Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Penguin68]

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).

I did say 'over time'. The saplings will grow (and quicker, where they are not competing for light etc. with scrub growth). Other plants (i.e. grass) will also be absorbing water (though not as much as well established trees). Depending on the planting some trees (i.e. silver birch) which are shallow rooted and thirsty will be more effective than some others at taking up water. And, as I have been trying to make clear, in the grand scheme of things flooding is not an issue. If the council uses field drains to overcome issue of impacted clay etc. the surface water issues are entirely manageable.

[nxjen]

"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."

Except it's not coming to the end of its life as a working cemetery as Southwark Council's proposals will be making more burials possible.

[dbboy]

taper Wrote:

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

> 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-se

> 15/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.

You may not like the way cemeteries are now laided out, but this is how councils now structure cemeteries, if you go as an example to the far end of Hither Green Cemetery by the railway tracks, where this process was started 30+ years ago, you'll see this is how it is done. They actually look much neater and make maintenance by the cemetery staff far easier, so preventing the opportunity of scrub growth.

The recent internments along Woodvale are all still very "new", but in several years time, it will have settled down and will look much nicer. Likewise the interments in the last couple of years in CNC. You need to give it time and I hate to say, "allow nature" to take its course as the clay settles and in about 18 months after the internment is covered with top soil. Then turf is laid on the soil and it will start growing, forming a large lawned area with the memorials of each grave.

Nature will always prevail, but man is in controls of nature through maintenance in and around the cemetery.

[Sue]

precious star Wrote:

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

> 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.

I don't understand why you think anybody posting here is disagreeing with you?

> 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!

Southwark Council are apparently putting the trees which are cut down into nearby nature reserves, where they will rot and provide a habitat for creatures such as stag beetles.

Stag beetles lay their eggs in rotting wood, not living trees.

And it's hardly as if the council are planning to cut down every tree in the borough.

The people involved have to balance a range of factors when making their decisions. They have an impossible task as whatever they do will be wrong for somebody or some people. I really don't envy them.

[HopOne]

"Stag beetles lay their eggs in rotting wood, not living trees."

This is true but misleading. Dead oak wood is probably their favourite food and this is very often found on the tree itself. It is common management practice to leave dead deciduous wood for Stag Beetle larvae, as they are endangered, but this is not a direct substitute to leaving the woodland to provide a habitat instead. It is the very loss of these habitats that is why the Stag Beetle is endangered. There is woodland threatened on both sites that provide this habitat.

[Penguin68]

I am not being disingenuous here, but do we know that any mature oaks are to be removed? And if so, how many out of how many? And of those being removed (if any) how many are in good and healthy condition? It is always sad to see a mature tree removed, but on occasion this is necessary, as may be substantially reducing its crown, for safety purposes. I hate to see it done, but sometimes it has to be. Scrub/ sapling growth of oak is not a natural egg-laying habitat for stag beetles.

[Sue]

HopOne Wrote:

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

It is common

> management practice to leave dead deciduous wood

> for Stag Beetle larvae, as they are endangered,

> but this is not a direct substitute to leaving the

> woodland to provide a habitat instead.

It is a reasonable substitute when circumstances require it, is it not?

[HopOne]

Which they do not.

To penguin68, not sure how many but the habitat surveys refer to woodland rich with oaks. From a fauna diversity point of view, including the Stags, it is the gnarled old oaks that are best of all.

I would not dispute that some management is required, that is normal, but scrub will grow into mature trees and you get the best of all worlds - biodiversity, air quality and carbon storage & capture as well as flood defence.

[Blanche Cameron]

This week's update on Southwark Council's works at Camberwell Old Cemetery:

Sadly, these three pictures show hundreds of trees felled without Church permission across both the consecrated and unconsecrated areas.

Next Southwark plan to excavate 12,000 tonnes of soil and rubble, up to 50 daily truck journeys to and from the Old Cemetery over several months.

Then they intend to mound over the graves of 48,000 paupers' graves, six Commonwealth War Graves areas and more than 30 private graves, for less than four years' burial space.

The Chancellor of the Diocese of Southwark has warned the Council they are working without permission and 'at their own risk'. The Church Consistory Court hearing into their project is to be held in late spring.

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

Southwark?s work at Area Z before Church permission

Watch Southwark?s ?sustainable? felling of the first trees of Southwark Woods:

Watch the ITV New Report 13th Jan 2016 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=0eklxkk30bQ

Watch the aerial video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76wj7BO8yI

Sign the petition to save Southwark Woods https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-southwark-woods

[andrewc]

Blanche

It looks like the council are getting on with the job of turning an old cemetery into a new cemetery.

[edhistory]

Thanks for the update.

It looks like the contractors are making good progress.

John K

[Penguin68]

The contractors are certainly leaving some trees, although some large trees (in terms of trunk width, based on the stumps left) have gone - most removed are however very weedy saplings. The hillock in the cemetery area being cleared is now very visible. I am concerned that the contractor's machinery may be compressing the ground, which is unhelpful should it start raining continually again, but I suspect that pro-tem that cannot be avoided. The few dry days we have had recently have allowed most of the pooling water to dissipate (indeed one of the few really boggy areas I saw yesterday was in the area of uncleared scrub!). We are seeing this area now at its worst, before the work is complete and well before any replanting, which I guess won't take place until the works that need a Faculty can be completed. Once it is tidied and replanted - and new growth starts - it will start to look good (if different from before) again.

I do think that the council needs to consider drainage more clearly - with the work being undertaken it would be a good opportunity to put in field drains - but references to tree planting being used for 'flood defense' of course refers to uplands where water is feeding into main waterways - which led, e.g to the floods in York and Carlisle - and is not relevant to the situation here.

[HopOne]

"it will start to look good (if different from before) again. "

Not very likely to look as it did though.

"I do think that the council needs to consider drainage more clearly - with the work being undertaken it would be a good opportunity to put in field drains - but references to tree planting being used for 'flood defense' of course refers to uplands where water is feeding into main waterways - which led, e.g to the floods in York and Carlisle - and is not relevant to the situation here."

Sorry, this does not make sense. Just because flooding in other parts of the country caused by rivers breaking their banks could have been mitigated with upland trees, does not mean that flooding due to water run-off couldn't be mitigated the same way. It is very relevant - your reference to scrub retaining water actually reinforces this view.

[Penguin68]

It is very relevant - your reference to scrub retaining water actually reinforces this view.

My reference was to water pooling in the scrub, so evidently not being taken up by that. There have been NO floods associated with either cemetery - so defense against flooding (where there isn't any) isn't sensible. The run-off (during rain storms) is about water running down tarmac-ed roads down hills.

And 'flood defense' is about reducing the feed into rivers (which can/ do flood) not cemeteries on the tops of hills, which tend not to.

This whole flooding trope is a red herring - and is confusing issues of localised water pooling during periods of very wet weather (probably more linked to the underlying clay soils than anything else) with 'flooding' - which is (ask householders who have been flooded) a very different issue.

[HopOne]

penguin68, am not sure why you would make such assertions when clearly not armed with the facts. There have been flooding incidents as we can testify. Anything that retains water, even briefly in a pool, when there is a large downpour is helpful.

You are correct to mention the clay soils though. Probably not the best soil type for cemeteries on hillsides for this reason.

[Laur]

And this is the disgusting way that Southwark Council treated this grave:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6962258/Heartbroken-mum-slams-council-for-turning-her-baby-girl-grave-into-a-building-site.html

[Penguin68]

However it should be noted that as far as I can see from the picture the woman's daughter died in about 1985 (of course it will continue to upset her, but her loss dates back 30 years) and it is one of those that becomes waterlogged in very wet conditions, every winter for the last 30 years or so it will have looked like this - I would guess the large tracked vehicle just went over the edge of the road - I don't think the actual grave was damaged by this (the water logging has nothing to do with the current work) - it would always have looked bad with a muddy puddle outwith any current actions of Southwark. A lot of the damage to the sides of the road has already been addressed and repaired.

The grave has been allowed to settle too far - and should have been re filled-in some time ago, so that a dip could not then have filled with water.

The state of the cemetery (including water-logging) is a function of past neglect (and, if the cemetery was abandoned as some people want, would only get much much worse).

[Laur]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> However it should be noted that as far as I can

> see from the picture the woman's daughter died in

> about 1985 (of course it will continue to upset

> her, but her loss dates back 30 years)

It really doesn't matter when the loss dates back to - a grave should be treated with respect.

I think the council sometimes assume that they can get away with this kind of thing if there are no living relatives around.. I speak from a view point of having generations of relatives buried there.

[Penguin68]

I do think that we are talking about a carelessly driven vehicle, but one that didn't actually go over a grave, or grave furniture, though it clearly did ride over the road edge. It was too close to the grave, granted, but didn't actually impact it. The pooled water had nothing to do with the council work. I mention the date only to suggest that this problem (water logging) has been a long run one. I wonder whether it was reported and what actions (if any) were taken to remedy it?

[precious star]

I agree that the way the council are treating the cemetery is like its just a playground, they show no respect, and i have seen on many occasions how the tractors have left there tractor marks across graves and also noticed that since they have been doing works lovely old stones of angels have had heads and wings knocked off! Is this deliberate as they can then say that for saftey reasons now they will need to be destroyed! This is british history of londoners .Are we wrong to want a bit of london history. Do we want neat rows of grave stones, all gleaming white, with neatly mowed lawns. With no peaceful hidden places to sit and reflect on life and hear just the peacefulness of birds.

