Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[nxjen]

It's not full if more burial space can be created. What are your parameters for describing it as full?

[nxjen]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Have the protesters or Church taken out an

> injunction against Southwark?

> Are the Church then only interested in the matter

> of the consecrated ground?

> If that is the case, my understanding of what

> Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that

> the ground clearance does not effect the

> consecrated ground.

I don't think either have, it's something Loz picked up from their Twitter feed - see his post above. tbh, now that a certain poster has been banned, it's clearer to see that ssw are coming across as all talk and no trousers.

[dbboy]

njxen, yep agree with that.

[taper]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> It's not full if more burial space can be created.

> What are your parameters for describing it as

> full?

London is full of old graveyards, now used for other purposes. St Giles in Camberwell for instance. More burial space could be created in Nunhead Cemetery if some of the old graves were used again or mounded over. But a decision was taken at some stage presumably that the public good was better served otherwise. That is the issue with COC. It can only be used for a significant number of future burials if what is there now is very significantly altered. The question is whether this in the public interest. Southwark have concluded it is. I don't agree, on the scale currently intended.

[Sue]

taper Wrote:

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

It can only be used for a

> significant number of future burials if what is

> there now is very significantly altered. The

> question is whether this in the public interest.

> Southwark have concluded it is. I don't agree, on

> the scale currently intended.

As Renata has said above, whatever is done there will never please everybody.

There are many factors to be considered, and a compromise has to be reached.

It seems to me that the council has done their best to take issues relating to wildlife into consideration, for example, but for some people nothing short of leaving everything as it is - with all the maintenance issues that entails for the future, quite apart from the lack of burial space - will do.

There is also the issue of the contaminated ground.

[Loz]

taper Wrote:

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

> That is the issue with COC. It can only be used for a significant number of future burials if what is

> there now is very significantly altered. The question is whether this in the public interest.

> Southwark have concluded it is. I don't agree, on the scale currently intended.

Then the question would be, if not COC, then where? SSW have stated they do not want burials anywhere in Southwark.

And this is where SSW will fail to win over the Diocese. They are essentially suggesting to the local church that they should not perform any more burials. I'd be very surprised if they agree to that.

[taper]

Camberwell New Cemetery in the main I'd suggest. But the long term solution is burials outside of Southwark and inner London.

[fruityloops]

Sue Wrote:

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

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> It can only be used for a

> > significant number of future burials if what is

> > there now is very significantly altered. The

> > question is whether this in the public interest.

>

> > Southwark have concluded it is. I don't agree,

> on

> > the scale currently intended.

>

>

> As Renata has said above, whatever is done there

> will never please everybody.

>

> There are many factors to be considered, and a

> compromise has to be reached.

>

> It seems to me that the council has done their

> best to take issues relating to wildlife into

> consideration, for example, but for some people

> nothing short of leaving everything as it is -

> with all the maintenance issues that entails for

> the future, quite apart from the lack of burial

> space - will do.

>

> There is also the issue of the contaminated

> ground.

a compromise.... this is so far from a compromise it's untrue..

[Sue]

fruityloops Wrote:

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

>

> a compromise.... this is so far from a compromise

> it's untrue..

What would a compromise mean to you, fruityloops?

For example, how would you suggest the contaminated ground is dealt with?

What plans would you suggest be put in place to maintain areas of scrubland which have already been neglected for years, presumably (though I don't know) at least partly because of a lack of funds?

What compromise would SSW accept in moving away from what appears to be their present position (correct me if I'm wrong) which is leaving everything as it is for ever?

[Blanche Cameron]

Kiera, Precious Star, I haven't had much time to reply to posts on EDF recently but I have a little time this afternoon.

Thank you both for your comments about the beauty and importance of the wildlife of the cemetery woods - I keep thinking back to last summer when we carried out a tree survey on part of Area Z and in the rest of the woods at the Old Cemetery - and the buzzing insects and the haze of pollen and the shady cool refreshing air and the beauty.

Here's the short video made last summer by nature filmmaker Sarah Rees, when the Woodland Trust's Ancient Tree specialist Jill Butler came to verify the older ancient and veteran trees and Sarah came to record the woods before they went.

