Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Penguin68]

I have refuted this multiple times as I think this is inaccurate.

No, you have disagreed with it multiple times. A refutation would require evidence. Most scrub is made up of seedlings of trees and bushes sourced from any mature trees or bushes local to the scrub - interestingly rose-bay willow herb and buddleia - which were very common on bomb site and railways - don't seem to have appeared noticeably in the cemetery scrub - presumably because it was already too overgrown for them to seed. Neither (which is a blessing) as far as I can see is Japanese Knot-weed. But ivy is ubiquitous.

So it's mainly a very few species of (granted mainly indigenous) trees and bushes. Competition will reduce the varieties to those most suited to the area, which will then dominate. Any study of untended scrub (which is what ssw wants) shows a reduction in diversity compared with managed areas. Scrub tends to be successional (one group of plants is replaced by another - eventually becoming true woodland - but again with generally limited ranges of species)

Most woodland you will see nowadays, particularly around London, is heavily managed and planted for diversity - the numbers of different species present are by no means 'natural'. Large areas of woodland which are managed for species diversity will also have intentionally varied habitats, including clearings and e.g. adjacent meadowland and hedgerow. All this takes money, skill and time - and I see no clear route for a cash-strapped borough to devote this the the cemeteries - indeed the ssw position, as I understand it, is to abandon these areas to the wild.

And this is really a side issue. The argument is really between those who see cemeteries as places to bury people to meet the emotional and psychological needs of those still living - and want this facility to continue locally for the benefit of Londoners, and those who don't care about the needs of these people, but believe that their own needs for places to entertain themselves trump these other needs, even in an area which is well provided for recreational open spaces of multiple types. If we had all been in the City of London I would have been more likely to consider that a balance for need tipped towards those wanting recreational open spaces - but this simply isn't true round here, already, as I have said, well provided for these.

The cemeteries do not provide (even locally) unique recreational space or habitat - they do provide the only place to bury people locally.

[taper]

Corking straw man argument there Penguin 68.

[nxjen]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Sue​,​ of course you are completely

> within your rights to place as much ​(or

> even more)​ ​importance​ on new

> burial for local people in Camberwell Old Cemetery

> as on preserving its beautiful natural heritage

> and families' history. ​That's the choice

> available.

>

You are calling for all future burials to take place out of borough and are seeking to take this choice away.

[Penguin68]

preserving .... and families' history

No - it is a legal obligation to preserve the history (who is buried where, when etc. as part of any re-use activity) - and for private graves the lift and deepen rule means that individuals will continue to 'rest' in the same grid reference as before. (For public graves the Church is considering whether its previous requirement to lift and re-bury shouldn't be replaced with lift and deepen as for private graves where the land remains consecrated). What is 'lost' is old memorials in situ - many of which are now badly damaged and virtually unreadable, and which will refer to the comparatively long dead most of whom (war heroes apart) have no current mourners. Family history must be preserved (in records) when re-use is contemplated.

[HopOne]

ETA: penguin68,

I have provided you with evidence before (see posts passim, e.g. Woodland Trust, Species Ares relationship), whereas you do not seem to be doing so.

It is true woodland that I am talking about and the constant references to just scrub is confusing the issue. These are not separable when you are talking about woodland, which we are. Please check the council habitat surveys should you wish to dispute that point.

I agree with your comments re woodland management and, as mentioned before, I do not think that just letting nature take its course is a likely or preferable outcome. I do not think that is the SSW position either as they would accept that *some* management is required. That, in my view, is a side issue as it is the impact of the Council plans now being enacted that is more imperative.

The reality is that there is a greater nett benefit from the contribution of local trees, and all their benefits, than in unsustainable burial practices for the minority. As the current council plans stand, they are not sustainable. After chopping down trees for burial, they will go after recreation ground too, as they have no long term plans in place. That is not a side issue, it is the nub of it.

The woodland that connects with the One Tree Hill LNR *is* a locally special habitat. I would contend that any local native woodland is worth preserving anyway.

All a question of ones priorities, but am glad we are discussing this at last.

[fruityloops]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> There is a lounged thread for having a go at SSW.

> Please can we focus on the issues here? It is not

> constructive to harangue specific SSW members for

> answers. They have been more forthcoming when

> challenged than the council in my view.

>

> Blanche, I am still recovering from pneumonia

> myself. Please take it very easy as recurrence

> can occur otherwise as I can testify. Hope you

> improve soon.

>

> I agree with taper that there is a wider issue

> with burial which we need to grasp as a society.

> Certainly in urban areas it is not sustainable, as

> currently practised, long term. Have tried to

> make this point before and it has been drowned out

> by other noise.

>

> penguin68, you continue to say this: "And a

> managed cemetery allows for many different species

> of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather

> than a scrub mono-culture." I have refuted this

> multiple times as I think this is inaccurate.

> Preservation of native woodland, which includes

> scrub, is good for biodiversity. Care to discuss

> this time?

This is the post of the thread IMO.

[Blanche Cameron]

Local burial in these cemeteries comes at a tremendous cost to people, nature and heritage.

No-one disputes what the Council is doing. They are cutting down acres of woods, mounding over thousands of graves (48,000 in Area Z alone), removing thousands of memorials, then digging up and reburying the local dead in order to bury other people.

That is a heavy price to pay in order to bury people. Many inner city cemeteries are now Memorial Park Nature Reserves. That?s what we?d like to see for the Camberwell Cemeteries.

Please see our recent video showing how Southwark Council has already destroyed woods and meadows in order to mound over a large area of poor people?s graves in the Old Cemetery.

Blanche

[EDAus]

It feels like SSW only use the EDF for propaganda purposes.

Requesting questions but only via email is an interesting way to gather personal data and keep issues hidden.

I have produced an updated summary of the questions to date, there is no need for SSW to look through the thread for buried material.

SSW could have chosen to very quickly & easily:

1) point people to their relevant FAQ or

2) get other people to do the responses for Blanche & then she could post the responses here.

One person running a campaign could be seen both as a single point of failure or more unfavourably as a dictatorship.

When I ask questions of other EDF members I normally get a response - the only questions going unanswered here are those directed to SSW.

SSW have set themselves up as an authority on this issue & have been recognised as a stakeholder by Southwark Council therefore it is key that they communicate evidence/facts in an impartial & professional manner.

The ends do not justify the means - how a campaign is run is just as important as what is trying to be achieved.

It feels like a massive failure that despite the council starting consultation in 2011-2012 'a friends of CNC or COC group' has not been set up to push the case for preservation and/or a nature reserve.

[dbboy]

Rather than the cemetery protest group (CPG) continuously reposting the same information, it would be very constructive and much more helpful if they would answer the questions asked of them and which EDAus has summarised for them to make it easier.

And please do not say that we can email you directly as their is a major issue of trust, particularly as EDF contributors do not know who in the CPG are responding and who in the CPG has access to the blanche cameron account. If this seems cynical it is because of a CPG members behaviour on here and other media sources that resulted in him being banned from EDF.

[taper]

But a lot of those questions are rhetorical and pointless to the furtherance of the debate here (do you disown Lewis Schaffer, is Blanche Cameron a ghost, how many puppies will die if COC ceases to be a cemetery). The list could do with an edit.

[edhistory]

EDAus Wrote:

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

> SSW have set themselves up as an authority on this

> issue & have been recognised as a stakeholder by

> Southwark Council therefore it is key that they

> communicate evidence/facts in an impartial &

> professional manner.

>

> [...]

>

> It feels like a massive failure that despite the

> council starting consultation in 2011-2012 'a

> friends of CNC or COC group' has not been set up

> to push the case for preservation and/or a nature

> reserve.

So, which people comprise SSW? Is it a secret?

Who holds the funds?

Was Ms Cameron in the area in 2011-2012?

John K

[nxjen]

What's happening now is just what happened on the thread that got lounged. A sensible discussion would get going then the CPG (thanks dbboy) would post their views that they've posted a zillionth time before and derail the discussion. They are using the Forum as a propaganda platform and to refuse to engage publicly with other posters on the forum by answering publicly posed questions is not in the spirit of the EDF.

[edhistory]

taper Wrote:

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

> But a lot of those questions are rhetorical and

> pointless to the furtherance of the debate here

> (do you disown Lewis Schaffer, is Blanche Cameron

> a ghost, how many puppies will die if COC ceases

> to be a cemetery). The list could do with an

> edit.

It is a little difficult to disown the owner of the SSW website. This probably explains why bad information never gets corrected.

I missed the questions about ghosts and dogs.

John K

===========================================

Domain name:

savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Registrant:

Lewis Schaffer

Registrant type:

UK Individual

Registrant's address:

The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have their

address omitted from the WHOIS service.

