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

[Loz]

henryb Wrote:

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

> It is not just SSW. The Diocese have said they don't have permission to do what the say there are

> going to do. It is not up to the Council to to decide what is legal and what is not. It is up the

> Police and Courts.

If you read the report, the council has gone quite deeply into the legalities of the works. But yes, the courts (not the police) are the ultimate arbiter, but they won't consider the matter until someone puts the case in front of them. SSW seems to be hoping that the Diocese will go to the time and expense of this, but Lewis' posts seem to suggest they don't seem keen on this idea.

So, unless SSW stump up the dough (see what I did there, Otta?) and engage a lawyer, the courts will not intervene. Therefore the council will proceed (quite rightly) under the legal advice they have been given.

[Otta]

edborders Wrote:

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

> THEY ARE CUTTING TREES NOW IN CAMBERWELL OLD

> CEMETERY

>

> THE COUNCIL DO NOT HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE CHURCH

> TO CUT DOWN TREES AND ARE ACTING ILLEGALLY>

>

> GO TO AREA Z NOW. I WILL MEET YOU> AND TELL THEM

> TO STOP. WILL CALL THE POLICE.

Go on my son, this is your moment! Take no prisoners!

[Penguin68]

Oh, for goodness sake - please read the very useful attachment made some pages back which sets out the law concerning cemetery re-use in London.

The Church is required to consider granting a Faculty where there are plans for 'substantial alteration' on consecrated land within Municipal cemeteries - such alteration would include new pathways and roads. Removal of unplanned scrub growth of trees is not 'substantial alteration' under these terms - it is normal maintenance (as is the tending of land which has been contaminated by fly-tipping - a further result of the Southwark's previous failure to maintain the cemetery). Indeed most of the 'gardening' aspects of Southwark's work in the cemeteries would not be an issue for the Diocese. What would be is the creation of new roads and pathways (but probably not the restoration of existing paths), mounding over existing public burials and any moving of existing public burials. The council is cutting down trees now before birds might start nesting - which is sensible and actually advised.

The Council actually probably doesn't need the consent of any body (other than the council) for the removal of unplanned tree growth in the cemetery. I suspect that if the Church were to move to stop them (if they could) that would be ultra vires in and of itself.

And - to make things I hope crystal clear - the Church very publicly endorses and supports the continuation of burials in London cemeteries and the re-use of cemetery land as proposed and in an orderly fashion. It will not support the intents of this interest group to halt burial in Southwark. Those writing to the Diocese might wish to male it clear that they support (if they do) burial in Southwark whereas the 'wood' mavens don't and wish it stopped.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

Those writing to the Diocese might wish

> to male it clear that they support (if they do)

> burial in Southwark whereas the 'wood' mavens

> don't and wish it stopped.

In case they are heaving heavy sighs at the sight of their inboxes, the subject of my email to them was

"Plans for Camberwell Old Cemetery and Camberwell New Cemetery - I agree with the plans"

in case they thought the email was from another SSW supporter ......

ETA: So does anybody know what has happened re Lewis and the chainsaw mob??

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

>

> So, unless SSW stump up the dough (see what I did

> there, Otta?)

I have grave concerns about all this ......

[dbboy]

As Sidhue so kindly pointed out the following legal process has to be followed and until that is done the works WILL continue and rightly so.

"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."

I hope the matter can now be allowed to rest peacefully.

Apparently ~Lewis unchained himself, but do not know if the police took him away, but there's hoping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Loz]

Based on the twitter feed, Lewis chained himself to a digger. the police were called (not sure by whom) and at least one tree was felled.

[dbboy]

one down, only another eighteen to go, at this rate will be the middle of the month by the time the council get them all down. Interestingly the council say the area is just over 3 acres and nowhere near the 12 Lewis quotes.

[Sue]

dbboy Wrote:

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

Interestingly the

> council say the area is just over 3 acres and

> nowhere near the 12 Lewis quotes.

To be fair, these figures are referring to two different things.

ETA: Although admittedly Lewis has not made that clear.

[Sue]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Based on the twitter feed, Lewis chained himself

> to a digger. the police were called (not sure by

> whom) and at least one tree was felled.

Just looked at the twitter feed, and Southwark Council say that all works are in line with the planning permission granted.

And Save Southwark Woods are claiming that Southwark Council are acting illegally because "the nesting season is coming".

Well, yes, it is COMING, SSW, but the birds probably do not have long-term plans to nest in those particular trees :))

The council have said in their FAQ that the trees in question were specifically examined to ensure there were no nests.

Yet more misinformation from SSW.

[dbboy]

Simply Lewis & Co need to follow the Law, if he does that then his cause may move forward. Currently he & Co are disrupting the councils works, which will result in additional costs that council tax payers will ultimately have to fund.

[Otta]

Did Lewis seriously chain himself to a digger? That's friggin' awesome, fair play Lewis you crazy bastard.

[Help-Ma-Boab]

Made me smile. Lewis the Loon!

Otta Wrote:

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

> Did Lewis seriously chain himself to a digger?

> That's friggin' awesome, fair play Lewis you crazy

> bastard.

