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

[Otta]

I thought Lewis was genuinely funny up to a point, but he over played it.

[Sue]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I thought Lewis was genuinely funny up to a point,

> but he over played it.

It is totally inappropriate to combine one's apparent strong feelings about a serious issue with attempting (sic) to be funny, in my opinion.

However I am not convinced that much of it was actually intended to be funny, originally.

ETA: And I haven't noticed any "appalling" behaviour by "regular posters" on this thread?

[HopOne]

Loz Wrote:

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

> edborders Wrote:

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

> -----

> > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop

> > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries.

> > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe

>

> No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for

> further drainage reports to be completed and for a

> graphic to be updated.

>

> You really have an amazing ability to mound over a

> molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.

Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe that the third paragraph says this:

'...it would be wise to await any further [drainage] report, including report from an independent expert, before clearing any further trees or shrubs'

[Edited to point to correct paragraph]

[robbin]

At first I had grave doubts about the way in which this campaign was being advanced.

Then my interest in it expired.

By this weekend I just found it dead boring.

I was accosted this weekend walking past Lewis' stand (not by Lewis) outside the Co-op and politely but firmly said that I wasn't interested, drawing a look that came across as a mixture of disbelief and horror. That being said, I don't mind Lewis knowing my name is Paul.

Paul Barer, East Dulwich

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> -----

> > edborders Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to stop

> > > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries.

> > > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe

> >

> > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for

> > further drainage reports to be completed and for

> a

> > graphic to be updated.

> >

> > You really have an amazing ability to mound over

> a

> > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.

>

> Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe

> that the third paragraph says this:

> '...it would be wise to await any further report,

> including report from an independent expert,

> before clearing any further trees or shrubs'

Yeah, that's what I wrote.

[panda boy]

So, any chance we can all move on from the people vs SSW / LS and actually focus on the real issues around this?

Sue, dbboy and Loz, i've asked you all specific questions about your feelings on some of the facts (as I see them) have presented to you.

I'm not being impatient, but i'd be keen to hear a response at some point?

[HopOne]

Loz Wrote:

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

> HopOne Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> > > edborders Wrote:

> > >

> >

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

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > @HarrietHarman calls on @lb_southwark to

> stop

> > > > destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries.

> > > > https://t.co/vYQfn3oPEe

> > >

> > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for

> > > further drainage reports to be completed and

> for

> > a

> > > graphic to be updated.

> > >

> > > You really have an amazing ability to mound

> over

> > a

> > > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.

> >

> > Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe

> > that the third paragraph says this:

> > '...it would be wise to await any further

> report,

> > including report from an independent expert,

> > before clearing any further trees or shrubs'

>

> Yeah, that's what I wrote.

Not quite. You also seem to be implying that Ms Harman had not called for a stop to tree felling. She has, so edborders was correct about that. (Sorry if I have misunderstood you but am sure others could reach the same conclusion). Sadly, in this instance, I think that councillors have no obligation to follow her advice.

(Waving a panda boy scarf!)

[Loz]

I think you've got good points on the drainage, pandaboy. Ensuring that this ongoing work helps fix any drainage issues is a reasonable request. I think what Harman wrote backs you up and you could work on the back of that.

But I also think the council is going to press on with the cemetery works and any wider issues (i.e. costs, etc) will land on deaf ears.

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> > > > No, she hasn't. She has asked for time for

> > > > further drainage reports to be completed and for a

> > > > graphic to be updated.

> > > >

> > > > You really have an amazing ability to mound over a

> > > > molehill to try make it a mountain, Lewis.

> > >

> > > Though I agree it is a grainy image, I believe

> > > that the third paragraph says this:

> > > '...it would be wise to await any further report,

> > > including report from an independent expert,

> > > before clearing any further trees or shrubs'

> >

> > Yeah, that's what I wrote.

>

> Not quite. You also seem to be implying that Ms Harman had not called for a stop to tree felling.

