Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[HopOne]

"How would you respond to Penguin68's point regarding how these areas would be maintained safely in the future should they be left as they are?"

The areas that are wooded do not need much maintenance in my view. The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. That these may be better left to nature, I would not dispute, but I agree that in order to do so then there would need to be a management plan for this if only to safeguard against development. Separate issue really - the first priority is to get the council to do some proper due diligence.

"Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things. Though even this would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than mature ones."

100 trees today, another 100 tomorrow. Where does one stop? It is the unsustainable nature of this that I find maddening.

[Penguin68]

Can I point out (again) that the 'wooded' areas being addressed by Southwark Council at the moment account for 6% of the cemeteries' area. The vast majority of the area is already managed graveyard - including, as I have said, hay meadow in the summer - which is a varied and interesting habitat already. HopOne has said The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. - this is not the position of the ssw pressure group - which wants the whole area of both cemeteries wilded. I think such a minimalist approach would have got far more traction. There are issues of tumbling monuments and gaping graves which need addressing in this area (otherwise it will be even more unsafe than it is) and the land contamination, but a better and more supportable case could have been made if the demands had been as modest as this.

[BrandNewGuy]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Climate change? Although 'every little helps', I

> doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in

> the grand scheme of things. Though even this

> would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is

> promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than

> mature ones.

The offsetting issue is actually the key point. Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in the grand scheme of things" have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways. Small changes in each of our lives can mean big changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill.

[Loz]

BrandNewGuy Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > Climate change? Although 'every little helps',

> > I doubt 100 or so trees will make a difference in

> > the grand scheme of things. Though even this

> > would be offset anyway if more were planted (as is

> > promised), as growing trees take up more CO2 than

> > mature ones.

>

> The offsetting issue is actually the key point.

> Attitudes such as "I doubt 100 or so trees will

> make a difference in the grand scheme of things"

> have allowed for piecemeal deterioration of our

> urban and rural environment in all sorts of ways.

> Small changes in each of our lives can mean big

> changes for everyone's lives ? for good or ill.

But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost?

[BrandNewGuy]

Agreed. I was just pointing out that everyone's 100 or so trees in the end do matter.

[panda boy]

Hi Loz,

> But, as I said, surely the planting of new tree will offset (perhaps more than offset) the ones lost?

Southwark are proposing to plant less tress than they are removing.

Removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees.

I'm struggling to understand how this can in any way 'perhaps more than offset' the removal of mature established trees.

This will result in a net loss, and a reduction in the benefits they provide, whichever way you look at it.

I am still looking into the costs eventually provided to me (which on first analysis are not complete, why am I not surprised) but I still question the sanity and expense of replacing existing trees.

Also, I'm still studying the documentation, but it appears to me that some of the trees marked for removal are not dangerous or diseased. They are just in the way of their efforts to squeeze as many graves into the area as possible. This is just one of the details that makes me against these plans.

[Blanche Cameron]

Dear all,

I'm grateful to the administrator of the east Dulwich Forum for registering me on here. I am part of the Save Southwark Woods campaign team that has been working to protect and preserve the woods and graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries for the future.

I would like support Penguin68, HopOne and Panda Boy's proposals that this thread keep to the topic. I hope we can have a respectful and productive discussion and look forward to sharing information as it occurs, and in relation to this topic.

Last Thursday 18th February, the Diocese of Southwark wrote to Southwark Council's Parks Officer Rebecca Towers (cc me) to remind her that the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery.

In the letter, the Diocesan Registrar Paul Morris reminded Ms Towers that a hearing by the Diocesan Consistory Court will be held to decide whether to give Southwark Council permission or not for works [which are already underway].

Until the hearing Southwark Council has no permission from the Church and works must be at 'their own risk'.

The letter from the Paul Morris, Diocese of Southwark, to Rebecca Towers, Southwark Council, is here:

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/no-church-permission-for-works

If anyone would like any information at all about the Save Southwark Woods campaign, please do email me, I'm always happy to discuss it. [email protected] or call me 07731 304 966

We also hold meetings every Tuesday 7.30pm at the Herne Tavern - all welcome.

Blanche Cameron

For Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods

Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Penguin68]

the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery.