[ruffers]

All good material for a future show I guess.

[HopOne]

I think that SSW are saying that Southwark are acting illegally if they do not have permission from the Church to proceed with works. Which they do not (the only things they have permission for are Japanese Knotweed treatment, surface soil sampling, and putting up fencing). If there is any nesting then, for some species at least, it would also be illegal to disturb that (the nest would not necessarily have to be in a tree actually being felled). There have been signs of spring, bizarrely, for weeks so that is not inconceivable.

The areas that they have started work on is just part of a bigger strategy so the council are being disingenuous re 12 acres. As they are when counting trees - a different definition depending on felling or planting.

Yet more misinformation from the council.

To Sue, the loss of mature trees, in a woodland context (which do exist - I care not what you call them), is damaging to existing biodiversity. This all boils down to whether you value local green space and its wildlife over burial space in an urban area.

[edborders]

They cut down two trees. Massive trees in consecrated area. Peter John Vikki Mills et al total distracted for nature, for the Church, for law and for local people. The total opposite of what Labour should be, oposite o

Kf what the council should act like. Illegal. No permission.

[JoeLeg]

edborders Wrote:

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

> They cut down two trees. Massive trees in

> consecrated area. Peter John Vikki Mills et al

> total distracted for nature, for the Church, for

> law and for local people. The total opposite of

> what Labour should be, oposite o

> Kf what the council should act like. Illegal. No

> permission.

'Distracted for nature'? Have you been on the sherry?

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

>

> To Sue, the loss of mature trees, in a woodland

> context (which do exist - I care not what you call

> them), is damaging to existing biodiversity. This

> all boils down to whether you value local green

> space and its wildlife over burial space in an

> urban area.

This has already been debated on here ad nauseam.

We are very lucky to be blessed with a great deal of green space in this area, including proper woods. As I have said before on this thread, it was one of the reasons - indeed probably the main reason - I moved here.

Burial space is needed. The "woods" in question are situated within existing cemeteries, and if memory serves the land has long been earmarked for said burials.

If it had been properly maintained by the council in the past, there would not be fifteen pages of this thread now.

"Save Southwark Woods" has changed its arguments over the course of the thread from saving trees via not having corpse juices running down Forest Hill Road via not mounding over existing graves via not disturbing bones and teeth via many other things I have probably forgotten via not disturbing nesting birds (who the council has ascertained are not actually nesting) to, now, damaging existing biodiversity.

People all over Southwark are paving over/decking their front and back gardens and arguably causing a great deal more damage to existing biodiversity (among other things) than the council are in belatedly sorting out ground in a cemetery which they should not have left to go wild in the first place.

Have the people involved in the SSW campaign ever spoken up about that?

[Siduhe]

This all boils down to whether you value local green space and its wildlife over burial space in an urban area.

I think that's a fair way of putting it - the two sides may not agree which should take priority but, even though I'm firmly in the creating burial space camp for all the reasons Sue mentions and others, I totally get why others think that green space and wildlife is more important. It's a shame this point, which is really worthy of debate, is getting lost in the barrage of hyperbole.

Edited - spelling.

[edborders]

Council just cut down two trees. 20 inch diameter. On consecrated land. Total disrespect for nature, the dead, the Church, and the law. They don't have permission but they did it anyway. Shameful. Is this the way you want your council to act? Is this the way you want your Labour Party to act?

Lewis Schaffer

Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Otta]

But did you chain yourself to anything???

[Otta]

Siduhe Wrote:

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

> This all boils down to whether you value local

> green space and its wildlife over burial space in

> an urban area.

>

> I think that's a fair way of putting it - the two

> sides may not agree which should take priority

> but, even though I'm firmly in the creating burial

> space camp for all the reasons Sue mentions and

> others, I totally get why others think that green

> space and wildlife is more important. It's a

> shame this point, which is really worthy of

> debate, is getting lost in the barrage of

> hyperbole.

But what no one seems to acknowledge is that London is not, in ANY way, short of green or wooded space!

[Siduhe]

@Otta, yup - that's my view too. But I guess if someone thinks that any loss is a bad thing, it doesn't matter whether there's enough or too much from their point of view.

[Sue]

I think we should just raze the whole of London to the ground and let the woods take over :))

Indeed, let's encourage the whole of the country to revert to, er, the country :))

[dbboy]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Council just cut down two trees. 20 inch diameter. Great lets get the remaining 17 cut down this week

> On consecrated land. - So what

Total disrespect for nature, er no, clearing overgrown scrub land

> the dead, - how do you work that one out?

the Church,- They are not interested in pursuing legal action as you already said

and the law. - The Law, either follow it and apply for an injunction or stop bleating and find something else to campaign on,

They don't have permission but they did it anyway. - ~Oh yes they do, They are working within their legal requirements

Shameful.

Is this the way you want your council to act? - They are dealing with their own neglect that resulted in the overgrowth of the areas concerned so yes. If you checked history you would see that this has been done before in the cemetery.

Is this

> the way you want your Labour Party to act? Don't think corbyn is interested, too busy with trident and overseas issues right now.

>

> Lewis Schaffer

> Http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk