Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Blanche Cameron]

The ruling by Southwark Diocese states 48 Commonwealth War Graves on Area Z alone - these are the 48 graves of soldiers on the site who died in the First and Second World Wars, or sadly afterwards from wounds sustained.

The Chancellor's ruling is available to download here:

http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/church-supports-project/4593686592

Southwark only listed six CWGC graves on their planning application. They must have decided to inform the Diocese and the CWGC of the true figure after giving themselves planning permission. The Chancellor said he was surprised there were so many.

There may also be more soldiers from other wars buried in Area Z and now mounded over to resell graves over the top - and indeed in Area F and F1 along Woodvale in Camberwell Old Cemetery too.

In response to our 2016 families survey, most said they first heard about Southwark's plans to dig up or mound over graves from Save Southwark Woods/Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries, not from the Council.

We have offered to help Southwark reach out to families to let them know what is happening - Southwark has refused.

Attached is a photo of one of the glades in Camberwell Old Cemetery that Southwark plan to go for next.

Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[dbboy]

Are you sure relatives heard first through your group, if you look closely at the various entrances to the cemeteries there are and have been notices from the Council about affected graves and I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) asking families to contact the Council, these notices have been in place for at least twelve months.

[nxjen]

" ... the relatives have never been asked about Southwark?s plans."

As someone who has a relative buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery, the Southwark Cemeteries consultation documents were available for me and other relatives to respond to so I consider I have been asked about Southwark's Plans.

[Penguin68]

OK - I've just about had enough - the '10 acres' quoted as the file-name of the picture posted are - Area Z - 2 acres; Area D 'about 0.5 acres'. So pretty well 5 times less than the figure quoted. These from para 2 and 4 of the attached (via link) document.

25 of the 48 graves of the war dead in the area will be properly marked - the remainder would prove difficult to mark (this from para 30 of the attached findings) - those not commemorated on the existing memorial will be added.

Paragraph 45 of the document records that the War Graves Commission is happy with Southwark's proposals. (interestingly the authors wonders why these graves did not form part of the 'normal' war graves burials, unaware perhaps that the Commission was not formed until 1917).

I attach a link to the relevant document - which I got from ssw's own web site. It is fairly typical that they are prepared to mislead even when they have the facts available. It downloads as a .pdf

We really are in a post-truth world.

http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/download/i/mark_dl/u/4013025308/4631603353/Petchey%20Consistory%20Court%20Ruling%20Camberwell%20Cemeteries.pdf

[Blanche Cameron]

Here?s an aerial photograph of the 12 acres - now ten acres - of Camberwell Old Cemetery woods. The whole cemetery is a 30-acre Grade 1 SINC nature site on Metropolitan Open Land on the Green Chain.

Southwark is not consulting residents - it removed the Woodland Level TPO on Camberwell Old Cemetery without consulting residents or stakeholders and with no Woodland Conservation Management Plan. A Conservation Management Plan is required and also has to be agreed by community stakeholders such as FOCC SSW. the Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others.

Southwark has also not notified the Church of England or applied to the Diocese of Southwark for permission as legally required for its next planned felling on consecrated land which these woods are.

Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints.

Southwark awards itself planning permission based on documents it does not intend to keep to (Design & Access Statements) and in the face of over two thousand written objections from residents to applications, ignring the results of its own consultations.

We are meeting 7.30pm this Tuesday 9th at the Herne Tavern, 2 Forest Hill Road - please come, everyone is welcome.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

[Sally Eva]

If you believe that Southwark is acting not in accordance with the law, the proper procedure is to apply for judicial review. If you have two thousand supporters and this matter is important to them, then it will cost about ?5 each to pay for such a review.

The first step would be to take legal advice which is far cheaper. For such an important cause, if you are correct, you would be likely to get pro bono lawyers, that means free lawyers inspired by the public good.

[Penguin68]

Southwark has also not notified the Church of England or applied to the Diocese of Southwark for permission as legally required for its next planned felling on consecrated land which these woods are.

Once again, the C of E has no gardening rights over municipal cemeteries - their interests in tree felling refer only to Church (parish) lands - and possibly the consequential impact of tree felling where the trees are actually growing through graves and grave furniture. Some of their own advisers have been mistaken over this. [There are arguments about trees planted specifically as memorials in consecrated land, which might be argued to constitute the 'grave furniture' which the church does have an interest in - which the Church might have a say about - however such planting has not, I believe, occurred in the areas in question.]

Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints.

That's what councils can do with their land. Tough. The council is 'developing' its cemeteries so that they can bury more people in them, in a manner which has been agreed (where relevant) by the local diocese and supported by genuinely interested parties, such as the War Graves Commission. 'Consultations' are not a numbers game - particularly where those 'against' are self selecting (and massively mis-informed by propaganda). A more reasonable complaint would be where the council is developing its land for a different use than that previously agreed by councilors, such as, well, converting cemeteries to leisure palaces - oh - ...

Some councils have chosen to sell off their cemeteries to (effectively) developers for nominal amounts - I am very glad that Southwark has decided to retain theirs and make the most of them, as working cemeteries, to the benefit of all the community (and not just wannabe picnic-ers)

[dbboy]

Penguin68 - fab posting, totally sinks foccssw posting/statement.

[TJ]

Does anyone know when the gates will be installed on underhill rd?

[nxjen]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Penguin68 - fab posting, totally sinks foccssw

> posting/statement.

I see what you did there :)

[Penguin68]

Does anyone know when the gates will be installed on underhill rd?

I suspect (I don't know) that these will be the final part of completing the new road/ entrance into the cemetery there - which will be the last job done after the clearance, mounding and possibly much of the replanting. So quite a long wait, I'm guessing. They may even depend on final measurements being made, once the road is complete. Certainly the wide gap now available there will be useful for the entry/ exit of heavy machinery etc. which might otherwise have to negotiate (and probably damage) any installed gates. I too would like to see that all finished.

[Sally Eva]

"Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints.

That's what councils can do with their land."

Legal restraints still apply. I can't see why they wouldn't. The courts enforce the law and the Ombudsman rebukes councils when they ignore it. I'm not saying anything has been done wrong here. I just dislike seeing people toss accusations of illegality around. It diminishes public trust in democracy.

We really are dealing with fake news from SSW. The correct next step for SSW if they believe that the council is behaving with unrestrained illegality is to use the courts to restrain them.

[Penguin68]

"Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints.

I had assumed, in responding to this, that ssw meant the sorts of restraints placed on developers by councils (clearly there are wider laws outwith planning which would impact council's as much as any other corporate body). In practice council's can even ignore their own planning rules, if they believe by so doing they are acting in the greater good - whereas a developer cannot breach local planning rules (in theory at least - vide threads here on M&S and many other developments).

If fact, other than issues such as building regulations, health and safety legislation and so on there are actually very few restrictions on developers (in their roles as developers, not as corporate entities per se) except local planning rules.

[Blanche Cameron]

Southwark has just said it wants to start cutting down trees on consecrated ground without Church permission, Council planning permission or a Woodland Conservation Management Plan. (In Camberwell Old Ceemetery, by Ryedale & Underhill Roads). http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-tries-dodging-planning/4593805274

Contrary to what has been posted here on the forum, the Church DOES have to grant permission (faculty) to cut trees over 75mm diameter - or do any works which involve graves - on consecrated ground in municipal cemeteries.

Should we ask for injuction?

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

07731 304 966

[email protected]

[Sally Eva]

If you think you have a legal basis to ask for one, why do you ask us?

This is not the independent republic of southwark. The law of the land applies here -- that is the catch -- what counts is the law not made-up stuff.

If you have a legal basis for your application and you want one, then why not?

[JoeLeg]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Southwark has just said it wants to start cutting

> down trees on consecrated ground without Church

> permission, Council planning permission or a

> Woodland Conservation Management Plan. (In

> Camberwell Old Ceemetery, by Ryedale & Underhill

> Roads).

> http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/council-tries

> -dodging-planning/4593805274

>

> Contrary to what has been posted here on the

> forum, the Church DOES have to grant permission

> (faculty) to cut trees over 75mm diameter - or do

> any works which involve graves - on consecrated

> ground in municipal cemeteries.

>

> Should we ask for injuction?

>

> Blanche Cameron

> Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

> 07731 304 966

> [email protected]

Well, yes, of course. I'm amazed it's taken you this long to think of that!

I, and others, have asked you repeatedly if your views on the legality of Southwarks actions are based on legal advice or just your own opinion. Answer has come there none.

If you believe you can prove the council is in breach of something that they can be blocked over then absolutely go for an injunction. Otherwise Southwark can and will happily ignore you.

In other words? Put up or shut up.