> She has, so edborders was correct about that. (Sorry if I have misunderstood you but am sure

> others could reach the same conclusion). Sadly, in this instance, I think that councillors have no

> obligation to follow her advice.

Actually, Lewis wrote that Harman called on Southwark to "stop destruction of Camberwell Cemeteries", which she plainly did not.

I wrote that Harman asked for "time for further drainage reports to be completed", which is not an unfair description of the passage you quoted.

[dbboy]

Panda boy - I was not going to comment further but you have asked for a response.

panda boy Wrote:

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

> dbboy,

> Once again, i'm personally unaware of SSWs tweets.

> I do not and cannot speak for them.

Suggest taking a look at their twitter feed.

> From my point of view, being a concerned

> independent resident I welcome the intervention

> from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith calling for

> the council to stop work immediately until they

> answer important questions they are ignoring.

>

The letter from Harriet is hard to read due to the size it was posted, others have commented on it. I believe Harriet asked for "time for further drainage reports to be completed" Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without clearly knowing all the full facts, if you re-read his response you'll see what I mean.

> And I simply don't agree with you the and

> injunction is the only way forward. Sure it is an

> option, a last resort when both sides reach and

> impasse. My feelings on the council should be

> pretty clear by now, but if you believe an

> injunction is the only way forward at this stage

> doesn't it suggest that council have failed in

> their duty of care to their residents?

> I'm baffled that you're satisfied with their

> conduct.

Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the council doing what needs to be done. The Council are not engaging probably because they got tired of the tirade received from ssw.

> Southwark cannot claim to have been open and

> honest in this process, they have withheld

> important public information, and they have failed

> to deliver on a number of valid points raised to

> them.

Having looked through the report as I have said before, I believe the report was well researched and it provided the conclusions that need to be implemented.

> > what was mis managed

>

> Absolutely it was mis-managed, and desecrated by a

> corrupt council official.

Accepted

> What give you the confidence that these plans

> aren't being similarly mis-managed? The previous

> recent works in COC were not particularly

> successful and led to flooding over graves,

> leading to more works to remedy this, all costing

> valuable public funds.

The report

This way of laying graves out makes best use of the available space. Any flooding is unacceptable, but is a common issue in other cemeteries, the only thing is to report it to inform the cemetery manager and ask them to deal with the issue.

> Based on their previous track record, and the way

> they have conducted themselves I have zero

> confidence in their honesty or competence, and I'm

> not sure we can afford much more of Southwarks

> competence in implementing their 'cemetery

> strategy' until they come clean on these plans.

I accept your concerns however the council have undertaken a comprehensive study and are implementing what needs to be done.

Their are others such as Penguin68 who has also commented on this thread and from his comments is clearly more knowledgeable and articulate with his thoughts and better at expressing then myself.

[panda boy]

> But I also think the council is going to press on

> with the cemetery works and any wider issues (i.e.

> costs, etc) will land on deaf ears.

Yes indeed Loz. This is part of my abject disgust with Southwark and they way they have presented and are forcing through these plans.

I asked them some time ago now if they could provide me with their terms of reference in dealing with public opposition against planning permission. For example Bath county council have framework terms and conditions they adhere to to account for public reaction. It's an important document as it's gives the public some confidence that their voice will be heard.

Southwark have no such mechanism. This basically means they can act with impunity (as they are doing) and it would need a court injunction to challenge them. I personally don't have the time or the funds to take this option up, and the fact this is the only option open after they have ignored each and every opposition to these plans I find depressing.

Especially considering their own admission that they are trying to rebuild confidence with the local community (their words) after the criminal actions of a councillor in the past. Funny way of doing this.

I expect more than empty PR and meaningless words from people who we pay to represent us and our best interests.

Also, the very fact they are refusing to to release details of current costs should raise suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed (implying incompetence) or they have and are refusing to divulge this information. I'm not satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were estimates and do not wholly reflect the current plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is this going to cost? I know for sure it will be comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots in COC will be among the most expensive in London. What an accolade for East Dulwich.

