Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Otta]

Wow, 11 days after I last posted on this thread, Lewis still mentioning my username on twitter.

Lewis (I'm sure you're reading), I've never hidden, a few years ago nearly everyone on this forum knew who I was, there were photos everywhere, and people met up in "real life". Before "otta" I was knbown as "keef" (can you guess what my name might be?)

All anyone on here is doing is exposing your group's half truths and outright lies. I only joined in bcause the whole thing is so ridiculous and made me laugh.

Mate, the twitter stuff is not intimidating or scary, it's just weird, creepy, and a bit sad. Stop it.

[Otta]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Destruction of the remaining wild areas of

> Camberwell Old Cemetery could begin this week,

> without necessary permision.

Whoop whoop, does that mean you lot will finally STFU?

[Penguin68]

and the Church has final say over trees over 75mm in diameter

In its own (parish) lands - NOT in municipal cemeteries, or even just in the consecrated areas of those cemeteries. This 'fact' has been drawn from a document which refers to parish land only (and was - once - actually cited by ssw which is why I know their source for this). Either they cannot read (or don't bother to read fully) or they know that they are perpetuating an untruth. Why they think this will endear them to church authorities bewilders me. I believe this started as an honest confusion (because I like to think well of people) but it has gone far beyond that now.

[Blanche Cameron]

Southwark does indeed need permission from the Diocese of Southwark to cut down trees in consecrated areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery, a municipally-owned cemetery.

Letter from the Diocese of Southwark 16 February 2016 states

"proposals for tree felling which go beyond what has clearly been identified ... may require to be approved by faculty."

Letter is printed in full in this statement:

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/no-church-permission-for-works/4591833195

We have been told that Southwark will begin stripping the remaining wild areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery - known as J, K and L. We have little reason to doubt them after seeing what they have done on Area Z and on One Tree Hill. The trees and graves are on consecrated land and require Church permission and community consultation.

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 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.

[Penguin68]

"proposals for tree felling which go beyond what has clearly been identified ... may require to be approved by faculty."

I'm afraid that the Diocese may have been misleading you and themselves. They have no jurisdiction covering trees in municipal cemeteries (they do in their own parish cemeteries) other than, possibly in cases where removal of trees would disturb remains or grave furniture - i.e. trees growing out of graves. Technically they may have to give a facility on those occasions - but it seems most unlikely they wouldn't (such trees should never have been allowed to grow there in the first place in a properly managed facility).

I suspect that they may also have been misled, as was ssw, by Diocese rules governing Diocese rights in parish ground being extended to all cemeteries. They aren't.

[Siduhe]

If you're going to rely on quotations from the 18 February 2016 letter, I think it's important to give the whole quotation, and then also reference the later 2017 judgment from the Consistory Court, which set out a rather different picture from what has been suggested above (in my view). I'll set out the relevant bits as I see them, so that people can make up their minds:

It seems to the Chancellor that, on the face of it, proposals for tree felling which go beyond what is clearly identified by the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules as not requiring Faculty approval may require to be approved by Faculty. Further, it is evident that the works that are proposed in Camberwell Old Cemetery are controversial. In these circumstances, the Chancellor cannot helpfully give rulings or indications of his view; these matters may be the subject of argument in a future Consistory Court hearing (which at the moment seems more likely than not).

I read this as the Chancellor saying that a Faculty may be required, but he isn't giving a definitive view and is deferring to the outcome of the Consistory Court hearing.

You then get the following from the Chancellor's Feb 2017 judgment:

17. Under the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 a faculty is not required for the felling of a tree the diameter of any stem of which does not exceed 75 millimetres (measured over the bark at height of 1.5m above ground level)

18. By a letter dated 22 December 2015, Ms Towers sought my advice as to whether it would be possible to clear the scrub from Area Z without a faculty on the basis that any tree that was removed was less than 150mm in girth and 1.5m in height. I replied on 11 January 2016, referring Ms Towers to the provisions of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules. In the light of this guidance, Southwark LBC began works to clear the scrub from Area Z.