I love the way in times gone by how people 'wanted to go out in style', (horse and cart.) Do we lose all these old values, and traditions and with it our britishness. We dont have to be ashamed of 'old things', they are charming and add to our own charm and quanintness of london! You will all miss these things of london when they are gone. Although im young in my years , i love history and nature and feel very stongly about these things.

[edhistory]

Laur Wrote:

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

> And this is the disgusting way that Southwark

> Council treated this grave:

>

> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6962258/

> Heartbroken-mum-slams-council-for-turning-her-baby

> -girl-grave-into-a-building-site.html

Not a well cared for grave.

I wonder if the leaseholder was asked to NAMM it.

John K

[Laur]

I completely agree with you Precious star.

Penguin68 - 2 questions - Do you have any relatives that are actually buried in that cemetery and do you

work for Southwark Council?

precious star Wrote:

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

> I agree that the way the council are treating the

> cemetery is like its just a playground, they show

> no respect, and i have seen on many occasions how

> the tractors have left there tractor marks across

> graves and also noticed that since they have been

> doing works lovely old stones of angels have had

> heads and wings knocked off! Is this deliberate as

> they can then say that for saftey reasons now they

> will need to be destroyed! This is british history

> of londoners .Are we wrong to want a bit of london

> history. Do we want neat rows of grave stones, all

> gleaming white, with neatly mowed lawns. With no

> peaceful hidden places to sit and reflect on life

> and hear just the peacefulness of birds.

> I love the way in times gone by how people 'wanted

> to go out in style', (horse and cart.) Do we lose

> all these old values, and traditions and with it

> our britishness. We dont have to be ashamed of

> 'old things', they are charming and add to our own

> charm and quanintness of london! You will all miss

> these things of london when they are gone.

> Although im young in my years , i love history and

> nature and feel very stongly about these things.

[Penguin68]

Penguin68 - 2 questions - Do you have any relatives that are actually buried in that cemetery and do you

work for Southwark Council?

No, I don't have relatives buried (as far as I know) anywhere - and how interesting that the questioning of the independence of commentators not of your persuasion has surfaced again, so, as I have already said on a rightly lounged thread, I am not employed by Southwark, or indeed any council now or in the past, or, indeed, to stop further questioning of my bona fides to comment on this issue impartially , with anyone associated with this work, nor are any of my relatives by marriage or blood. I do, however, as I have done for close to 30 years, live within 2 minutes walk of the Old Cemetery, somewhere I regularly walk and which I enjoy.

Edited to remove the implication that I just use the cemetery as a cut-through, rather than as a place to enjoy (including enjoying, if that's the right word, the memorials to those buried there). My error in phrasing.

[dbboy]

precious star Wrote:

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

> I agree that the way the council are treating the

> cemetery is like its just a playground, they show

> no respect, and i have seen on many occasions how

> the tractors have left there tractor marks across

> graves and also noticed that since they have been

> doing works lovely old stones of angels have had

> heads and wings knocked off!

Do you have any pictures to substantiate this, if so perhaps you can post them??

Is this deliberate as

> they can then say that for saftey reasons now they

> will need to be destroyed! This is british history

> of londoners .

I doubt it would have been done deliberately. Are you referring to the so called, "Angle of Southwark"????

Are we wrong to want a bit of london

> history.

No, nothing wrong with history

Do we want neat rows of grave stones, all

> gleaming white, with neatly mowed lawns.

Actually yes, as that is how cemeteries are now laid out, go and have a look at the area by the railway tracks in Hither Green. 30+ years on and it looks fine IMO.

With no

> peaceful hidden places to sit and reflect on life

> and hear just the peacefulness of birds.

There are places you can sit in the cemetery.

> I love the way in times gone by how people 'wanted

> to go out in style', (horse and cart.)

And they still do.

Do we lose

> all these old values, and traditions and with it

> our britishness.

No we don't, but we do need to accept change and move with the times. ]

We dont have to be ashamed of

> 'old things', they are charming and add to our own

> charm and quanintness of london! You will all miss

> these things of london when they are gone.

> Although im young in my years , i love history and

> nature and feel very stongly about these things.

We are not ashamed and there is nothing wrong with old things but some see change as progression and a good thing, while others appear to want things to be overgrown and inaccessible.

[Sue]

Laur Wrote:

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

>

> Penguin68 - 2 questions - Do you have any

> relatives that are actually buried in that

> cemetery and do you

> work for Southwark Council?

>

Here we go again.

Didn't take long, did it?

Anybody who disagrees with this group's views must have some vested interest.

Can I make a suggestion? Maybe read the previous very long thread on this issue which is in the lounge. That may give you some useful background information, including that Penguin68 does not work for the council.

But even if he or she did, would that make their points less valid? And if so, why?