Jump to content

Recommended Posts

precious star Wrote:

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

> Support from many of us from the green party and

> ordinary people who care about our green spaces

> and wild life . Blanche has done a good job of

> making more people on this forum aware of these

> issues.


Well, the Green Party can't really disagree with SSW on this, though it's a shame because it means they align themselves with a pressure group that is happy to accept support from racists.


Many ordinary people care about local spaces and wildlife, but they have different ideas about how to manage it. You seem to agree with Blanche that none of those ideas are worth anything, and that we should all shut up.


I would say those that support Blanche and Lewis are unable to think for themselves.


Still waiting for those photos from you by the way...

The Greens should be quite conflicted because burial is eco-friendly (compoting people really) and the alternative, cremation or burning them at very high temperatures, is very destructive.


Of course burial becomes more eco-friendly the more bodies are buried -- so as close as possible together, piled on top of one another.


I get the impression that burying bodies on top of one another is the root of SSW objections to the council's plans and yet it is historically normal in the UK. Look at the first scene of Hamlet with the gravedigger to see the historic attitude to dead bodies. "The dust of Caesar now stopping a bung hole"

Sally Eva Wrote:

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

Look at the first scene of Hamlet with

> the gravedigger to see the historic attitude to

> dead bodies. "The dust of Caesar now stopping a

> bung hole"


Alexander! (Though Caesar is mentioned later) ;-)

I get the impression that burying bodies on top of one another is the root of SSW objections to the council's plans


No. I'm afraid its simply yet another dog whistle in their root objection which is the continuance of any burials at all in these cemeteries, or indeed any in Southwark, and the conversion of all Southwark cemeteries, but particularly these ones, into parks and recreation areas so that they can picnic. Family plots, for instance, have always had burials close to/ on top of each other. They also wish no tree clearance, for any reasons, so also the wilding of these areas such that (look at the bits in Camberwell Old Cemetery) they become impenetrable (and hence no good for recreation) - but don't expect consistency or logic in all this. This started as an objection to proposed tree cutting and clearance in bits of the cemeteries (very small areas, proportionally) which had been woefully neglected - but spun very quickly out of control.

I don't think it's helpful to criticise individuals and their erratic behaviour on here. EDF have a reporting mechanism, and if anyone is bullying or telling lies, they get banned. We're all still here so make of that what you will.


SSW/FOCC are a bit like Corbyn led Labour; no-one is really against the general principles - it's how they've been managed and promoted that's the issue.

UNAPPROVED TREE CUTTING IN NEW AREA


The Council has told us it is to start felling remaining woods in Camberwell Old Cemetery, acting without permission.


Today we warned the Church of England that Southwark Council intends to cut down hundreds more trees in Areas J, K and L of Camberwell Old Cemetery without needed permission. See photo.


FOCC has also written to remind Southwark Council that tree felling on consecrated ground requires Church of England permission.


Southwark says this is ?to progress projects? ? ?new? burial plots over thousands of people?s graves. The Council is calling the tree felling ?woodland management? as if this exempts the Council from applying for Church permission.


These woods are on consecrated ground. Southwark must apply for Church permission to cut down any tree over 3 inches or 75mm diameter. There are hundreds of these trees ?in the way? on the ten acres.


Full Statement http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/focc-warns-church-tree-felling/4593805274


MEETING


FOCC/SSW will be having a planning meeting at The Herne Tavern, tonight at 7:30PM. All are welcome.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

We are for preserving the cemeteries as Memorial Park Nature Reserves, like Nunhead or Highgate Cemeteries.

"Campaigners clash with council over soldiers' graves"


Friday, 14th April 2017 in the South London Press. Councillor Wingfield is quoted as saying that "We will not bury on top of war graves". The Council had neglected to include in their planning application for Area Z, Camberwell Old Cemetery, the graves of 42 soldiers. Many of their graves would have been buried over (and still may be buried over).


We are currently investigating whether any CGWC soldiers are buried in the Area F Woodvale development area of Camberwell Old Cemetery and if any have since been buried over.


Disrespect for the nation's soldiers, and all of the buried, is just one reason why Southwark Council is unfit to run a burial programme.