Many people when they say they love nature actually mean they like managed parks and green space such as the more managed parts of Camberwell Old Cemetery. These are the least abundant or biodiverse of any of COC's 30 acres. For the solitary bees, the stag beetles, bats and myriad of other species, it is the wilder places that nature loves and needs so badly. Messier places that humans haven't controlled, sterilised and subdued.

Best wishes,

Blanche

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

[Penguin68]

These are the least abundant or biodiverse of any of COC's 30 acres. For the solitary bees, the stag beetles, bats and myriad of other species, it is the wilder places that nature loves and needs so badly. Messier places that humans haven't controlled, sterilised and subdued.

1. What is your evidence for 'most' abundant and bio diverse? In general any single environment (as scrub land is) will tend to have fewer species than a varied environment - the managed areas, as I have said (tediously) before included last year a hay meadow - there are many bulbs planted, there are more flowering plants than in the scrub area. Probably the average back garden, which often has a multiplicity of micro-environments has more species variety than many larger, single type areas.

2. What makes you think that a former managed cemetery area, now fly-tipped with building waste and possibly asbestos qualifies as an area that hasn't been impacted by humans? - 'controlled, sterilised and subdued' would describe almost all areas in the UK - all farmland, most managed woodland, parks etc. Those are the places that people do want to see. True 'wilderness' areas (as the cemeteries never have been, and never would be) tend to be mono-cultural and bleak. In practical terms the area (over time) would be impenetrable until (a few) trees came to dominate the surroundings, when the remaining scrub growth would 'lose' the competition to survive and we would be left with many fewer trees and not much in between them (we are probably talking 50-70 years of time here - but woodland is about the long-game). The canopy would block out most light underneath it (that's what canopies do) leaving little undergrowth. Actually, without any tending, there probably would be a plethora of ivy (there is already) but this supports little - wasps in the autumn for the flowers, pigeons in the spring for the berries.

And, I am sorry, but I still cannot take seriously a body whose very name is founded on a marketing lie - there is not now, nor has there ever been, an entity called 'Southwark Woods'. 'Save Camberwell Cemeteries' woods' would have been both more meaningful and truthful. But then meaning and truth...

[dbboy]

Blanche - Can you explain what you mean by "and became a formal party in the Church proceedings". Are you actually saying that the protest group is working in partnership with the Diocese, because I can't see what else you are saying unless I have missed something.

Blanche - Have the protesters or Church taken out an injunction against Southwark?

Are the Church then only interested in the matter of the consecrated ground?

If that is the case, my understanding of what Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that the ground clearance does not effect the consecrated ground.

And if you have photographic evidence of memorials being damaged as was stated earlier by precious star can you post these, as any damage to memorials is wrong.

[Penguin68]

If that is the case, my understanding of what Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that the ground clearance does not effect the consecrated ground.

Actually, I intended to say that the Diocese (if it grants a Faculty) does so in regards of what is described as 'substantial alterations' - examples of which are given as moving bodies, disrupting grave furniture and building paths and roads on consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. Not all the land being worked on here is consecrated. This issue about path and road building is there because these would be (by definition) those built on consecrated land which would thus take this out of use for Christian burial. Such a use of consecrated land would need a Faculty.

I do not believe that work around removing 'wild grown' trees - or indeed any trees where such work did not cause damage to grave furniture could be treated as 'substantial alteration' - remembering that this is posited around the consecrated nature of the land. The Faculty takes account of bodies, of memorials to those bodies, and to the extent (availability) of consecrated land. It is substantial alteration to the consecrated nature of the land for which a Faculty needs to be granted. What others might see as 'substantial' (i.e. removal of large trees) is not in this context.

Decisions about e.g. trees on municipal land are made by the tree officers of the council, not the Church (and, frankly, a damn good thing too).

And as I have said (till I'm blue in the teeth) the Church has shown itself, at least until now, very sympathetic to the re-use of cemeteries to allow continued local burials. Most (inner) London parish cemeteries are already several corpses deep, which is why these have ceased to be used.