Whether people are for or against the plans, we should surely all expect the council to act with a little more transparency, honesty and duty of care to it's residents concerning the potential flooding issue, and at the very least stop work immediately until they can fulfil these criteria.

[Penguin68]

concerning the potential flooding issue,

I am not sure what is meant here - parts of the graveyard are, at times of heavy and constant rain, waterlogged. This appears substantially to be surface water (i.e. precipitation not draining away) and is fairly typical of heavy clay soils. Before the downpour yesterday (Sunday 7th Feb) most of the surface water had dissipated - there was some standing water (very little) on the tarmac road.

Undoubtedly work on the graveyard - and particularly mounding - will alter the nature of the surface water problem, very possibly (if the right soils for mounding are used) helping to encourage quick soak-away - ground-up bricks and concrete might, in this instance, improve drainage rather than being the 'horror' implied in some posts. Sand and particulate material is often used in gardening to improve drainage on clay soils. The problem might of course actually worsen during the work itself, (as a consequence of a part finished job) before being alleviated.

It does make sense to ensure that, as far as drainage etc. is concerned, that a study is made to ascertain what the expected 'after' impact will be, if this hadn't already been done, as well as considering what intermediate stages might look like.

[panda boy]

dbboy, thank you for your response. I did ask.

> Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without clearly knowing all the full facts,

Fair enough, that's your opinion. Regardless he is an MP who has called on Southwark to stop working and I welcome his intervention.

From Harriet Harman, this is paraphrased but no less accurate;

Ms Harman says: ?it would be wise to await any further report, including report from an independent expert before clearing any further trees or shrubs.?

The MP says the work on clearing trees should not have happened before the completion of a full drainage report on the site. She also questions whether the council has full planning permission for the tree felling ? saying the application did not make clear exactly how many trees were to be felled.

> Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the council doing what needs to be done.

Regrettable indeed. I still find it unacceptable that after being ignored and lied to (not meant as a contradiction) over 2 years that my only recourse is a step I cannot afford. This wouldn't be the last resort it is if Southwark had acted more honestly in the past.

> The Council are not engaging probably because they got tired of the tirade received from ssw.

Again, unacceptable. I am not part of SSW, so for the council to refuse to engage with me is childish in the extreme.

I have asked some pretty simple and straightforward questions. The fact they are ignoring them in once again utterly unacceptable.

> Having looked through the report as I have said before, I believe the report was well researched and it provided the conclusions that need to be implemented.

As have I, and I was broadly satisfied in 2011/12 when they were conducted. They raised some interesting points that suggested further studies were needed before any work could be considered. Although with the current drainage question hanging over this, for you to claim 'well researched' is a bit of a mystery.

The same goes for the costings. I'll have to repeat what I just put to Loz, but;

Also, the very fact they are refusing to to release details of current costs should raise suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed (implying incompetence) or they have and are refusing to divulge this information. I'm not satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were estimates and do not wholly reflect the current plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is this going to cost? I know for sure it will be comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots in COC will be among the most expensive in London. What an accolade for East Dulwich.

> I accept your concerns however the council have undertaken a comprehensive study and are implementing what needs to be done.

Well quite frankly the exact opposite is true. There are unanswered questions Southwark are refusing to answer, and I disagree with them doing 'what needs to be done'. It doesn't need to be done.

3 points;

Budget - why are we not allowed to know how much this is costings us? It is our money after all? 2011/12 estimates are not satisfactory, nor would they be in any other walk of life.

Church Permission - Still not been granted by the Church of England, yet the council have started 'preparatory work' which has included felling trees and rather large scale digging. They didn't put the number of trees to be felled at this stage in their planing application, so yet another example of their sly tactics. Also, why are they in such a rush? After all these plans were originally penned for 2022, with zero explanation as to why they have been brought so far forward.

Potential flooding - Well you know about this one so I won't labour the point.