MEETING TONIGHT


FOCC/SSW will be having a planning meeting at The Herne Tavern, tonight at 7:30PM. All are welcome.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

We are for preserving the cemeteries as Memorial Park Nature Reserves, like Nunhead or Highgate Cemeteries.

So Blanche, once again CWGC says you're talking rubbish.

And that's according to the article you linked to.


Have you actually read your own words? These are graves that cannot be indentified. You have no way of knowing who they were or what they did in the war. And they are not buried in Commonwealth Grave sites so stop trying to conflate it with that argument; that really does dishonour the memory of soldiers who died on the battlefield.

It is not woods nor has it ever been officially recognised as being woods.


What ssw/focc purport to being woods are in fact land neglected by Southwark Council within the cemeteries that became overgrown scrub and that the cemeteries now want to reclaim so the land can be used for its intended purpose, burials.


Simple really unless of course you are ssw/focc, but then I doubt they can see the woods from the trees.


On past history its already clear ssw/focc talk garbage, CWGC just confirm that.

Today we warned the Church of England that Southwark Council intends to cut down hundreds more trees in Areas J, K and L of Camberwell Old Cemetery without needed permission.


Sorry if I go back over (very) old ground.


(1) The C of E has an interest only in the consecrated areas of municipal cemeteries. I do not believe there are consecrated parts in J K and L - even if there are, only parts of those areas will be consecrated (as only parts were in Areas Z and D where a faculty has been granted).


(2) That interest is restricted to the the disturbance of burials (bodies), disturbances to grave furniture (monuments) and the creation of any paths or roadways in the consecrated area (as that would restrict the land that can be used for burials).


(3) Whilst the Diocese has an interest in trees within parish church (i.e. their own) lands and must give permission for trees above certain dimensions to be cut on this land, this interest does not extend to consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. ssw has in the past made this confusion and has (wrongly) cited the document relating to parish land as if it referred to municipal cemetery lands.


Southwark Borough Council is the authority to give permission to gardening and arboriculture plans within its own municipal parks and cemeteries. Not the Diocese of Southwark.


If ssw really has been warning the Diocese about matters outwith its (the Diocese) remit or scope - more fool them.

dbboy Wrote:

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

> It is not woods nor has it ever been officially recognised as being woods.


Incorrect

Southwark council's Tree Management Strategy makes it quite clear that it is officially designated as woodland:-


Page 7 footnote

> "(2) Southwark has 74 hectares of designated woodland including Dulwich Upper Wood, Sydenham Hill Woods, Russia Dock Woodland, One Tree Hill and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery.".

The Tree Management Strategy (2013) does not designate either Camberwell Old Cemetery or Camberwell New Cemetery as "woodland".


The writer of the footnote(2) to paragraph 3.1, C.Cook, seems to be confused.


There may be another document that designates either or both of the cemeteries as "woodlsnd".

and parts of Peckham Rye, Nunhead Cemetery and Camberwell Cemetery - This is an odd note - there is no 'Camberwell Cemetery' - you would refer either to the Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries (or specifically to just one of them) - or possibly just to 'the Camberwell Cemeteries'. Was Camberwell actually meant? I think that Nunhead may not be the only closed cemetery in Southwark. If there is another one it may have been that which was meant.

Destruction of the remaining wild areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery could begin this week, without necessary permision.


Here is the link to the letters we have written the Church of England and Southwark Council regarding tree felling in the Lanes of Camberwell Old Cemetery. These areas were consecrated in 1862 and 1913 and the Church has final say over trees over 75mm in diameter. Southwark has said they will start doing "woodland management" in Areas J, K, and L in the Lanes.


http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-tries-dodging-planning/4593805274


For aerial view of Old Cemetery



Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries / Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk]

Twitter: @southwarkwoods Facebook: Save Southwark Woods


Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries was founded as Save Southwark Woods in January 2015 to stop the destruction of the woods and graves of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

We are for maintaining recreational activities already taking place on cemetery grounds, such as the Recreation Ground and the Allotments.

We are for preserving the cemeteries as Memorial Park Nature Reserves, like Nunhead or Highgate Cemeteries.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
    • Aria is my go to plumber. Fixed a toilet leak for me at short notice. Reasonably priced and very professional. 
    • Anyone has a storage or a display rack for Albums LPs drop me a message thanks
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...