Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[nxjen]

In response to the claims, Councillor Ian Wingfield, Southwark's cabinet member for environment and public realm, said: ?The council is trying to create new burial space in the borough so that people can rest in peace close to their home and loved ones.

"Without this work we would have run out of space by the end of the year and our plans are largely supported by local people. There is however a small group who are against new burials on this site and will stop at nothing to try and hinder the process.

"Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us.

?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy.

"The council has worked closely with the diocese, wildlife experts and historical and war grave experts in order to preserve and protect areas of the cemetery and we have been sensitive and respectful of those buried here.

?To suggest that our council is riding roughshod over the memories of people buried here, whoever they are, is offensive. Our sole aim is to create the additional burial space local people want and need the best way we can and any suggestions otherwise are simply wrong.?

[Penguin68]

Burial on top of burial is absolutely common in cities in the UK (other countries operate different norms, for instance disinterment and relocation into ossuraries after a limited time (as little as 25 years) happens in some countries). In some inner London parish graveyards there are bodies 6 deep. Nowadays there are no 'paupers' graves' - so we are talking about re-use, as for 'private' graves, after a minimum of 75 years (in terms of these graves very much longer).

Graveyards are an asset and all charge for burial - parish and municipal. This release by ssw is non-news, but yet another attempt to whip up a frenzy. I might be more prepared to be angry about private graves being re-sold (to no benefit of the original purchaser), but I'm not, because I recognise efficient use of graveyard space (and revenue streams to support their upkeep) is a good use of resources. I want burial sites locally for those who value such things (I don't, but I won't stand in the way of those who do) - it is a valuable amenity for many who (as recent mourners) will be at their lowest ebb. I rarely have much time for councillors, but good-oh to Councillor Wingfield for his succinct response.

[JoeLeg]

Blanche - is SSW the group the Ian Wingfield is referring to, when he says

"Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us.

?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy."

I usually assume I know when a local councillor is lying, because their lips are moving, but his description is pretty close to my experience of SSW. Care to comment?

[Steviedulwich]

Well said Penguin68 ! I totally support Southwark in enabling more burial spaces. I want to be buried locally as do a lot of other people. The Whole SSW thing is nonsense anyway. There never was or have been anything called 'Southwark woods.' We of course need to preserve and relish our green spaces, but not at the expense of much needed community facilities, In any case we are awash with green space around here, and are blessed with lots of parks, commons etc.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Burial on top of burial is absolutely common in

> cities in the UK (other countries operate

> different norms, for instance disinterment and

> relocation into ossuraries after a limited time

> (as little as 25 years) happens in some

> countries). In some inner London parish graveyards

> there are bodies 6 deep. Nowadays there are no

> 'paupers' graves' - so we are talking about

> re-use, as for 'private' graves, after a minimum

> of 75 years (in terms of these graves very much

> longer).

>

> Graveyards are an asset and all charge for burial

> - parish and municipal. This release by ssw is

> non-news, but yet another attempt to whip up a

> frenzy. I might be more prepared to be angry about

> private graves being re-sold (to no benefit of the

> original purchaser), but I'm not, because I

> recognise efficient use of graveyard space (and

> revenue streams to support their upkeep) is a good

> use of resources. I want burial sites locally for

> those who value such things (I don't, but I won't

> stand in the way of those who do) - it is a

> valuable amenity for many who (as recent mourners)

> will be at their lowest ebb. I rarely have much

> time for councillors, but good-oh to Councillor

> Wingfield for his succinct response.

[Blanche Cameron]

Cllr Wingfield said (if he was accurately quoted): ?Our sole aim is to create the additional burial space local people want??

Yes, all Southwark wants to do is create burial space, regardless of the families who are having their loved ones dug up or mounded over, or the local people who love the woods or all the local people who can?t be buried in the new plots. And the local people who don?t want these historic cemeteries irreparably damaged.

Here is a photo taken Friday in Camberwell Old Cemetery - another area of the woods scheduled for felling for more new plots over thousands of graves.

Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[andrewc]

Blanche, burying people in a cemetery in not a big deal.

[Blanche Cameron]

Andrew, redeveloping these cemeteries for new burial plots means destroying family memorials, mounding over graves and digging up the dead and destroying a lovely natural spot.

It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the dead and the woods rest in peace.

Attached is photo in Camberwell Old Cemetery of headstones earmarked for removal and the graves dug up for new burial.

Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[dbboy]

Well that's a first, an actual response, now maybe you'll start to engage in debate.

And why the need to use such emotive language?

Destroying family memorials, how will this happen, be done?

What will happen to the memorials you say will be destroyed?

Digging up the dead, so what are the council doing to any remains they find after 75 years?

Are these graves maintained by anyone?

As has been explained umpteen times there are no woods in the cemetery, what does exist is over grown scrubland which the council Neglected and so graves subsequently became overgrown. This work is identifying those graves which I would hope are being recorded and cross checked with the cemetery records.

It is not a natural place, it is an overgrown wilderness that the council are now putting right due to their lack of any maintenance, surely that is a good thing.

The cemetery is not full, would you rather this work proceeded or Honor Oak Rec was used sooner than the council anticipate its use, (and btw Honor Oak rec was purchased always for the purpose of burials).

It gets better, really it does!!!!!!!

FOCC are now calling for an inquiry into, and get this, racial discrimination in Southwark's burial service

and they go on to file a complaint because they were accused of lying by a Councillor.

Oh the irony of all of this, you really couldn't make it up, even if you wanted too.

[andrewc]

Blanche,I think that quite a lot of local people want to use the cemetery to bury people.

[Iloveeastdulwich]

I wonder how many people on this thread actually have family graves in that area? I do, 2 generations, and would certainly like my relatives to have the dignitary of being able to rest in peace.

Does anyone know how can I make sure that my family graves will 'not' be demolished?

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Andrew, redeveloping these cemeteries for new

> burial plots means destroying family memorials,

> mounding over graves and digging up the dead and

> destroying a lovely natural spot.

>

> It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic

> one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the

> dead and the woods rest in peace.

>

> Attached is photo in Camberwell Old Cemetery of

> headstones earmarked for removal and the graves

> dug up for new burial.

>

> Blanche Cameron

> 07731 304 966

> www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

Does anyone know how can I make sure that my family graves will 'not' be demolished?

The 'rules' which I believe Southwark is following are that no grave where there has been a burial in the last 75 years will be disturbed. For private graves (where there has been no burial in the last 75 years) then the normal policy is to 'lift and deepen' so that bodies will be disinterred (for a short space of time) and then re-buried in the same spot but deeper, allowing a new burial over it. Other graveyards 'turn' the monument so that the inscription of the original burial is now on the back of the tomb-stone - but I have no idea of Southwark's policy here. Most named graves are 'private' - public burials (once called 'paupers graves') do not carry grave markings.

I think there is an option to argue about whether a grave spot can be re-used (if the final burial there is more than 75 years old) - the authority must advertise any such intentions (again, I think). For most London graveyards - where there is often quite a high population turn-over - continuing family connections in the area after 75 years have lapsed is relatively unusual (save of course for infant deaths).

If your family graves have seen an interment after 1942 they should not be touched (this year at least!) I would anticipate that it will be some time, actually, when final burials as late as 1942 will be called on for re-use. At the moment they are mainly working in much 'older' areas. Some sites in the cemeteries, such as those officially 'Commonwealth War Graves' are even less likely ever to be interfered with.

[edhistory]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic

> one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the

> dead and the woods rest in peace.

300,000?

Here's a certificate from 1952.

[Otta]

I'm sure they'd rest a lot more peacefully if people would stop walking all over them whilst enjoying the woodland.

[Penguin68]

Here's a certificate from 1952.

Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears to support ssw I believe that the grave number (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked public (paupers) graves held a substantial number additionally, by all account. Additionally private graves will include family mausoleums - which again may contain a number of burials. Looking at the gravestones on my walks I would think that private graves may hold on average two burials - so that would make about 60k in private graves in 1952, based on that grave number. However, and in fact, the number of those buried is hardly material. And on the basis that there are still parts of the cemeteries where no interments have taken place, even with 300k burials it is not full (and indeed the plans for re-use will allow many more).

[edhistory]

I'd like to see the 300k calculation.

Attached is a three year internment return.

Last time the number of bodies was discussed here I checked the survival of internment records with the Local Studies Library.

I was told they have a complete set. If anyone fancies a wet day in the library.

[Penguin68]

Southwark's own records say this:-

In the 1850s, The Camberwell Burial Board was established to solve the problem of Camberwell's burial shortage in its churchyards. In 1855 the board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell.