That would be permission required as a Faculty from the Diocese for 'substantial alterations' - which would include disturbance or removal of remains or grave furniture, creation of new paths or roadways - all referring to work on consecrated land in a municipal cemetery (NB these are NOT church lands in any way). Types of work not counted as 'substantial alterations' as described do not require such a Faculty.

As I understand it the work now underway is not considered by the council to fall under the description of 'substantial alterations' which would require a Faculty from the Diocese, and I would assume, unless clear evidence can be provided, that they would not undertake work which would require such a Faculty without gaining one.

Can I also point out that the Diocese (as is the Church of England) looks and is likely to continue to look kindly at proposals to re-use cemeteries for Christian burial (other faith burials or no faith burials are not their remit) - which they consider an appropriate use of land set-aside for that use, on the assurance that work is carried out sensitively and under appropriate Faculties.

[edhistory]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Dear all,

> I'm grateful to the administrator of the east

> Dulwich Forum for registering me on here. I am

> part of the Save Southwark Woods campaign team

> that has been working to protect and preserve the

> woods and graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries for

> the future.

Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false statements?

John K

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello John, good to meet you on here.

What false statements have been made?

Southwark is currently clearing 2.5 acres of land in Camberwell Old Cemetery including cutting down dozens of trees as part of its strategy to cut down 12 acres of woods, mound over the public graves of tens of thousands of Londoners and then excavate all private graves over 75 years old.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3046/cemetery_strategies

Here is a video showing the most recent works by Southwark Council

If you find anything that says the Council aren't going ahead with this project, please let us know. That would be great news.

Sincerely,

Blanche

Blanche Cameron

For Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods

Facebook: Save Southwark Woods

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[edhistory]

Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false statements?

John K

[dbboy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> The story so far:

>

> Southwark Council, who manages these two municipal

> cemeteries, created in the latter half of the 19th

> century from pastoral (meadow) lands bought from

> farmers, plans to extend their use for burials by

> starting to bury in areas not previously used and

> (eventually) re-using grave space, as allowed by

> law. Their proposals cover only those areas which

> form designated parts of the two cemeteries,

> although bits of these have not been used

> previously for burial.

>

> Their initial focus is on areas which have been

> allowed to run wild (following a period when the

> council abrogated its responsibilities to look

> after the cemeteries properly) or which have been

> taken out of use (concreting). This work initially

> involves clearing scrub growth (and some older,

> intentionally planted trees) and areas of

> contamination following fly-tipping. Some of this

> work takes place over 19th century graves, both

> private and ?public? (formally known as paupers

> graves).

>

> For private graves (the majority of recent

> burials) the law requires that no grave be

> disturbed (other than for new family burials) for

> re-use in less than 75 years after the last

> burial. Where private graves are re-used the

> normal rules are for ?lift and deepen? where the

> original occupants are buried lower down (but in

> the same spot), with new occupants buried above.

> In other London cemeteries it is common to ?turn?

> the grave marker so that the original inscriptions

> now are on the back of the gravestone.

>

> Some of the land is ?consecrated? (particularly

> public grave areas) ? the Diocese of Southwark

> must give a ?Faculty? for consecrated areas to

> allow what is described as ?substantial

> alterations? ? which includes the removal of any

> remains for re-interment in consecrated ground

> (which is their current policy regarding public

> graves), the disturbance of grave furniture and

> the creation of new paths or roadways. Some

> actions (in practical terms ?gardening? and tree

> management) do not require such a Faculty, nor

> would clearance of contamination and fly-tipping

> residue where this did not disturb graves or grave

> markers.

>

> The council?s plans include plans for replanting

> trees (though these will tend to be saplings

> rather than mature trees). Over time they suggest

> any net tree loss will be minimal, though this

> probably ignores removal of current spindly

> sapling growth. It is inevitable that some wild

> habitats will be removed or substantially altered,

> although it should be noted that different

> habitats will consequently arrive. Last year, for

> instance, in the existing managed areas of

> Camberwell Old Cemetery a substantial portion was

> allowed to grow into mature hay meadow during the

> summer. The existing areas which have been let run

> wild in the cemeteries are limited (i.e. most of

> the cemeteries are already fully managed).

>

> Camberwell Old Cemetery is 11.62 hectares,

> Camberwell New, 12.2 or 58.86 acres together. The

> council?s current plans for removal of trees and

> scrub growth etc. cover 3.12 acres in the Old

> Cemetery (not all of which is tree covered) and

> 0.54 acres in the New Cemetery. Combined that is

> 6% of the total area of both cemeteries.

