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

[Loz]

Might be, might not. It definitely looks like the corner of Underhill and Hillcourt, but if you go far enough in there, you get to Block 107, which is unconsecrated.

Lewis needs to get phone out and take lat/long coordinates!

[Penguin68]

As I have said before, the Faculty granted by the Diocese (not planning permission, though it has some similar effects) in regards to consecrated land in municipal cemeteries is in respect of 'substantial alteration' which includes the moving or disturbing of bodies, the moving or disturbing of grave markers and grave furniture and the introduction of new paths and roads (as they will be on ground consecrated for burial but now no longer available for burial use). Gardening, which would include removal of trees, is not 'substantial alteration' and should not require any Faculty. I am sure that the council will have (or will be) submitting its full plans to the Diocese so that it makes its decision in context, but parts of those plans (regarding the removal of scrub growth and other trees, and probably the removal of contaminated soil and fly-tippings, where this does not involve grave furniture as well as its replanting plans) does not in and of itself require the granting of a Faculty.

I should also note that in general Dioceses do grant such Faculties, where the plans are orderly and the reburial of moved bodies etc. is properly arranged as they would wish to encourage, not block, Christian burial (which, as it is consecrated ground, is their interest).

[HopOne]

Loz, perhaps but now it's fenced off, not so easy. It would be much easier if the council were open about this.

Penguin68, that is very interesting but nevertheless it seems that the council felt that they needed faculty consent and the diocese responded with a list of preparatory works that they consented to:

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/evidence/4591683001

Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area. So is your contention that the council was seeking permission, that they didn't need, and are now working without that permission?

The bottom line is still trees vs grave space. This is a London wide issue - we need to preserve urban woodland for sound environmental reasons. City Hall get this. Why don't Southwark? Any councillor care to comment?

[edhistory]

> we need to preserve urban woodland

This is not "urban woodland".

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area.

That sounds like an official term - what makes you think it's a conservation area (so the answer is not "well, we think it should be conserved")

[Penguin68]

Penguin68, that is very interesting but nevertheless it seems that the council felt that they needed faculty consent and the diocese responded with a list of preparatory works that they consented to:

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area. So is your contention that the council was seeking permission, that they didn't need, and are now working without that permission?

I have been asserting all along that permission, or not, for felling of trees is not the Diocese's remit as regards consecrated land in municipal cemeteries - hence I would not expect them to offer a permission which is not their's to give - and by the way the area is not a 'conservation area' - it is a cemetery. In fact the Council itself could place preservation orders on trees in the borough, including ones in your or my property. The Church cannot.

[nxjen]

In their letter to Southwark Council of 11 January, the Diocese do a very good job of sitting on the fence regarding tree felling and scrub clearance. They list what is permissable within a secular conservation area and go on to state they don't know if the cemetery falls within a conservation area. Though categorised as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, it is not within a conservation area. There is a lot of confusion in the minds of SSW regarding these two categories which has led to a lot of misinformation.

[HopOne]

So sorry, these are conservation sites. That include woodland.

It is very interesting that the council felt the need to find out what works they could do without faculty. They seem to think they needed permission. Even if they are acting without it.

[Loz]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> So sorry, these are conservation sites. That include woodland.

What makes them 'conservation sites'?? Which government body has deemed them so?

[BrandNewGuy]

A 'conservation area' is a very different thing from a local SINC - a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation. The latter "do not have statutory protection (unless they are also SSSIs or LNRs), but local authorities are expected to take account of the need to protect them in deciding their planning and development policies". I imagine that the Council will say that their subsequent replanting etc takes that need into account.

[nxjen]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> So sorry, these are conservation sites. That

> include woodland.

>

> It is very interesting that the council felt the

> need to find out what works they could do without

> faculty. They seem to think they needed

> permission. Even if they are acting without it.

The attached link provides another link to a map of Southwark that shows conservation areas shaded in brown. If you follow the links through to the map, you will see that neither cemetery is shaded. I agree they are an SINC but as BNG says these do not have statutory protection.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/511/conservation_areas

[Penguin68]

Even where there was a conservation area (cemeteries may be included in these) it is likely that the order would be to preserve their nature as cemeteries (as conservation areas protect specific urban architectures). So the council would not decide to preserve what has been a fly-tipped waste land. Indeed parts of the cemeteries could be conserved - those areas which are War Graves and War Memorials, for instance.

However it must be remembered that, for a municipal cemetery in particular, the 'custodian' of conservation is the council, who may of course (indeed would) authorise whatever alterations they chose to make (outwith other issues such as those on consecrated ground requiring a Diocese Faculty, or other legislation surrounding re-use of private graves). This would not be true of National SSIs and Listed Buildings.

I think the ssw crowd are a little over precious when it comes to the issue of conservation areas - firstly these are not specifically about nature conservation - indeed they started initially as being about architectural and historical conservation, and secondly powers to alter them normally sit with the council itself, whose cemetery plans these are.

Once again I implore people who do care about the local environment not to tilt at windmills but to focus on ensuring that the council undertakes its plans sensitively, plants the right sorts of trees as replacements and quickly, and brings the neglected areas of the cemeteries back into use without unnecessary delay. That is the best way of ensuring that the areas are still pleasant to be in and use for those not wanting them for their primary purpose.

