Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[panda boy]

> the discussion is/should focus about what the council are doing vs what the pressure group object to/want.

Couldn't agree more, although, and once again, this is not a binary Council vs SSW issue. I, and others also have a voice in this, and am starting to notice the points I have raised are largely left unanswered.

I'm finding this remarkably odd.

Does anyone have any opinions on;

Timescale of the project significantly changing.

Costs.

Council accountability and transparency.

Council conduct in the face of significant opposition.

Potential for increased flooding due to the plans.

[edhistory]

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?

We've been through this before on the other thread round about the time someone was claiming body liquor would be running along Forest Hill Road.

There I posted:

1. the references to the adjacent bore hole reports

2. the contour topography

3. the potential ground water contamination boundary map.

The conversion to "potential high risk" is strange.

Can you let us know:

1. Who wrote the report

2. The exact wording the promotion from "very low to low" to "high".

John K

[panda boy]

> We've been through this before on the other thread round about the time someone was claiming body liquor would be running along Forest Hill Road.

I'm not claiming anything of the sort.

I am quoting a survey commissioned by Southwark and performed in October 2015.

It can be found here - http://bit.ly/1Qu532O

This link was provided by a council representative.

Have a look and you will hopefully appreciate the sheer amount of information I am having to go through.

Just to add, a lot of this information was supposed to have been made publicly available when it was produced, or at least I was told I would be informed when new information would be available. I have had to repeatedly ask for it.

Call me cynical but it's telling I have finally received a response after the work has started.

Someone also claimed the flooding issue in COC had been solved, which is patently untrue as 2 days after the last heavy rainfall we had there were headstones in pools of water, (I have pictures as proof) and water running from the cemetery onto Forest Hill Road.

[dbboy]

Appreciate the concerns about flooding and you are very right to be concerned about such an important this issue. Southwark should have plans in place to deal with flooding. All boroughs have an Emergency Planning Officer and flooding sits within their remit. It is a common problem for cemeteries to suffer from flooding and it is not only COC where this happens. Take a look at some other cemeteries and you'll see the same problem.

Water has always run off from COC onto Forest Hill Road, however I think it has worsened over recent years, it seems like it is rain water running off onto Forest Hill Road. You would need to ask Thames water to confirm if it is only rain water.

[kiera]

panda boy Wrote:

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

> Does anyone have any opinions on;

>

> Timescale of the project significantly changing.........

Might this be the answer to your question?? The council moved forward with their plans because of protesters, who were supported by Peckham Rye ward councillors.

The council had planned to use the recreation ground, but abandoned that because of the strength of public protest. They moved on to wanting to use the meadow behind Ryedale, which they'd already prepared for burials, having raised the ground level above the public graves, as is still quite evident. Ryedale residents protested, so the council moved on to "area z".

Quote from Peckham Rye councillors' blog

? "As ward councillors we all thought it vitally important to protect Honor Oak Rec. This is a green space used by local residents and also used by local schools and football clubs.?

Whilst I think many parts of Camberwell Old are beautiful and a haven for wildlife I think that sensitive reuse of parts of the cemetery which allow us to protect Honor Oak Rec are worth pursuing. All three of us are also committed to protecting the land immediately behind Ryedale at Camberwell Old as I do think burials would have an impact on the houses that back onto it and the alternative of planting a screen would mean a loss of light for these residents.?

?? What we proposed in 2012 was that instead we brought forward plans to bring back into use 'Site Z' at Camberwell Old........"

http://peckhamryelabour.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/local-cemeteries-whats-going-on.html?m=1

[nxjen]

One of SSW stated aims is for burials in the cemeteries to be halted and for both to become nature conservation areas for recreation similar to Nunhead Cemetery. I would be interested to learn from those who share some of the aims of SSW but state they are independent of the organisation how they feel about this.

It seems that by concentrating on the issue of flooding, which everyone seems to agree needs to be addressed, and transparency of the Council or otherwise the ultimate aim is being obscured.