I completely accept some people are in favour of these plans and I cast no judgement on them for their opinions, although to be honest i've met more on this forum than in real life who are against. I am interested to know why they don't question the councils conduct more and why they are so trusting of Southwark when there are quite a few examples of their unacceptable conduct in this. Are people really not that bothered that our elected officials, using our money appear to be acting with impunity and no public accountability?

Especially considering the criminal actions of a previous councillor which caused the contamination and helped result in the situation in COC in the first place.

I'm not.

[panda boy]

Hi Penguin68

> I am not sure what is meant here -

I'm referring to the potential for increased flooding from area Z in COC after the removal of existing trees (an excellent flood defence) and replacing them with fewer trees.

Ignoring the obvious waste of money this implies, the council have not provided information about the effects this would have on heavy ground water running down from area Z should the work be allowed to be completed.

There is a very interesting and comprehensive soil survey done 2011/12 (would have to dig it up to provide the correct date) that highlighted the London clay beneath the top layers of soil, and the fact that clay doesn't absorb water. I'm not sure any amount of added topsoil or treatment would make up for what the existing trees already provide.

The soil survey also highlighted some existing and particularly nasty contaminates still remaining in area z after the illegal dumping. Southwark have said this soil would be cleaned (first on site, then off site, now who knows?) and re-used. Then again they have said a lot of stuff, some true and some not so i'm not hanging my hat on this one.

Either way, Southwark have not provided required up to date information on the potential for an increased flood risk due to their works, thus failing to show adequate protection and care to local residents.

I think they should stop work immediately until they do some more homework.

I would be concerned if I lived on Ryedale.

And then there's the mystery costings...

[dbboy]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> dbboy, thank you for your response. I did ask.

>

> > Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without

> clearly knowing all the full facts,

> Fair enough, that's your opinion. Regardless he

> is an MP who has called on Southwark to stop

> working and I welcome his intervention.

> From Harriet Harman, this is paraphrased but no

> less accurate;

> Ms Harman says: ?it would be wise to await any

> further report, including report from an

> independent expert before clearing any further

> trees or shrubs.?

> The MP says the work on clearing trees should not

> have happened before the completion of a full

> drainage report on the site. She also questions

> whether the council has full planning permission

> for the tree felling ? saying the application did

> not make clear exactly how many trees were to be

> felled.

> > Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is

> an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the

> council doing what needs to be done.

> Regrettable indeed. I still find it unacceptable

> that after being ignored and lied to (not meant as

> a contradiction) over 2 years that my only

> recourse is a step I cannot afford. This wouldn't

> be the last resort it is if Southwark had acted

> more honestly in the past.

Suggest trying to talk with the councillors who have been strangely silent on this matter.

> > The Council are not engaging probably because

> they got tired of the tirade received from ssw.

> Again, unacceptable. I am not part of SSW, so for

> the council to refuse to engage with me is

> childish in the extreme.

> I have asked some pretty simple and

> straightforward questions. The fact they are

> ignoring them in once again utterly unacceptable.

>

Again, try to speak with the councillors, they are the ones who ineffect direct the Officers of the Council in terms of what they do.

> > Having looked through the report as I have said

> before, I believe the report was well researched

> and it provided the conclusions that need to be

> implemented.

> As have I, and I was broadly satisfied in 2011/12

> when they were conducted. They raised some

> interesting points that suggested further studies

> were needed before any work could be considered.

> Although with the current drainage question

> hanging over this, for you to claim 'well

> researched' is a bit of a mystery.

>

> The same goes for the costings. I'll have to

> repeat what I just put to Loz, but;

>

> Also, the very fact they are refusing to to

> release details of current costs should raise

> suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed

> (implying incompetence) or they have and are

> refusing to divulge this information. I'm not

> satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were

> estimates and do not wholly reflect the current

> plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is

> this going to cost? I know for sure it will be

> comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots

> in COC will be among the most expensive in London.

> What an accolade for East Dulwich.