The cemetery has fine examples of gothic revival architecture. The lodge and chapels were designed by George Gilbert Scott's architecture firm who also designed St Pancras station and the Albert Memorial.

By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space. The majority of burials now take place in this cemetery. http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/185/cemeteries/2

ssw is not unreasonable therefore in quoting this number. But as I have said, with their re-use plans how many were buried (since 1855) is really not that relevant. The more the merrier, I say.

[edhistory]

> Southwark's own records say this:-

Not evidence backed by data, but probably where Save Southwark Woods sourced the 300k.

[edhistory]

I can't remember this picture being included in the large number of documents published by Southwark Council.

But with the limitations of using engravings as historical evidence it does illustrate the extent of ancient woodland.

[nxjen]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

> Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears

> to support ssw I believe that the grave number

> (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked

> public (paupers) graves held a substantial number

> additionally, by all account.

Indeed, common / public graves were used for multiple burials. Many of these were paid for by the poor who were unable to afford private graves and some were paid for by the parish and would be classed as pauper's burials. So ssw emotive complaint that new burials will be taking place over already interred remains is established practice and can account for the figure of 300,000. I came across an interesting discussion on the types of graves http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/forum/common-graves-t5325.html See in particular the third post down.

[edhistory]

For the three financial years I gave data the average reuse of common graves was 128 (excluding stillborns).

[nxjen]

I don't understand how you arrive at that figure, the numbers given for burials in common graves are much higher in both consecrated and unconsecrated land. There are numbers given under the heading of 'Re-openings' which are much lower and I would suggest these are the numbers of burials within private graves of additional family members.

ETA. Those buried within a single common grave were buried within the course of a few days of each other, there would be no need for these graves to be 're-opened'.

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello Iloveeastdulwich

We?re organising a families and friends meeting on Sunday 25th June 2pm at Brenchley Gardens Camberwell New Cemetery for people with relatives and loved ones in the cemeteries. Please come if you can, the relatives have never been asked about Southwark?s plans.

The Council have said they want to excavate the private graves, dig up the remains, digging deeper, putting the remains back then burying other people in the graves, called it ?lift and deepen?.

Tens of thousands of public graves are already being mounded over, including 48 Commonwealth War Graves in one area of Camberwell Old Cemetery.

The Council has said they would store the headstones for a while and offer them to new families to use. If no-one wants them they might get rid of them - I am so sorry, I know this may be hard to hear. But this is why we are fighting.

Some people obviously feel the cemeteries should continue to have new burials. But this treatment of the graves of people who were promised to rest in peace and not even asking their relatives and the cutting down of acres of woods - the cost is too great.

My email is below for any questions at all.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

07731 304 966

[email protected]

[Abe_froeman]

Hi Blanche how do you know relatives have not been asked?

[oddlycurious]

Hi Blanche, you've obviously spoken to all the relatives - have you shared the contact details with the council? Some of these graves are fairly old so that's some top notch detective work on the part of SSW/FOCC.

[Penguin68]

Tens of thousands of public graves are already being mounded over, including 48 Commonwealth War Graves in one area of Camberwell Old Cemetery.

I do not believe that any Commonwealth War Graves are being mounded over - this term has a very specific meaning. There may be 48 interments of the military who died of their wounds in the UK before 1917 - in marked or unmarked graves - and there will certainly be (probably quite large) numbers of those who served in both World Wars who later died - not as an effect of war - and are now buried in the cemeteries, but the War Graves Commission has been clear that there are no plans for the Commonwealth War Graves in COC. They are entirely happy with Southwark's proposals.

And the graves being mounded are in the main currently invisible (there are no markers) - so their 'loss' is practically only theoretical.

The Council has said they would store the headstones for a while and offer them to new families to use. If no-one wants them they might get rid of them - I am so sorry, I know this may be hard to hear. But this is why we are fighting.

This is standard practice (which I have already referred to). The records of where burials have taken place are still retained. Many of the older headstones are now sadly unreadable. Their preservation would be for (rather pointless) sentiment only. Anything recordable off them will also be retained. For most the deceased will be remembered by no one living - even as family history - so probably not that hard to bear. And no - your are not fighting for this, but for the closure of the cemeteries as working cemeteries, and their conversion to recreation centres.