The originally adumbrated desire that they become picnic areas was never going to be a runner. They still have a chance to remain (in extended forms) valuable and interesting local cemeteries without no-go areas. And we are not short, locally, of real picnic areas to use and enjoy.

[Nigello]

Help! I wish I knew that man from The Guardian G2 who does digested reads: he could trawl through this saga-length thread and boil it down to one sentence.

[Jennys]

Nigello Wrote:

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

> Help! I wish I knew that man from The Guardian G2

> who does digested reads: he could trawl through

> this saga-length thread and boil it down to one

> sentence.

John Crace is your man I think.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Once again I implore people who do care about the

> local environment not to tilt at windmills but to

> focus on ensuring that the council undertakes its

> plans sensitively, plants the right sorts of trees

> as replacements and quickly, and brings the

> neglected areas of the cemeteries back into use

> without unnecessary delay. That is the best way of

> ensuring that the areas are still pleasant to be

> in and use for those not wanting them for their

> primary purpose.

>

Well said!

ETA: But I assume the SSW "benefit" gig will still go ahead on Sunday as planned so that they can pay for things like their glossy postcards which they were asking people to send off to the diocese last November objecting to the council's plans for the cemetery area adjacent to One Tree Hill.

Each postcard asked the diocese to confirm receipt of the objection - that must have delighted the poor person who had to do that. And presumably pay for stamps to do so, as the cards didn't have a space to give an email address.

One would hope that SSW would now give their supporters full and accurate information, and change their approach to that suggested by Penguin68. Why do I so cynically doubt it? It would be great to be proved wrong.

[HopOne]

Indeed he could even adumbrate it, though I think it would be a large sentence. Cool word penguin68, thanks for that. Am not aware of any picnic area plans and even if anyone has any would consider that a distraction from the main issues right now.

Agree with all the points re conservation areas. My fault for using the phrase, I just typed it quickly as it was meant literally.

Those who care, and have some understanding, about the local environment would very much like the council to act sensitively as regards to grade 1 SINC woods. The best way to do that is to preserve them! To suggest otherwise is like saying that we would best conserve rainforests by razing them and replanting with similar new trees. Nonsensical, sorry.

As far as I am concerned, the council could still retrieve some face by reusing the currently used space that they have for local burial - I appreciate that this is a sensitive issue for some people but it is what it is. Their current path is non-sustainable, bad for the environment, public health and flood protection. This is all demonstrable and has been covered at length in this thread.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Am not aware of any picnic area

> plans

Wasn't a picnic one of the first things SSW came on this forum to publicise? Or am I dreaming?

It was certainly some kind of family playday in one of the cemeteries ......

[HopOne]

Sue, you are not dreaming just obfuscating.

[dbboy]

Sue is not unclear, picnics were one of the things ssw wanted in addition to stopping all burials and allowing the cemetery to become overgrown, which would result in its ultimate closure. Total madness. If the ssw twitter feed is anything to go by their approach remains unchanged and as nutty as ever.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Sue, you are not dreaming just obfuscating.

Excuse me?

Firstly, is it really necessary to use words like obfuscating? Are you trying to show all us inferior beings how many long and rarely used words you know?

Secondly, how am I obfuscating, exactly?

ETA: Here is the thread in question - the very first post invites people to a picnic, after which the discussion includes viewpoints on the appropriateness or otherwise of using a cemetery for picnics if one is not actually visiting a grave.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1533238

ETA: Lewis Schaffer is now contacting me via Twitter via The Goose Is Out twitter account, and has included my surname in his tweet.

I think this is a bloody cheek, not to say an invasion of my privacy. Can none of you other SSW people keep him under control?

[Sue]

Lewis Schaffer has posted again on Twitter, again using my surname and again linking me with The Goose Is Out!

Can anybody tell me if there is something I can do about this?

ETA: This is harassment.

[HopOne]

Sorry I didn't realise that obfuscation was a rare word. Still, adumbrate was a new one on me. So I looked it up and learnt something. You are on the internet, no?

You are obfuscating by talking about picnic areas which no one has plans for when there are serious environmental issues which continue to be not addressed on this thread. The link you posted relates to an event organised by SSW. I am thankful to them for publicising this issue. As for Lewis, I suggest you contact them directly if you have a complaint.

Now can we get back to the root issues?

[Sue]

It was not me who introduced the subject of picnics, and as the thread I linked to shows, SSW did indeed plan a picnic in the cemetery and invited people to it.

I have asked Lewis Schaffer to stop and he has again tweeted and used my surname and used The Goose Is Out's tag. I am bloody furious. This has got nothing to do with the Goose. The man is a menace.

Some of you posting on this thread know him. Please get him to stop. This is far from a joke. The Goose twitter thread is to promote our gigs, not to publicise a total idiot.

He now says it's because I've mentioned him by name on here, but every post of his has his name on it!!

[HopOne]

Sue, this is off topic. Please start a new thread about goose related matters.

[Loz]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Lewis Schaffer has posted again on Twitter, again

> using my surname and again linking me with The

> Goose Is Out!

>

> Can anybody tell me if there is something I can do

> about this?

>

> ETA: This is harassment.

Sue,

I assume this would fall under 'release of private information' and you an report him directly to Twitter using this page: https://support.twitter.com/forms/private_information

Alternatively, you can report a single tweet for abuse with a link in the tweet itself: https://support.twitter.com/articles/20170408#