[HopOne]

penguin68,

"1. What is your evidence for 'most' abundant and bio diverse? In general any single environment (as scrub land is) will tend to have fewer species than a varied environment - the managed areas, as I have said (tediously) before included last year a hay meadow - there are many bulbs planted, there are more flowering plants than in the scrub area. Probably the average back garden, which often has a multiplicity of micro-environments has more species variety than many larger, single type areas."

As I have tried to point out many times, this is incorrect. Different habitats support differing numbers of species and the larger the habitat, the more species it will support overall. This is known as the Species-Area relationship and is important when talking about contiguous areas of habitat. The habitat type that supports the most species in the UK on land is probably natural woodland. Plenty of sources but try this one, DEFRA Biodiversity 2020 report page 26:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf

See also Woodland Trust site:

http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

Re your point 2

As also pointed out many times, it is true that practically no area in the UK is actual wilderness. If the intention was to re-wild then, in practice some management would be required so that people could enjoy it in a city context. Your other points need to refer back to my answer to point 1 above.

Re name, Oak of Honor Wood would be geographically accurate but would cause a disconnect with the good people of East Dulwich don't you think? In any case, "Save Southwark Woods" is the name of the campaign - pure and simple. It is not inaccurate unless you try and treat it as a place name. Time to build a bridge on this one!

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello Sue,

There are many reasons for fighting this campaign.

SSW is not anti-burial, as some have suggested, in fact quite the contrary. We support the right of ALL residents to a fair and equal Council burial service.

As you probably know, the Council itself thought burial outside the borough could be an option, and Cabinet in June 2012 agreed to explore it. But this was dropped in favour f felling trees and mounding over public graves.

When asked why out of borough options had not been explored, Cllr Darren Merrill claimed it was because the Council didn?t want to give money to private companies. Yet they are spending ?5M on private contractors felling trees, excavating land, building roads and on private consultants? fees?

He also said it would be unfair on local people to have to travel and that local people 'deserved' local burial as many on here have also said - even it seems if this is at the cost of digging up someone else's local grave to provide it...

For Southwark Councillors to say they want to provide local burial for local people is anyway absurd on several levels, and disingenuous in fact. Firstly, burial is - or should be - a borough wide service available to all residents equally, not just for people local to the Cemeteries.

Secondly, it should cater for residents of ALL faiths who require and seek burial not just those it suits the Council to bury.

Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of Southwark residents, but since 77% of residents choose to be cremated, Orthodox Muslims residents are over 40% of the remaining 23% who choose or require burial. They are one of Southwark Council?s largest burial groups - and are not catered for.

This heavily subsidised new burial will not change this. Few people are prepared to discuss the fact that burial does not and will not provide burial for Southwark's Orthodox Muslim residents and they will continue to be discriminated against.

We have tried to discuss this many times with Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.

To have to highlight to a Council such obvious discrimination on grounds of religion in London in 2016 is actually shameful to me.

The issue has been ignored and even actively denied both by Councillors Mills and Parks Manager Rebecca Towers. They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is required - yet they now this is not true.

They know these residents already have to travel and pay privately for burial out of borough at three times the price of other residents. When we met MP Helen Hayes to discuss this and other matters, she said she was unaware it was a problem ? despite us sending information on it all last year when she was still a Councillor.

Cllr Renata Hamvas has said she will look into it, but it will take more than that to turf out discrimination.

So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want to be buried and for those who love trees and nature and want to keep the wild places and the history and for families who want to preserve their relatives graves.

Southwark intend to write off the ?5M it is spending on contractors to destroy woods and mound over graves. ?5M would buy burial land for ALL faiths at Kemnal Park Cemetery 6 miles down the road ? 5 acres, for 4,000 burial plots, 8,000 interments, 20 years provision. And these plots will actually recoup revenue and the revenue could be ploughed back into more burial land - or put into essential Council services.

And Southwark could lay on a free twice-weekly bus service to Kemnal Park and STILL save money, removing any barrier of cost or distance.

Continuing with the current burial project will only embed racism and religious discrimination deeper in Southwark Council.

Blanche

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

>

>

> Many people when they say they love nature

> actually mean they like managed parks and green

> space such as the more managed parts of Camberwell

> Old Cemetery.

What is your evidence for making that statement, exactly?

[JoeLeg]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------.