[Penguin68]

Contrary to what has been posted here on the forum, the Church DOES have to grant permission (faculty) to cut trees over 75mm diameter - or do any works which involve graves - on consecrated ground in municipal cemeteries.

I am sorry, but what is your source for the tree element of this? The only source ever quoted by ssw is a set of ordinances which covers Parish Land - municipal cemeteries are NOT parish lands. I have never suggested that the diocese can not set up rules regarding lands it administers. The rules regarding consecrated ground in Municipal cemeteries cover the treatment of bodies, of grave furniture and of 'extent' - that is to say that a reduction in the extent of consecrated land for use by creation of new roads and pathways has to be agreed.

Can you show me the documents you are relying on for your assertion? I am (always) happy to stand corrected, but, as I have said, the only document so far offered by ssw is specific to parish lands.

[oddlycurious]

A Conservation Management Plan is required and also has to be agreed by community stakeholders such as FOCC SSW. the Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others

Has to be agreed or has to be viewed by? Also, given the incestuous nature of some of these groups where can we find details of their membership?

Also, have you considered t-shirts with FOCC SSW on them? I think they would be very popular.

[Penguin68]

A Conservation Management Plan is required and also has to be agreed by community stakeholders such as FOCC SSW. the Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others

Perhaps you could explain, Blanche, where this is mandated? The Council may choose to discuss things with relevant groups (and can choose whom they think are relevant) - but I suspect they are not required to. It required legislation for them to have to consult with the Diocese about the land in their cemeteries which is 'consecrated'.

Where any Council plan must be approved is in the Council Chamber, by elected councilors.

And, again, a council may chose to have a conservation management plan, and chose where this applies, but I am not sure this is mandated (it is probably, where appropriate, good practice).

What you would like, and what is actually so, are not necessarily the same thing.

[Blanche Cameron]

Trees to be felled in municipal cemeteries on consecrated land do require Faculty (permission) from the Church of England.

Here is the relevant part if the Church ruling, showing the Church has jurisdiction over trees above 75mm in consecrated areas of municipal cemeteries:

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

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2017/03/17/municipal-cemetry-development/

Also, here are the Faculty Rules 2015:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/1568/contents/made

We are meeting tonight Tuesday 7.30pm at the Herne Tavern on Forest Hill Road - everyone is welcome.

Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

Save Southwark Woods Campaign

07731 304 966 [email protected]

[JoeLeg]

Have. You. Taken. Legal. Advice?

Really simple question. Because if you have - and it concurs with you - them press on with a legal challenge.

If you haven't, then get some.

Because unless you intend to challenge Southwark Council in the courts you will achieve absolutely nothing. This is Southwark we're talking about, they're a bunch of barstewards, worse than many. Anything short of legal pressure will. be ignored.

All this is of of course assuming you're right. I'm far from convinced of that.

[Sue]

oddlycurious Wrote:

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

>

> Also, have you considered t-shirts with FOCC SSW

> on them? I think they would be very popular.

:)) :)) :))

[oddlycurious]

Having told Southwark Council, the Church of England, the Diocese of Southwark and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission repeatedly that they are in the wrong you'd have hoped they would have had legal advice.

[ruffers]

Didn't you already get knocked back by the Consistory Court?

[Penguin68]

I can see where you have been misled - but the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 quoted by you (and, wrongly, by the summary of findings) refer only to Church Land - (read them, I have) - there is no mention of consecrated land in Municipal Cemeteries there and all the pro-forma petition documents include the blank space to be filled 'Church of....'. The section A8 -page 58 which shows what trees can be felled and B6 - page 63 - are both clearly written in the context of Church's and Churchyards - not Consecrated Ground in Municipal cemeteries - they also include rubrics on what can be done with bells, clocks and central heating! [And in addition a Faculty for these lands has also to be granted for the planting of trees - why have you not been complaining that Southwark has failed to get any agreement for its re-planting programme?] Both the relevant tree sections (A8 and B6) refer out to guidance of The Church Buildings Council - wholly irrelevant as regards municipal cemeteries.

I'm afraid that the Faculty Court has been wrong in Law to pray in aid legislation (which does also refer to Faculties) but which is specific in its reference only to Church owned and administered land.

Were this to go to an actual secular court (as the Council is a secular body not governed by Church legislation) it would be laughed out of it.

You have been wrongly advised (or have chosen yourselves to steer people into wrong advice).