[taper]

That's a very useful link (to the Peckham Rye ward councillors' site). The plans I would strongly object to are mentioned towards the end of the article: the plans to re-use area "H" (or the gladed area. I assume this is the wooded area with the old graves at the north east end of the cemetery. Developing this area for re-use would be a retrograde step and severely diminish COC. It's here future protest should focus.

[nxjen]

It is a very useful link. For the sake of balance, I am reproducing what they say about the proposed work in Camberwell New Cemetery:

"On Camberwell New, it does seem that some people involved in the campaign group have reached the point of not accepting we should ever cut down any tree ever, for any reason. The main new site at Camberwell New is a concrete slab that can't currently be accessed by the public. The smaller additional site would mean the loss of a few poor quality trees on the edge of grass/lawn area on a slope that hasn't been used - 13 trees is the number given. This spot is right on the edge of the wooded boundary of the cemetery (all protected) and One Tree Hill (a stunning wooded background and all protected obviously). The feeling of the wooded edge of the cemetery will still be retained and this piece of lawn can be brought into use. Again I visited yesterday and felt no concern that the character of the cemetery or the neighbouring nature reserve would be affected"

[precious star]

Trees and nature do matter, and to destroy this land and think that replanting again will encourage all the wildlife back is wrong! Why dont we see stag beetles anymore, our own species of the ladybird, lots of butterflies that we used to see when i was a child (like the peacock butterfly,) and hedgehogs , and even sparrows. What will be left for our children? A visit to the museum to see all the beautiful creatures preserved in glass cabinets!!.. Nature plays its part in many enviromental issues like flooding which we have read a lot about in the last few years. People are doing away with their frount and back gardens for a more modern contempary plant-free gardens, which is only making these issues worse.

[Sue]

Of course trees and nature matter, but we are discussing relatively small areas of land here, originally earmarked for burials but neglected.

It is not as if huge swathes of countryside are being built on, vast quantities of chemicals are being used, or the whole area is being paved over. Those have been/still are much greater issues than this in the destruction of habitats.

And actually South London is one of the areas where stag beetles are more prevalent.

[dbboy]

Next you'll be telling us we can't cut down trees, hedges or bushes in our own gardens, really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[precious star]

Every bit helps, no matter how small the land is, every inch of green matters in london! We all have a part to play! If everyone thought that every bit of overgrown cemetary space or green space did not matter, where does this lead us. To a loss of many creatures in nature that cant be replaced.! I believe many of these cemetries have deliberately been left to become derelict land especially in areas that are up-and-coming areas. And to be fair, if you asked any school child if they have ever seen a stag beetle, i bet all of them would say "no, what is that"!...

[kiera]

Precious Star is talking about the nature on our doorstep. The gradual destruction of small pockets of wildllife friendly areas such as front gardens, leading to an irreversible loss of wildlife in the area. She is quite right that children living in East Dulwich today are unlikely to see hedgehogs or many species of butterflies in their gardens. Every front and back garden which is ripped up, or piece of waste ground which is built on, contributes to the overall loss. Neglect can be very good for wildlife. It is the neglect/minimal maintenance of this part of Camberwell Old Cemetery which has made it such a rare and special place in this urban area, which is why some local residents feel so passionately about it. Many local residents believe that these cemeteries can continue to be used as working cemeteries without destroying the nature which has become established in them. To walk along the woodland paths, seeing butterflies and listening to the birds is an entirely suitable use of this part of the cemetery for the bereaved.

[Sue]

precious star Wrote:

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

> Every bit helps, no matter how small the land is,

> every inch of green matters in london!

Yes, but other factors have to be considered as well, surely? It's a matter of balance.

>We all have a part to play! If everyone thought that every bit of overgrown cemetary space or green space did not

>matter, where does this lead us. To a loss of many creatures in nature that cant be replaced.!

Nobody is saying green space does not matter, are they?

In this particular case, they are saying that there are other considerations which need to be brought into the equation.

Given the amount of green space locally, I don't think bringing a couple of relatively small areas of cemetery back to the purpose for which they were intended is going to lead to "a loss of many creatures in nature that can't be replaced".

>I

> believe many of these cemetries have deliberately

> been left to become derelict land especially in

> areas that are up-and-coming areas.

Can you expand on this statement? I don't understand what you mean, either "deliberately been left to become derelict land" or "especially in areas that are up-and-coming areas."

>And to be fair, if you asked any school child if they have

> ever seen a stag beetle, i bet all of them would

> say "no, what is that"!...

I was brought up in South London in the fifties/sixties. I only ever saw one stag beetle in the whole of my childhood. My mother trod on it. She was probably single-handedly/footedly responsible for the decline of the stag beetle.

Many London schoolchildren have never seen cows. Or lily beetles (for example). I'm not quite sure what point you are making?

[Penguin68]

Can we get this ?flooding? into perspective please.

(1) Does water ?pool? in parts of the cemetery during heavy rain and (particularly) when the ground is already waterlogged ? yes (as it does in many areas ? including Sydenham Woods ? real woodland). It pools where there are dips in the ground, and where there are impermeable areas of grave furniture. It tends to dissipate quickly, save during periods of heavy and consistent rain. Some low lying areas have already been in-filled and raised to avoid this in the future (i.e. along Wood Vale and Langton Rise).

(2) Does (during heavy rainfall) water run-off down the hill towards Forest Hill Road over the tarmac?d areas ? yes ? as it does down Underhill Road (and many other roads running down hills). This is rain water flowing down hill over an impermeable base. Additionally a tap (used to provide water for flowers) is frequently left on, which also causes run-off down the hill.

(3) Is any of this run-off or pooling the cause of the sorts of floods which have recently hit the North East and North West etc. ? i.e. causing damage to housing, insurable loss etc? No.

(4) Is any of this surface pooled water some up-welling from graves ? presumably using a mechanism where water chooses to run uphill? No.

(5) Are ground-water levels generally rising in London? ? yes, believed to be caused by a reduction in industry (particularly brewing) drawing out water for use.

(6 ) Is water run-off increasing in London? ? again yes, related to reductions in areas where water can be absorbed ? such as paving over front gardens, decking and other non-permeable ground cover.

(5) and (6 ) are not cemetery related.

As far as the proposals made by Southwark are concerned:-

? Removal of trees ? this will exacerbate the situation temporarily until:-

? Replacement planting of trees ? which will improve the situation ? over time should be no or limited net change.

? Mounding ? by creating more land to absorb the water this will improve the situation, but the changes to the topology could create new low-lying areas.

? New Burials ? will create new areas where water absorption may be reduced (i.e. through new grave furniture)

? Re-use of existing burial sites ? may create temporary changes (i.e. option for pooling where new graves sink, as they do in the first year through re-settling) but over time should be no net change.

Clearly I would expect Southwark to be keeping a careful eye on the impact of what they are doing (including compacting land under heavy equipment) and the use of field drains would be sensible - but the concept that, in real terms, there is a flooding risk (as opposed to a risk of very localised flooding) seems unlikely.

[nxjen]

kiera Wrote:

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

> Many

> local residents believe that these cemeteries can

> continue to be used as working cemeteries without

> destroying the nature which has become established

> in them.

Perhaps this is an outcome that many who are in favour of the council plans would agree with and, as far as I can see, is included for in the council plans. However, the extreme viewpoint of SSW, who want to see the cemeteries wilded and have made a lot of self-righteous, outraged (not to forget outrageous) emotive and exaggerated noise, has put the backs up of many who would be sympathetic to your viewpoint. I think as Penguin has said in other posts, the effort should be put into ensuring the Council plans are carried out sympathetically and sensitively as the plans will go ahead.