>

> So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that

> makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want

> to be buried and for those who love trees and

> nature and want to keep the wild places and the

> history and for families who want to preserve

> their relatives graves.

>

>

> Blanche

>

> Blanche Cameron

> for Save Southwark Woods

> 07731 304 966

> [email protected]

> www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

> @southwarkwoods

> Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

I'm sure you're trying to be clear, but maybe I'm stupid. Can you clarify that it is SSW's position that the way forward is a moratorium on burials in COC, and the use of alternate sites in the future?

[dbboy]

"SSW is not anti-burial, as some have suggested, in fact quite the contrary. We support the right of ALL residents to a fair and equal Council burial service."

NO, NO, NO, not what your protest group said originally, so has your position changed???

"We have tried to discuss this many times with Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010"

What in heaven has this got to do with COC?

"So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want to be buried and for those who love trees and nature and want to keep the wild places and the history and for families who want to preserve their relatives graves.

So what is your solution?

"Kemnal Park Cemetery is 6 miles down the road" -

Down the road, really, Peckham is down the road, Kemnal Park Cemetery is more than "down the road" and a four hour round trip for residents by public transport. LBS do not have the funds to run a bus service.

How do you come up with a figure of ?5M?

"Continuing with the current burial project will only embed racism and religious discrimination deeper in Southwark Council."

Now that says it all about the protest group that you lead when you write such total garbage. Why bring racism and religious discrimination into the discussion primarily about COC? At least the protest group has nailed its colours to the mast and it don't look like a pretty sight.

How do you envisage that it will "embed racism and religious discrimination into LBS, Have you asked the Orthodox Muslims if they are happy with the current arrangements?

Can you also answer the points I made earlier that you have so far failed to respond to.

Can you explain what you mean by "and became a formal party in the Church proceedings". Are you actually saying that the protest group is working in partnership with the Diocese, because I can't see what else you are saying unless I have missed something.

Have the protesters or Church taken out an injunction against Southwark?

Are the Church then only interested in the matter of the consecrated ground?

If that is the case, my understanding of what Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that the ground clearance does not effect the consecrated ground.

And if you have photographic evidence of memorials being damaged as was stated earlier by precious star can you post these, as any damage to memorials is wrong.

[Loz]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> This heavily subsidised new burial will not change this. Few people are prepared to discuss the fact

> that burial does not and will not provide burial for Southwark's Orthodox Muslim residents and they

> will continue to be discriminated against.

Blanche,

A quick Google shows that a company called Muslim Funeral Service have a guide of cemeteries suitable Muslim burial sites in London. http://www.mfs.org.uk/default.asp?ID=62 For Southwark, it lists COC, CNC and Nunhead.

Why do you think they are not catered for?

[Penguin68]

Why do you think they are not catered for?

Because it makes a better story for those not bothered actually to do the research?

[Loz]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of Southwark residents

Also, the 2011 census reported that only 8.5% of Southwark residents were Muslim. Only a much smaller percentage of those would be Orthodox Muslim. Where did your 10% figure come from?

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello JoeLeg,

I'm sorry if I'm not being clear, hopefully respectful explanation and discussion is what this forum is for :-)

SSW isn't proposing a moratorium at COC. Some people have already either purchased plots at COC or have spaces in existing plots waiting for them when their time comes. SSW has no wish to interfere with any of that of course.

But the fact is COC is otherwise full and CNC is very nearly full. So full in fact that Southwark's own Cemetery Strategy identified there wasn't a piece of bronco to put between existing graves as every bit of space has a burial in it.

We proposed green burials, woodland burials, burials in pods that grow trees, everything to the Council. They said they took up too much space. This really reinforced to us that their actions having nothing whatever to do with biodiversity or even diversity in burial options.

So SSW proposes a transition period of two years and then make both cemeteries Nature Reserves as Nunhead Cemetery and many other inner London Cemeteries are, with burial for all faiths ad none at Kemnal Park Cemetery or similar cemetery, it doesn't have to be this one. The Diocese of Southwark erected their own Monument to the Unknown Southwark Parishioner at Kemnal Park in 2013.

Natural benefits - mental, physical, emotional, spiritual - and benefits to families with relatives already buried there and anyone interested in history will provided for the long term for all.