>

> There will, of course, over time, be substantial

> re-use of burial space within the existing

> properly managed cemetery areas, this being

> achieved by a combination of re-interment for

> public burials and what is called ?mounding?

> (raising the soil levels to allow new burial) as

> well as lift and deepen for private graves. This

> work (in existing managed areas) will not, over

> time, have significant effect on changing

> habitat.

>

> A pressure group (calling itself ?Save Southwark

> Woods? ? although there has never been an entity

> or area actually called ?Southwark Woods?) is

> committed to attempt (a) to stop council works in

> reclaiming areas of the cemetery not properly

> maintained (b) to stop all future burials in

> Southwark and © to allow the whole cemetery

> areas (Old and New Cemetery) to become wilded and

> overgrown. They claim this will create a ?nature

> reserve? ? although who will run it and how it

> would be funded has never been made clear. There

> is already a Nature Reserve in part of One Tree

> Hill (which is adjacent to the New Cemetery);

> Nunhead cemetery, now ?closed? for burials, is

> treated as a Nature Reserve ? so we already have

> two of these locally; and there are many other

> local areas of woodland and park. Both Old and New

> cemeteries are already classified (in their

> entirety, being mainly managed areas) by the

> Council as Sites of Importance for Nature

> Conservation (SINCs). The Council claims (and it

> is in their gift) that SINC status would be

> maintained following the proposed developments.

>

> Arguments the protesters have used (over and above

> the ?loss of habitat? ? which is accurate but

> perhaps has been disproportionate ? as only 6% of

> the land is involved with that) include biological

> contamination from burials and flooding ? as well

> as ?disrespect? towards the existing dead. Their

> main belief appears to be that if their views

> prevail the areas will become new parkland for

> them to enjoy (although the area is already well

> provided for green spaces of different types). How

> this parkland would be managed, by whom and at

> whose cost has not been discussed by them, nor are

> any proposals made for this.

>

> The Council?s responses to the protest so far can

> be seen here:-

> http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_fun

> erals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks

> _cemeteries/6

>

> The 2013 Guidance on reuse of cemeteries in London

> (a .pdf) can be downloaded from here:-

> https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&

> source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiLltON5fnKAhWLWhQKHYAdB

> MUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2

> Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report

> &usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&bvm=bv.114

> 195076,d.d24&cad=rja

>

> (NB ? Summary written by someone who, living very

> close to one of the cemeteries, broadly supports

> the Council?s policy, on the assumption that it is

> carried through as promised and sensitively).

[panda boy]

John K

> Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his false

> statements?

>

> John K

Considering this thread was started to focus on the cemetery issues and move away from the previous one that somewhat degenerated away from the point and was subsequently moved to the lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's repetition adds to the debate?

Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.

[edhistory]

How are you getting on with your FOI documents?

Ready to share?

John K

[Sue]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> John K

>

> > Do you disown "Lewis Schaffer" and all his

> false

> > statements?

> >

> > John K

>

> Considering this thread was started to focus on

> the cemetery issues and move away from the

> previous one that somewhat degenerated away from

> the point and was subsequently moved to the

> lounge, how do you think your comment, and it's

> repetition adds to the debate?

>

> Welcome to the forum Blanche, and good luck.

Surely it is a fair question since he is a prominent figure in the same organisation and until recently was posting on here on behalf of that organisation?

And was the cause of the other thread's derailment from what should have been its focus of discussion?

[panda boy]

Fair enough Sue, I would hate for this thread to degenerate in the same way as the previous one.

[Penguin68]

Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions. The latter are well consigned to the lounged thread - the former are relevant to this discussion, as they help form a 'bedrock' of what I might see as arguments in fact built on sand. The initiating discussion (a long time back, now) talked about the wooded areas being 'ancient woodland' for instance, which they aren't and never could have been.

In COC all the areas now being worked on were once part of a managed graveyard, and most of the growth being removed is no more than 20-30 years old (much is less than that). There are some older trees (part of the original graveyard planting) which are also, I believe, being removed - there may well be good arboricultural reasons for this.

It would be good to know if my original summary - that the pressure group wants to stop all future burials in the two cemeteries and to let the current managed areas 'go wild' is still their position.

[panda boy]

> Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact

Indeed, can we also broaden the horizons of the debate and include Southwark councils conduct, as this is the core of my argument and objection.

Timescale - Plans for COC have been moved forward by 6 years with no explanation why.

Costs - Still based on 2012 estimates. Council response - "please raise an FOI with the information Governance Team". I find this to be less than satisfactory and far from transparent. This is public money, shouldn't they account for it publicly without the need for an FOI request?

Projected costs of the grave plots upon completion - their response was still vague about this but "for example a plot for 50 years will cost somewhere between ?1,000 -?1,500" still making them among the most expensive in London.

Reaction to public opinion against these plans - Council response "A widely publicised consultation took place in 2011 to consider future plans for burial provision." A survey which identified there was no majority appetite for burials within the borough, and was a broad consultation without any detail of these plans.

"Also in 2015, the local community was given the opportunity to review the plans for the cemeteries and contribute any feedback." This period was when the council revealed their plans and was when public opinion started to grow against them. They have so far been unable to accurately address the fact they have and are ignoring what I believe to be significant public opinion form this point.

Potential for flooding - I have now been provided with comprehensive surveys which appear to address this. Although I am not a surveyor of any kind so reading and understanding these documents is proving time consuming. However one particular phrase has stood out:

5.1 Conclusions

5.1.1 The Stage 1 and 2 Risk Assessment undertaken of the proposed development in accordance

with the EA guidance, Pollution Potential of Cemeteries, R&D technical Report P223?, has

identified the site as having a groundwater vulnerability rating of ?very low to low?. However, as

the predicted total number of annual burials is above 100, the site falls into a ?proposal with

high risk?

As I say I am still trying to digest and understand these documents, but this phrase "proposal with high risk" is initially concerning.

I still question the sanity and cost effectiveness of removing mature trees and replacing them with fewer less mature trees, and the subsequent loss of benefits they provide.

In reference to the Councils statement that their plans "have actually been designed in conjunction with the London Wildlife Trust" I am still waiting for more detail on this, and what London Wildlife Trusts involvement has been. I know the LWT has performed a variety of habitat and wildlife studies, but I don't believe this qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with".

[panda boy]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> How are you getting on with your FOI documents?

>

> Ready to share?

>

> John K

I have received some documents from a previous FOI request. They do not detail some of the figures I would like to see, and think I am entitled to see.

So I will have to raise a new FOI request.

I assume this will take time.

Some patience may be called for.

Do you not think it odd though that the council have stated their 2012 estimates are still current working costings, yet I am invited to raise an FOI request to access more details about costs? If there are more details about the costs, why cant they share them?

Why are they hiding behind an FOI request?

Personally I find this a delaying tactic.

[dbboy]

If you look at the protesters pressure group website under plans/faculty applications, you'll find some useful info

[HopOne]

"Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions."

New Cemetery (68 acres) + Old Cemetery (30 acres) + One Tree Hill LNR (7 hectares = c.17.5 acres) = 115.5. You then need to take out a number of acres for the Rec. So yes, you can challenge but the total area SSW propose as a wild space would be approximately 100 acres.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camberwell_Cemeteries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Tree_Hill,_Honor_Oak

[Penguin68]

The figures I have used are based on the hectares declared by Southwark as the sizes of the two cemeteries (referenced to the SINC status). wikipedia is not an authoritative source.

Edited to add - Figures are on pages 23 and 24 of the linked .pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiHoLyr4IvLAhXJhpAKHXK8AIwQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F10241%2Fcdi17_southwark_biodiversity_action_plan_2012_%25E2%2580%2593_2018&usg=AFQjCNE9jys4UkeUsOaV_2NBDkumrY3EaA&sig2=-GmK55NnACBDVafbGiacAQ&bvm=bv.114733917,d.d2s&cad=rja

[dbboy]

Does the combined size of the two cemeteries really matter, the discussion is/should focus about what the council are doing vs what the pressure group object to/want.

[Loz]

According to HoC documents, only 33 of the 68 acres are actually what we would call CNC so you are down to 80 acres, tops. Even then you'd have to question how much of that would be allowed to 'go wild', as any current burial areas would be out.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200001/cmselect/cmenvtra/91/91m82.htm

[robbin]

Sorry all, please bear with me while I poke my own eyes out...

...ahh, there, that's better.

Please carry on.