>

I see no reason why they will not provide an estimated costing. Burial space is expensive no matter where in London.

> > I accept your concerns however the council have

> undertaken a comprehensive study and are

> implementing what needs to be done.

> Well quite frankly the exact opposite is true.

> There are unanswered questions Southwark are

> refusing to answer, and I disagree with them doing

> 'what needs to be done'. It doesn't need to be

> done.

>

Again try speaking with the councillors, they are the first point of contact, then MP, then Govt Ministers.

> 3 points;

>

> Budget - why are we not allowed to know how much

> this is costings us? It is our money after all?

> 2011/12 estimates are not satisfactory, nor would

> they be in any other walk of life.

>

Agreed

> Church Permission - Still not been granted by the

> Church of England, yet the council have started

> 'preparatory work' which has included felling

> trees and rather large scale digging. They didn't

> put the number of trees to be felled at this stage

> in their planing application, so yet another

> example of their sly tactics. Also, why are they

> in such a rush? After all these plans were

> originally penned for 2022, with zero explanation

> as to why they have been brought so far forward.

I was under the impression it was 19 trees.

I suggest they are in such a rush so they are able to continue to provide burial space in the borough, perhaps they should only provide it for residents in Southwark.

>

> Potential flooding - Well you know about this one

> so I won't labour the point.

>

> I completely accept some people are in favour of

> these plans and I cast no judgement on them for

> their opinions, although to be honest i've met

> more on this forum than in real life who are

> against. I am interested to know why they don't

> question the councils conduct more and why they

> are so trusting of Southwark when there are quite

> a few examples of their unacceptable conduct in

> this.

Southwark are putting right the errors from their past, if they had properly managed the cemetery this whole issue would not have arisen. I want to add that I have no issues about the works along Woodvale, it looks far neater and tidier. If you remember before that, there was no access from Woodvale/Langton Rise, the cemetery had far less usage and probably on those visiting graves went in. Since the changes I believe the cemetery gets much more usage.

Are people really not that bothered that

> our elected officials, using our money appear to

> be acting with impunity and no public

> accountability?

> Especially considering the criminal actions of a

> previous councillor which caused the contamination

> and helped result in the situation in COC in the

> first place.

> I'm not.

I accept you are not, and your frustration at not getting the answers you want. You could try emailing the Council Officers and Leader and raise your concerns with them to try and get the answers you are seeking.

Your approach is totally different to that of ssw. You present arguments and seek answers without engaging into any emotional nonsense. Good on you and I salute you for your continued perseverance.

[Penguin68]

The land contamination (a direct consequence of the sort of neglect of the area which was the initial end-game and intent of the ssw campaign for the whole area) is a real problem - sadly, and whatever one feels about the scrub tree growth in this area - the only solution if the contamination is to be cleared is to strip the land to get at the contaminated soil - this cannot be done 'around' existing tree growth save perhaps for the very largest trees which well pre-date the contamination. Such work may well, and initially, alter the drainage in the area, and recovery work must then remedy any issues.

Once the existing trees are gone, the Southwark plan is for re-planting and this will go a significant way towards encouraging natural water take-up (the existing deciduous trees do not of course have much impact on this in winter months anyway, when most surface water appears) - it will be a good idea to plant thirsty trees appropriate for the local climate, even where these are not natives. Silver Birch is shallow rooted and thirsty, although these will suffer in drought conditions. The problem of putting in deep drainage is of course disturbing underlying burials, but field drains may be of use here, picking up water to be fed directly into Thames Water drains.

Clearly there will be drainage problems, but these can be addressed, and addressed effectively. Water management is one of man's oldest technical skills.

By all means identify those things which need to be done and chase them, but making the assumption that the council is de nature made up of incompetents and liars seems somewhat unjust. To push them into corners, insult and impugn them however may not be the best way of getting the best out of them.

[Loz]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> Church Permission - Still not been granted by the Church of England, yet the council have started

> 'preparatory work' which has included felling trees and rather large scale digging.

I think that the current work is on unconsecrated ground, which does not require Faculty. See the map I posted a few pages ago.

> Especially considering the criminal actions of a previous councillor which caused the contamination

> and helped result in the situation in COC in the first place.

AFAIK it was a 'council officer', not a 'councillor'.

[panda boy]

> Good on you and I salute you for your continued perseverance.

Thank you dbboy.

I appreciate your replies and suggestions, but the root cause of my current frustrations and lack of faith with the council was the fact they constantly have not replied to me.

It all started well enough when they announced these plans a few years ago.

They then went silent and continue to be so. I wish I had the time and funds to take them to court over this. At the very least it would highlight their conduct. Whether or not I would be successful is almost an aside, I would like them to account for themselves a little better than they have done so far.

In terms of trying to communicate directly with the relevant council officials, it appears they are simply not interested or willing to do so.

[panda boy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The land contamination (a direct consequence of

> the sort of neglect of the area which was the

> initial end-game and intent of the ssw campaign

> for the whole area) is a real problem - sadly, and

> whatever one feels about the scrub tree growth in

> this area - the only solution if the contamination

> is to be cleared is to strip the land to get at

> the contaminated soil - this cannot be done

> 'around' existing tree growth save perhaps for the

> very largest trees which well pre-date the

> contamination. Such work may well, and initially,

> alter the drainage in the area, and recovery work

> must then remedy any issues.

Indeed, although i'm not sure why the ground cleaning can not be done without removing trees? I didn't see any mention of this in the soil survey or documentation, or recommendations. Can you say where you got this info from please?

>

> Once the existing trees are gone, the Southwark

> plan is for re-planting and this will go a

> significant way towards encouraging natural water

> take-up

I'm still not convinced that removing established mature trees and re-planting with fewer yes mature trees will do anything to improve drainage?

And if so, why haven't Southwark made this case in their defence?

(the existing deciduous trees do not of

> course have much impact on this in winter months

> anyway, when most surface water appears) - it will

> be a good idea to plant thirsty trees appropriate

> for the local climate, even where these are not

> natives. Silver Birch is shallow rooted and

> thirsty, although these will suffer in drought

> conditions. The problem of putting in deep

> drainage is of course disturbing underlying

> burials, but field drains may be of use here,

> picking up water to be fed directly into Thames

> Water drains.

All well and good. None of these points have been made by the council however. There is also the small matter of the London clay underlying the area.

Either way, the fact remains the council have not produced enough information about the effects of these works, and the effect they would have on water drainage and possible flooding.

> Clearly there will be drainage problems, but these

> can be addressed, and addressed effectively. Water

> management is one of man's oldest technical

> skills.

Couldn't agree more. If only these skills could have been brought to bear on the landscaped area of COC that floods, and they could have maybe mentioned their ideas on drainage in their current plans.

> By all means identify those things which need to

> be done and chase them, but making the assumption

> that the council is de nature made up of

> incompetents and liars seems somewhat unjust. To

> push them into corners, insult and impugn them

> however may not be the best way of getting the

> best out of them.

Fair point ad agreed. I am not intending to tar all of Southwark council with the same brush.

I do however stand by my claim that particular members of the council have lied to me, and by implication of their actions, there is a strong suggestion of incompetence.

I'm not here to slag them off though, I was using words which I thought accurately described their actions. They may not be very nice words, but that doesn't make them any less true.

I have pointed out, and in some detail examples of what I have personally experienced and where these public servants have fallen short of their obligations.

It's simply not good enough.

[panda boy]

Loz Wrote:

> I think that the current work is on unconsecrated

> ground, which does not require Faculty. See the

> map I posted a few pages ago.

I disagree. Consecrated or unconsecrated, my understanding is that it is Church land and requires permission to work on. I will look into this further though.

> AFAIK it was a 'council officer', not a

> 'councillor'.

Fair point, my mistake. I also believe it was a council officer and not an elected councillor.