[precious star]

Thank you keira, you understand what im trying to say saying. Only people who have a love and respect for nature can understand that we share this planet with so many creatures, that each and every creature no matter how small has a purpose. And as for the stag beetles , well their larvae depend on dead rotted wood and old trees, that is why replanting new trees and cutting down old ones is completely stupid!! This is the whole point of preserving "old" woodland areas as many creatures prefer this type of environment!

[taper]

Warwick Gardens in Peckham is an old slum/bomb damage clearance area, made into a small recreation ground in the 60s I think. Since then, because of the mature gardens on one side and the railway on the other, it has become an unlikely haven for wildlife, particularly insects (including stag beetles).

Because of the work of this woman, catalogueing the insect life of the park (here - http://insectinside.me/category/warwick-gardens-se15/page/3/), we have come to appreciate that this unlikely setting is hugely important for local wildlife. In fact one insect found here had never before been seen in the UK and the Natural History museum came down to verify the find. Locals with LB Southwark have sought to enhance the space by planting a wild hedge along the railway side and allowing the grass to grow wild on the garden side over the next few years.

I have no idea whether COC is similar in its importance to local wildlife, but my guess is it may well be. Has there been any sort of detailed assessment? I'm afraid i find the argument that "other green/wooded areas are available" to be rather shallow and shortsighted. Modern graveyards look bloody awful and COC is an old graveyard that should be in process of winding down as a working graveyard and turned into a mini Nunhead cemetery for future generations.

[nxjen]

"Modern graveyards look bloody awful"

Perhaps, but we should not overlook the fact their purpose is to enable a fundamental human rite of passage.

[HopOne]

"Replacement planting of trees ? which will improve the situation ? over time should be no or limited net change. "

This has no basis in fact. Many more trees are being removed than are being replaced. The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do).

This neatly ignores the scrub growth that some here like to talk about! This is not being replaced and has significant water retention capacity. This is true even in winter.

[dbboy]

It is overgrown, hence the term scrubland

[Penguin68]

In fact one insect found here had never before been seen in the UK and the Natural History museum came down to verify the find.

This is not, in fact, that unusual - a huge number (comparatively) of never-before-described-by-science invertebrates are discovered in urban back-gardens every year - we see them, but unless we are scientists we don't recognise their novelty. It is as likely that any of our gardens will have a new species as the cemeteries - indeed as our gardens have a far wider range of plants growing than the cemeteries possibly more likely. An area of scrub which is depending on self-seeding is most likely to offer a reduced range of host plants compared with a planted garden - although clearly native species like oak do offer a habitat for a wider range of fauna than exotic species. And the mixed habitat of the managed area (which, as I have said before, included last year a hay meadow) offers opportunities to a far wider range of fauna than an impenetrable scrub (which is what an untended wilded area would quickly become).

And as for the 'for future generations' line is concerned - having somewhere local to bury loved ones is also 'for future generations' - there are people about who still rate the needs of fellow people.

And yes, the local availability of numbers of areas of different habitat in the parks and public gardens (and nature reserves) that we have does make a pressing need for more somewhat less pressing, as far as local amenity is concerned, particularly when another set of needs (somewhere local to bury and mourn your dead) is (as far as the sws crowd is concerned) not to be met at all, if they have their way. Despite the hand-wringing about respecting the dead is concerned, it appears that only the ancient dead need to be respected, the dead of today can go hang.

[taper]

Well perhaps, but that's no excuse for modern cemeteries looking so damn ugly, particularly in a residential area. There's a risk that COC could become a blight on the area, rather than an asset. Sooner rather than later a long term burial solution will be needed in Southwark. COC isn't it. but the risk in using COC as a short term solution is that the long term utility and value of the space will undermined.

[taper]

No, the dead of today can be buried, just not (for much longer) in a Victorian cemetery coming to the end of its life as a working cemetery. Camberwell New Cemetery I don't really give a damn about, but COC needs to be wound down and new land identified where local people can be buried.

[nxjen]

"Many more trees are being removed than are being replaced. The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do)."

Saplings grow into fully mature trees. The council are planning for the future, indeed, giant oak trees from acorns grow.