[Penguin68]

Can I suggest that, rather than pursuing those who do not fully engage in debate, but use this forum as a propaganda outlet (their choice) we, where we can, refute statements which are clearly wrong or tendentious, challenge those which are unsubstantiated with evidence (for the record) and carry on debating with those who wish to curtail or restrict the council's plans and offer achievable alternatives.

As I have said, above (not actually a straw man) I believe that the nub of the debate is between those who wish to see burial continue locally in Southwark (without necessarily fully endorsing all the council's long-run plans for full re-use (100%) of the cemeteries, if that really is their long-term game plan, (whilst accepting some re-use) and those who would like to see burials substantially curtailed or stopped, at least once existing first-use space is fully utilised.

As a side issue, there are those who would wish to see the cemeteries back in full management, and those who would wish an element of the non-managed areas to be left unmanaged (though I still believe that for safety reasons, with unstable and gaping graves there it would likely have to be sealed off from public access). Those waving the nature flag would however presumably be happy with that, excluding them to the benefit of wild things. (Moot point - what if Knot-weed starts growing there - can the council leave that?)

I would like to see some discussion of what those of us who support, within reason, the council's plans would expect/ hope to see as an end-game of a fully managed cemetery with their re-use vision.

[fruityloops]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>... and

> those who would wish an element of the non-managed

> areas to be left unmanaged (though I still believe

> that for safety reasons, with unstable and gaping

> graves there it would likely have to be sealed off

> from public access)....

I've walked through this cemetery, and Abney Park Cemetery, and Nunhead Cemetery, and somehow managed to come out unscathed. Am I normal? Should I be worried? Sometimes I even manage to make it across the road without being run down... Maybe I have something that others don't...

[taper]

Abney Park and Nunhead are heavily managed and the graves made safe. That's what I'd like to see in the wooded area. I'm pretty ambivalent about whether burial in Southwark is a reasonable public policy aim in the long run. My view is that if it entails large scale re-use of COC, then that is not likely to be in the public interest as the cemetery provides utility beyond its use as graveyard. As things stand, I am very unclear what Southwark plan for the area I most value, which is the wooded area roughly at the north east of the cemetery.

[Penguin68]

I've walked through this cemetery, and Abney Park Cemetery, and Nunhead Cemetery, and somehow managed to come out unscathed. Am I normal?

If you stick to the marked paths in the unmanaged area that is fine, but penetrate into the woodland scrub (as you are warned not to do) and there are many trip hazards (and chances to turn your ankle quite badly) - there would be no reason to maintain the paths if they are to lead nowhere, so I would assume that these also would become overgrown eventually. The paths themselves (because the soil is impacted) are regularly waterlogged, and may be expected to become more so if the area is to be generally abandoned - which will increase the slipping potential. The area will become increasingly unsafe for the elderly or infirm, and will not offer, e.g. wheel chair access - so, until sealed will be the cynosure of the fit, young and active. Nothing against them, but a park which might eventually only be 'enjoyed' from its borders by a substantial minority of potential users is hardly a community asset.

[fruityloops]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> I've walked through this cemetery, and Abney Park

> Cemetery, and Nunhead Cemetery, and somehow

> managed to come out unscathed. Am I normal?

>

> If you stick to the marked paths in the unmanaged

> area that is fine, but penetrate into the woodland

> scrub (as you are warned not to do) and there are

> many trip hazards (and chances to turn your ankle

> quite badly) - there would be no reason to

> maintain the paths if they are to lead nowhere, so

> I would assume that these also would become

> overgrown eventually. The paths themselves

> (because the soil is impacted) are regularly

> waterlogged, and may be expected to become more so

> if the area is to be generally abandoned - which

> will increase the slipping potential. The area

> will become increasingly unsafe for the elderly or

> infirm, and will not offer, e.g. wheel chair

> access - so, until sealed will be the cynosure of

> the fit, young and active. Nothing against them,

> but a park which might eventually only be

> 'enjoyed' from its borders by a substantial

> minority of potential users is hardly a community

> asset.

Just absolutely laughable. Lets pave Dartmoor or make them remove the pebbles from Brighton beach to make it wheelchair accessible whilst we're at it. Fit, young and active is a bit ridiculous. The minimal management required to keep paths such as in the cemeteries mentioned above, is a small price to pay for such an asset.