So far I haven't really heard a good argument to support such substantial loss for so little gain.

Best wishes,

Blanche

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

Edited to add Kemnal Park info

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Hello Sue,

>

> There are many reasons for fighting this

> campaign.

>

> SSW is not anti-burial, as some have suggested, in

> fact quite the contrary. We support the right of

> ALL residents to a fair and equal Council burial

> service.

>

> As you probably know, the Council itself thought

> burial outside the borough could be an option, and

> Cabinet in June 2012 agreed to explore it. But

> this was dropped in favour f felling trees and

> mounding over public graves.

>

> When asked why out of borough options had not been

> explored, Cllr Darren Merrill claimed it was

> because the Council didn?t want to give money to

> private companies. Yet they are spending ?5M on

> private contractors felling trees, excavating

> land, building roads and on private consultants?

> fees?

>

> He also said it would be unfair on local people to

> have to travel and that local people 'deserved'

> local burial as many on here have also said - even

> it seems if this is at the cost of digging up

> someone else's local grave to provide it...

>

> For Southwark Councillors to say they want to

> provide local burial for local people is anyway

> absurd on several levels, and disingenuous in

> fact. Firstly, burial is - or should be - a

> borough wide service available to all residents

> equally, not just for people local to the

> Cemeteries.

>

> Secondly, it should cater for residents of ALL

> faiths who require and seek burial not just those

> it suits the Council to bury.

>

> Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of

> Southwark residents, but since 77% of residents

> choose to be cremated, Orthodox Muslims residents

> are over 40% of the remaining 23% who choose or

> require burial. They are one of Southwark

> Council?s largest burial groups - and are not

> catered for.

>

> This heavily subsidised new burial will not change

> this. Few people are prepared to discuss the fact

> that burial does not and will not provide burial

> for Southwark's Orthodox Muslim residents and they

> will continue to be discriminated against.

>

> We have tried to discuss this many times with

> Councillors, as it breaks both Human Rights Law

> and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty

> under the Equality Act 2010.

>

> To have to highlight to a Council such obvious

> discrimination on grounds of religion in London in

> 2016 is actually shameful to me.

>

> The issue has been ignored and even actively

> denied both by Councillors Mills and Parks Manager

> Rebecca Towers. They claim the 6-8 Turkish Muslim

> burials a year in Nunhead Cemetery are all that is

> required - yet they now this is not true.

>

> They know these residents already have to travel

> and pay privately for burial out of borough at

> three times the price of other residents. When we

> met MP Helen Hayes to discuss this and other

> matters, she said she was unaware it was a problem

> ? despite us sending information on it all last

> year when she was still a Councillor.

>

> Cllr Renata Hamvas has said she will look into it,

> but it will take more than that to turf out

> discrimination.

>

> So, a solution, a genuine compromise exists that

> makes sense for ALL residents, for those who want

> to be buried and for those who love trees and

> nature and want to keep the wild places and the

> history and for families who want to preserve

> their relatives graves.

>

> Southwark intend to write off the ?5M it is

> spending on contractors to destroy woods and mound

> over graves. ?5M would buy burial land for ALL

> faiths at Kemnal Park Cemetery 6 miles down the

> road ? 5 acres, for 4,000 burial plots, 8,000

> interments, 20 years provision. And these plots

> will actually recoup revenue and the revenue could

> be ploughed back into more burial land - or put

> into essential Council services.

>

> And Southwark could lay on a free twice-weekly bus

> service to Kemnal Park and STILL save money,

> removing any barrier of cost or distance.

>

> Continuing with the current burial project will

> only embed racism and religious discrimination

> deeper in Southwark Council.

I am not clear why all this is being addressed to me.

Which of my posts are you responding to?

Also, where did you get your figure of 10% in your statement:

"Orthodox Muslim residents are only around 10% of Southwark residents"?

[andrewc]

Blanche

I guess you know a muslim family who has been excluded from burial at these sites?

[nxjen]

I would have thought if the Muslim community felt discriminated against regarding burial arrangements in the borough, they would already have raised the issue with the council. This would be the appropriate thing to do, not for ssw to play the discrimination card to further their own aims.