19. On 27 January 2016, Ms Cameron submitted what was, in effect, an application for an injunction, setting out her belief that Southwark LBC were illegally felling trees. However the jurisdiction of the Consistory Court in respect of a consecrated burial ground or cemetery is limited. In In re Welford Road Cemetery, the Court of Arches made it clear that there was no power to make a restoration order under section 13 (5) of the Care of Churches and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1991 in respect of a burial ground or cemetery (as distinct from a churchyard) and that we do not consider that section 13(5), which confers on the chancellor an enforcement power in relation to churches and churchyards similar to that available to local planning authorities in respect of listed buildings, is applicable to the consecrated part of a cemetery. If there is no substantive power to order the restoration of works in respect of a cemetery, it is apparent that there can be no power to issue an injunction to prevent any such works in the first place. Against this background, I declined to take any action upon Ms Cameron?s application and, in the event, the scrub was largely cleared from Area Z. I have however no reason to think that this work did require consent by faculty.

So what seems to have happened is that Southwark asked for clarification of their ability to clear trees with a greater diameter of 75mm in Area Z, the Chancellor pointed them to some part of the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules and in reliance on his guidance Southwark went ahead. And the Chancellor, in full knowledge that trees greater than 75mm were being cleared said "I have however no reason to think that this work did require consent by faculty".

I've thought long and hard about posting on here on this again, as someone's pointed out I'm one of the people that Lewis wants to identify, and I've been called a troll and a twat and worse apparently as well as someone who has "no right to anonymity" which is just plain creepy. There's a certain irony here as SSW know my username, real name and email address and what I do for a living (nothing to do with the council btw) as I did try and engage with their group a fair bit in the very early days, when I understood they were supporting a more rational burial program with more focus on green space, rather than the one Southwark were proposing. But I guess they haven't kept that info.

Anyway, I'd much rather be having a genuine debate about if and how we try and balance green space and burial options for those who it's important to. Instead I'm going to keep pointing out (what seem to me to be) half truths and incomplete info which keeps getting put out there as gospel. Like the "old hawthorn hedge" that was supposedly cut down (but never existed).

I know it's the way of things these days that it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it so long as you achieve your preferred outcome, but it still sits very badly with me.

[nxjen]

**like**

[Burbage]

**likewise**

[Sue]

And me.

[oddlycurious]

*liked*

No-one is arguing that green spaces shouldn't be looked after; had the council decided to build homes on the site we'd have been manning the barricades with you. The issue is you've floundered around accusing everyone and anyone of this, that and the other which at best makes you look like Violet Beauregarde and at worst like the boy who cried wolf. You've given no thought to who you've RT'd or got support from (You've ignored UKIP asking a question on your behalf at city hall, which is a fair indicator of shame) and - bluntly - you've let Lewis threaten and bully anyone who disagrees with him. It's not 'you're either for trees or you're for the council'. I'm for the long term management of green spaces.

[Blanche Cameron]

Cemetery Groups Unite to Demand No Further Tree Felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/stakeholders-vote-stop-felling

Yesterday, Cemetery Stakeholder Group community members voted unanimously to demand Southwark Council not carry out any further tree felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery.

The vote read:

?The Stakeholders of the Camberwell Cemeteries do not give Southwark Council permission for any further felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery. Southwark Council must apply to the Church of England for the legally required faculty permission and agree a Conservation Management Plan with Cemetery Stakeholder community groups.?

Cemetery Stakeholder Group members - including the Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries, Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others - spoke as one to deny Southwark permission to cut down any trees in the 30-acre Grade 1 SINC which includes ten acres of woodland.

Voting were Anne Stanesby, Glynis Williams, Tom Snow, Symon Knightswood, Brett Callacher, Blanche Cameron and Lewis Schaffer.

Camberwell Old Cemetery is a Grade 1 SINC on Metropolitan Open Land on the Green Chain Walk, listed on the London Parks & Gardens Trust?s register of historic parks.

The cemetery is one of Southwark?s designated woodlands and the Council must agree the Conservation Management Plan with community groups. This the Council should have done as soon as it decided to reopen the cemetery in the mid 2000s.

The fact that Cemetery Stakeholder groups have no faith in Southwark Council not to fell woods without Church legal permission, public consultation or even a Conservation Management Plan is just another reason why Southwark is unfit to run a burial service.

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.

[Blanche Cameron]

Cemetery Groups Unite to Demand No Further Tree Felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/stakeholders-vote-stop-felling

Yesterday, Cemetery Stakeholder Group community members voted unanimously to demand Southwark Council not carry out any further tree felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery.

?The Stakeholders of the Camberwell Cemeteries do not give Southwark Council permission for any further felling in Camberwell Old Cemetery. Southwark Council must apply to the Church of England for the legally required faculty permission and agree a Conservation Management Plan with Cemetery Stakeholder community groups.?