[Penguin68]

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-and-libraries/seafront/beach-accessibility-all

http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/visiting/accessible-dartmoor/vi-accessforall

http://www.devon.gov.uk/easily_accessible_paths_dartmoor

[fruityloops]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/leisure-a

> nd-libraries/seafront/beach-accessibility-all

>

> http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/visiting/accessible-dar

> tmoor/vi-accessforall

>

> http://www.devon.gov.uk/easily_accessible_paths_da

> rtmoor

Super - avoiding the bit that says much of Dartmoor still isn't readily wheelchair accessible - which is a good thing as to make it so would ruin it.. exactly my point.

The wheelchair option for Brighton is a fantastic idea, but is not creating a solution to accessibility by ruining the place itself by making permanent irreparable damage (again the point I was making).

Can't wait to make my visits to both of these areas, not stick to the paths, and somehow manage to not turn my ankle.

I'll report back Penguin.

[Penguin68]

Of course, the cemeteries were wheelchair accessible (before the neglect), and now increasingly won't be - if those who want burials stopped and wilding to happen get their way, whereas Dartmoor and Brighton Beach are becoming more accessible - different trajectories here...

[fruityloops]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Of course, the cemeteries were wheelchair

> accessible (before the neglect), and now

> increasingly won't be - if those who want burials

> stopped and wilding to happen get their way,

> whereas Dartmoor and Brighton Beach are becoming

> more accessible - different trajectories here...

This is getting away from the point of them being supposedly unsafe if not managed in the same manner as the sterile environment of the remainder of the cemetery. The safety issues are mitigated by not being irresponsible and jumping on a big bit of concrete to make it fall, or lying under a leaning headstone waiting for it to collapse. Or trying to rollerblade through undergrowth...

Unsafe... come off it

[Blanche Cameron]

While over two acres of woods and memorials have been already cleared in Camberwell Old Cemetery to provide new burial plots over the already dead, there is still a lot left to appreciate and to save. This weekend will be a good time to explore.

There are almost nine acres of woods in the Old Cemetery and an acre or more on One Tree Hill in the New Cemetery, which is the next area to be cut down

The Council claim they will be cutting down 26 trees on One Tree Hill - bad enough - but in fact the small print of their plans allow them to cut as many as 60. And who knows if that is really the number of trees to be felled? (See below).

And machinery will be driving a road up the side of One Tree Hill over the graves of poor people - a hillside so steep, it will need a switchback just to get up there.

Anyone who can, do come and visit the cemeteries this weekend and see for yourself what is happening before their beauty is lost

http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/visit/4589491794

Best wishes

Blanche

Sue, you asked: What is the definition of a tree?

The Court of Appeal ruled in a case in 2009 that anything which is not a seed and has the potential to become a tree - is a tree. That includes saplings and ?whips?.

Yet Southwark Council decided to claim a tree is only a tree once it has reached 150mm girth when measured at 1.5 metres above the ground. Then they ignored their own definition, left many trees (even by their own definition) off their own plans, and have now cut down many trees above 150mm in Camberwell Old Cemetery Area Z.

In fact, laws on trees that relate to Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries include the Church?s Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 which state clearly that all trees over 75mm girth measured at 1.5m above ground level require a Faculty from the Church in order to be felled by anyone, including the Council.

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-misleading-over-works/4591666904

Tree felling is part of the faculty / permission the Council has yet to receive from the Church. The Council has just gone ahead and felled hundreds of trees without it.

[edhistory]

EDAus Wrote:

>

> It seems unfair that you are not able to delegate

> this work to other individuals - with over 10,000

> supports is some else not able to help out until

> you feel better?

>

> [...]

>

> Re: emails, unfortunately due to the action of

> some of your supporters I am not comfortable

> sending correspondence to SSW via this method - I

> suspect others feel the same.

Probably a prudent decision.

The SSW internet footprint suggests this is an organisation of two people.

Could be wrong.

Perhaps Ms Cameron could explain the SSW structure.

John K

[dbboy]

Rather than the cemetery protest group (CPG) continuously reposting the same information, it would be very constructive and much more helpful if they would answer the questions asked of them and which EDAus has summarised for them to make it easier.

And please do not say that we can email you directly as their is a major issue of trust, particularly as EDF contributors do not know who in the CPG are responding and who in the CPG has access to the blanche cameron account. If this seems cynical it is because of a CPG members behaviour on here and other media sources that resulted in him being banned from EDF.