[Penguin68]

Indeed, although i'm not sure why the ground cleaning can not be done without removing trees?

Primarily because scrub growth is growing through and in the contaminated area; if you leave the trees you leave that part of the contamination they are growing in - and practically clearing the whole space makes removing the contaminated soil simply that much easier (and cheaper). Of course scrub trees are also being cleared in areas which are not contaminated - different argument there, although I support the clearance as part of (re) creating an orderly cemetery.

[Penguin68]

my understanding is that it is Church land and requires permission to work on

No, it is not, and never has been 'church land' - the two cemeteries were purchased initially by the municipality and are publicly owned. The Church's (statutory) interest lies in the consecrated areas only, and for those they have to give a Faculty only for 'substantial alteration' (which includes the movement of bodies or grave furniture or the creation of new paths and roads through the consecrated areas).

I believe the Diocese may have been giving misleading information (possibly based on the questions it was asked). For real 'church land' - that is in the curtilage of an Anglican Church - the Church can set out quite stringent requirements of the incumbent and parish council regarding its use and alteration - but on consecrated municipal grounds its powers are diminished. If it was assumed (wrongly) that municipal cemeteries were church land then the Church could indeed set out limits e.g. on what size of tree could removed. I do not believe such powers exist for consecrated land on municipal cemeteries. That does not mean that the work proposed by the council on consecrated land does not require a Faculty (because they plan to alter grave furniture, inter alia and put in new roads and paths), but that Faculty would not additionally tie the hands of the council in the ways being suggested on this thread.

[panda boy]

> Primarily because scrub growth is growing through

> and in the contaminated area; if you leave the

> trees you leave that part of the contamination

> they are growing in - and practically clearing the

> whole space makes removing the contaminated soil

> simply that much easier (and cheaper).

I get your point. As far as i'm aware the majority of the contaminated ground can be identified by the large mound in area Z. I would welcome council efforts to clean up this area.

Their plans to remove trees not in this contaminated area raises questions, one's i'd like answered.

How can you claim that this approach is cheaper though? How can you when the costs for this project have not been updated or released?

At one point the council stated this affected soil would be treated on site.

Then they stated it would be removed and cleaned off site.

Do you know the difference in cost between these two treatments to be able to claim the current plan is the cheapest?

The comprehensive soil survey also identified certain areas that were more affected than others. There are different concentrations of contaminates in relatively small patches. After all this time, I simply do not believe (based on the information and data the council have made available) that clearing the entire area as they propose is the most effective approach.

> Of course

> scrub trees are also being cleared in areas which

> are not contaminated - different argument there,

> although I support the clearance as part of (re)

> creating an orderly cemetery.

Indeed, this is a part of the argument / discussion i'm trying to have.

'Scrub tree's' is an interesting way of describing them. It's a phrase often used to describe ground cover and specifically small trees that have grown in an inhospitable area.

I'm not sure describing the mature trees in area Z as being 'scrub trees' is entirely accurate.

Either way, i'd love to hear from someone how clearing existing mature trees and replacing them with fewer younger trees is;

a - a wise use of public money.

b - will not have an impact on groundwater flooding and possibly increase the risk.

[panda boy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> my understanding is that it is Church land and

> requires permission to work on

>

> No, it is not, and never has been 'church land' -

> the two cemeteries were purchased initially by the

> municipality and are publicly owned. The Church's

> (statutory) interest lies in the consecrated areas

> only, and for those they have to give a Faculty

> only for 'substantial alteration' (which includes

> the movement of bodies or grave furniture or the

> creation of new paths and roads through the

> consecrated areas).

Ok, I will look into this more. Thanks for providing this info.

> I believe the Diocese may have been giving misleading information (possibly based on the questions it was asked)

In the interests of fairness and accuracy, the Diocese are responding to objections (of which there are many) to the planning permission submitted by Southwark. I'm not sure how any 'misleading information' can come into this process. Unless it's from Southwark council?

[HopOne]

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.