But Cemetery Stakeholder Group members including the Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries, Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others - spoke as one to deny Southwark permission to cut down any trees in the 30-acre Grade 1 SINC which includes ten acres of woodland.

Camberwell Old Cemetery is a Grade 1 SINC on Metropolitan Open Land on the Green Chain Walk, listed on the London Parks & Gardens Trust?s register of historic parks.

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 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.

[oddlycurious]

Edited again because below.

[Administrator]

I have removed a couple of posts from Blanche Cameron that are simply 'press releases'/website comments by her group. Ideally I would like to encourage two way discussion on this forum but her one way posts do not do that. Repetitively.

Also I'm also not particularly happy about other people in her group trying to get the real names of forum users, it's not particularly friendly and is somewhat intimidating. Please keep it to discussion about the issue and not about the individuals.

[Penguin68]

Thank you, Admin; that was 'sort-of' the reason I started this thread in the first place, following the effective collapse of an earlier thread into abuse and accusation. Outwith general (and lounge-able) discussions about burial mores and trends, there are some specific ED issues about our cemeteries and how they are being treated/ developed which are worth keeping live. In particular I would like to see some real detail about the proposed re-planting - species/ design etc. and what impact potential climate change is having on those decisions. And also whether keeping a (very small) plot of scrub - assuming that new burials can take place around it, to maintain diversity which its complete eradication might lose - is possible.

[Otta]

Lewis still at it yesterday. Apparently he's been called bad bad names.

[penfold]

there are many bad, bad names i would like to call him, but i really don't think he's worth it. I would be ashamed of my kids and their friends if they acted in any way like these clowns from SSW. they are in primary school.

[Blanche Cameron]

Dear Admin - I?ve been trying to avoid arguments. I?ve been posting for anyone who is interested in what?s going on in the cemeteries. The future of the cemeteries is an important issue. I think this is helping the debate. Thank you for allowing me to post on here.

[dbboy]

With regard to the previous post, I find it ironic that as many times as others and myself have asked questions of the author, the author continues to not respond to the important questions being asked and the author appears to use this as a platform to post their groups inappropriate and mis-leading propaganda.

I believe that an open debate should be had on here however if the author does not respond to the reasonable questions asked, then how do they expect to have an informed debate, particularly when they say they are seeking to avoid arguments. Arguments are part of the nature of debating.

I do not believe that the continued posting of propaganda is anyway healthy or provides the opportunity to clearly debate the issue on this forum. It is the authors only way of gaining publicity and it is post after post of continued inaccurate and mis-leading information that is posted

Clearly Admins resent actions to remove postings by the author demonstrate the biased nature of the propaganda posted by the author.

Do people know that on Friday the CWGC where working on site at Camberwell Old Cemetery. How comes no one from the authors group has reported that? Does make you wonder what the authors true motives really are??

[JoeLeg]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Dear Admin - I?ve been trying to avoid arguments.

No, you've been avoiding any discussion or debate whatsoever. You have refused to address the issues raised, instead using the EDF as your personal press release, which admin seems to have tired of.

> I?ve been posting for anyone who is interested in

> what?s going on in the cemeteries.

That's be quite a lot of us, not all of whom agree with you.

The future of

> the cemeteries is an important issue. I think this

> is helping the debate.

No, debate is a two way street. You refuse to debate, instead stating that anyone who wants to ask you questions should email directly. That's not debate.

[nxjen]

Sometimes people avoid arguments because they know they are unable to substantiate their own claims.

[oddlycurious]

I don't mind the copied and pasted press releases (not sure they each need such a lengthy signature) as long as someone from SSW or FOCC wants to talks about them. Given the level of social media engagement elsewhere, one can only assume they don't take well to query or criticism.

[JoeLeg]

oddlycurious Wrote:

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

Given the level of social media

> engagement elsewhere, one can only assume they

> don't take well to query or criticism.

Sorry, genuinely confused - have they been more active elsewhere? I haven't noticed much.

[Penguin68]

Sorry, genuinely confused - have they been more active elsewhere? I haven't noticed much.

Earlier links suggest that there has been quite a lot on Twitter - with ssw's 'onlie begetter' seeking the identities behind a number of ED posters, including me. As I don't do social networking (I'm not sure I count the EDF as such) I have been blissfully unaware of this.

[Blanche Cameron]

May be of interest to some of you:

Buzzfeed article ?London Councils Are Selling Private Burial Plots On Paupers' Graves?

https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/london-councils-are-selling-private-burial-plots-on-paupers?utm_term=.rcaeN7nBK#.cmweYxMP7

Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk