave it to them, which I think surprised them. Whether it has the intended result, we will

> see. My guess they didn't expect to get it and didn't want it!

Is *that* what the tweet was about yesterday?? I was actually worried that you had gone through the expense of putting a proper injunction together. Instead, you wrote some rubbish on a bit of paper and called it an 'injunction'. Hilarious!

Really, there is a very amusing comedy play or film bubbling away here. A sort of 'Spinal Tap' for the online petition generation.

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Please write the Diocese of Southwark expressing

> your support for the works to be undertaken by

> Southwark Council.

>

> Dear Mr. Petchy,

>

> I approve of Southwark's plans for Camberwell Old

> and New Cemeteries.

>

> Their plan to dig up or cover over with dirt the

> buried dead of East Dulwich is fine by me.

>

> I recognize that they were buried in perpetuity

> and might even be some of my relatives, or my

> neighbours's relatives. It is a tough call but the

> living today have the right to buried forever near

> our homes with our families. We have that right

> even if it means digging up those family members

> we want to be buried next to and eventually having

> us dug up, too.

>

> I, in no way, mind being buried above the dead (in

> area prone to flooding, made worse by cutting down

> the trees). We aren't superstitious and will rest

> just as easily in a grave above the newly reburied

> remains (ie bones, teeth) of the former occupants,

> having replaced their headstones with ours.

>

> I cannot imagine a time I will go looking for the

> remains of my relatives, or others will want to

> come looking for me.

>

> Finally, I prefer to be dug up in a few years. We

> need to make space for someone else to be buried.

> After all, the Funeral Directors need to work,

> too. (And what of the horses who pull the

> caskets?) I know I will have spent a lot of money

> for the plot and headstone but if that is the

> price for local burial for local people, I am

> willing to pay it.

>

> (Insert something about who you are, how you are

> just like them, and go to the Church all the

> time)

>

> Oh, I have never been to Nunhead Cemetery so I

> don't know what they are on about. These places

> are overgrown scrubland.

>

> Signed

> Local Resident

>

> Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry:

> [email protected]

>

> Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese:

> [email protected]

>

> Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar

> [email protected]

>

>

> Prepared by Lewis Schaffer when i should be

> working.

edborders/Lewis Schaffer

You really don't do yourself or your group any favours, do you?

I shall indeed be sending this to Southwark Council and to the Diocese, as you suggest.

But the whole post. With your name at the end of it.

I expect they have already got the measure of you, though.

[edborders]

We were in the office of the Chanecellor Mr Phillip Petchy who leads the Church Court overseeing the consent procedure concerning Southwark's plans.

After he informed us that Southwark Council does not have Church (and therefore, legal) permission to cut down trees and build roads in the Consecrated Areas of Area Z (which is most of it) we asked him what we could "right now" to stop the Council.

He told us we should file for an "injunction" to the Church court, which is what we did, right then and there. They have chosen not to move forward on this, but an injunction was given to the Church, none-the-less. It is not our fault we probably were given dodgy legal advice.

Lewis Schaffer

American, believer in separation of Church and State

Loz Wrote:

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

[LauraW]

I love Camberwell Old Cemetery and the rest of Southwark Woods because I've had many hours of joy there. It's great that so many people are putting in their time and energy voluntarily to save green spaces and habitats from being rendered into the kind of sterile burial plots we've seen already put in place at COC recently. It's sad that some people on here want that to happen and I can't imagine what their motivation is for being in favour of the Council doing these works. I think they can do their anti-woods campaigning though without being so trollish toward Lewis.

By the way, I remember filling in the consultation survey, and it was at best unintentionally misleading about options and consequences. It absolutely doesn't justify the Council's current plan.

[Sue]

LauraW Wrote:

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

I think

> they can do their anti-woods campaigning though

> without being so trollish toward Lewis.

How do you feel about the content and nature of Lewis's posts on here?

Do you think they are acceptable?

ETA: Do you think they are likely to persuade people to come round to his (and presumably your) viewpoint by the use of objective, unemotional, factual logic and reason?

Or do you think they are, in your words, trollish?

[edborders]

Please feel free to send my correspondence to anyone and everyone.

Everything I write I write so that people will see it.

Southwark Labour sells local burial for local people. But it means digging up other local people and reburying their bones and teeth etc under the newly buried local person. And that local person will be dug up in 75 years. (not mentioning the trees.)

If you are okay with that you should tell the Church that.

Richard Hastings, Clerk to the Registry:

[email protected]

Philip Petchey, Chancellor to the Diocese:

[email protected]

Paul Morris, Diocesan Registrar

[email protected]

Lewis Schaffer

Please google me or visit my website http://www.lewisschaffer.co.uk Who are you?

[Sue]

edborders Wrote:

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

>it means digging up other local people

> and reburying their bones and teeth etc under the

> newly buried local person. And that local person

> will be dug up in 75 years.

I've got absolutely no problem with that at all, whether it was me or the bones of somebody I loved.

They're bones. And teeth. Of a dead body. They have absolutely nothing to do with the spirit or the memory of who that person was.