Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[edhistory]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Hello John,

>

> There's no deviation from Southwark's actual plan.

> But what you've posted there is one of Southwark's

> outline plans for Area D1 on One Tree Hill.

>

> You have to read through hundreds of pages of

> small detail, tree surveys, design and access

> statements and plans to realise Southwark Council

> state they will actually fell up to 60 trees,

> which is not what their plans show.

>

> Regarding the number of trees now felled at Area

> Z, it is easily many hundreds. At the Overview &

> Scrutiny Committee of 17th September, when asked

> why all the trees were not shown on plans, Tree

> Officer Gary Meadowcroft said because 'there were

> too many to count'.

So how many trees per square metre of Area Z is that?

How did you calculate 48,000 graves within Area Z; and how many graves per square metre is that?

I'd like to see the calculations.

How's Lewis?

And thanks for the SSW photos of the last few days showing the very good progress being made.

I am one of the people who reads the documents. Have you read them? Particularly those on drainage, geology, and groundwater contamination? Did you like the railway station plans?

John K

[dbboy]

Sill waiting for the answers, perhaps the questions expose too much eh????

Ignoring them won't make them go away, but rather demonstrate the large holes and voids in your entire argument to make the cemeteries into overgrown closed spaces because you don't want any more burials locally.

Have you asked people if they want green burials, woodland burials, burials in pods that grow trees or a traditional burial with a headstone? And the research said, I don't know and neither does your protest group?

[JoeLeg]

Edit - deleted because I'm going to say something that doesn't help the debate.

Good luck to you Blanche, but a lot of people don't trust what SSW says and now I can see why.

Panda Boy was better at this than you; he was even persuading me of some aspects.

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello JoeLeg,

I'm keen to answer all queries but I also work and have limited time I can spend on here. So I'll answer as fully as I can as I don't want to be superficial but it takes time to get round all the questions - I guess I'll never manage them all.

It is good people are so interested in the campaign, even if they don't agree, it's what a democratic society is about.

Best wishes,

Blanche

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

[Newton]

I decided to leave this alone a while ago, but I can't help pointing out the irony of people appealing to Human Rights who clearly don't care about actual humans. :)

[LauraW]

http://i.imgur.com/zr1aAjg.jpg

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello dbboy,

SSW registered our objections with the Diocese on Tuesday, to become a 'party' in Church hearing to decide whether to grant or deny Southwark permission for their plans. W'll present objections at the hearing, currently due late spring.

We haven?t applied for an injunction yet but we?re considering every option.

Penguin68 is not correct to say Southwark's works do not affect consecrated ground - Area Z is both consecrated (1913) and unconsecrated.

We asked whether they had considered green/woodland burials. But Southwark Council didn?t even want to discuss, they just said 'they take up too much space?. No compromise available.

Best wishes,

Blanche

[EDAus]

'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010.'

What about the right to a 'private life' under the Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a family member or loved one within a reasonable commuting distance of your home?

The council offer a burial service to cover all faiths, SSW openly acknowledge Nunhead Cemetery is open and suitable for people of the Muslim faith. The council is not required to support each equality strand/group from each council building, facility or resource. Splitting the burial service provision between two cemeteries would be seen as a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' i.e. providing a burial service to the all members of the public within Southwark.

What evidence does SSW have to support the statement '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.' Does SSW have evidence that Southwark Council have ignored complaints from the Muslim community? Do SSW have evidence of complaints from the local Turkish Muslim community in writing, are they formally supporting SSW claim of discrimination?

What about the behaviour of certain SSW supporters - this contravened specific provisions of the Equality Acts Harassment sections, so what do you propose to do on that front?

Like others I would ask why are only some questions being selected for a response?

SSW are proposing that Southwark Council close the cemeteries and create nature reserves but still fund their maintenance and care - where will the money come from? Council's are facing further budgets cuts between now and 2020. Funds are limited and priorities have to be determined. Are SSW proposing that older people or disabled people or children in care go without support to fund their proposal for this site? What services should the council cease providing to the wider community to fund creation of the 'Nature Reserves'?

Are SSW prepared to take over management of the 'Nature Reserves' in the future - does SSW have a sound management structure and funding stream proposed? If so, how do you propose to fund the cleaning of contamination on the site or address the issues of flooding, plus ensure disability access as per the Equality Act provisions SSW have championed?

What this campaign is lacking is well evidenced arguments and credibility.

[edhistory]

> Like others I would ask why are only some questions being selected for a response?

Those are the questions with the wrong answers.

I'll try these three simple ones:

What is the area of the revised Area Z?

Which part of Area Z was consecrated in 1913?

It there a map/plan of the 1913 consecrated area?

John K

[dbboy]

Selective answering - an interesting approach, when the arguments the protesters put forward are exposed their is little to be able to defend.

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello John K,

At ground level we stopped counting after 200 and hadn't even reached half...

48,000 is from Southwark's own documents of numbers of public burials at Area Z.

The area is 2.5 acres.

The aerial Google photo of COC - Area Z is/was one third of all the wooded area, to the left/west end. Canopy cover well over 20%, the FC definition of woodland.

Sadly this has been largely felled now, and the photo above from LauraW just starkly shows the contrast.

Blanche

[Loz]

Still wondering where your figures on Muslims come from Blanche. They - and the associated claims of discrimination - clearly seem to be flawed.

[edhistory]

2.5 acres?

That's a plot of land sharing

80 plus trees per acre

and

19,200 graves per acre.

John K

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello JohnK,

It takes time to answer everyone, but there you are.

> What is the area of the revised Area Z?

As stated above, 2.5 acres

> Which part of Area Z was consecrated in 1913?

All of it. One part was later unconsecrated (don't know at what date) to allow perhaps for other religions/unconsecrated burials to take place.

The mustard yellow outline all the way around Area Z and a bit to the east too is the consecrated area.

The oblong of blue hatching inside showing S 105 - 107 is the unconsecrated area.

> It there a map/plan of the 1913 consecrated area?

It's part of the Council's planning documents. Attached.

Blanche

[Blanche Cameron]

No problem Loz,

2011 Census gave figures for religions, 8.5% of Southwark residents were Muslim.

To May 2015 Southwark's population increased by almost 20% from 256,700 to 306,745 and a bit more since then.

20% of 8.5 is 1.7 = 10.2% hence around 10%

Nunhead Cemetery provides a tiny proportion of burial space, 6-8 a year, for Turkish Muslim residents but none for Orthodox Muslim residents, the majority of Southwark's Muslim population. Most go to the Gardens of Peace in Ilford or Kemnal Park.

The main issue is not what % of Southwark's population is Orthodox Muslim but that the Council should not pretend to provide burial for all residents when they don't and claim it is for 'local people' when it isn't - it is only for certain types of 'local people' and not others.

It's unfair. This is why Cllr Renata Hamvas said she would look into it.

Best wishes,

Blanche

Edited for typos.

[taper]

The math doesn't quite work I'm afraid.

[edhistory]

3.96 burials per square yard.

[Loz]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> 2011 Census gave figures for religions, 8.5% of Southwark residents were Muslim.

> To May 2015 Southwark's population increased by almost 20% from 256,700 to 306,745 and a bit more

> since then.

>

> 20% of 8.5 is 1.7 = 10.2% hence around 10%

Blanche,

Oh, dear. That's one hell of a serious maths fail. Just wrong - you can't apply that sort of logic to percentages/proportions like that. I thought architects were good at maths?

That, plus the fact claimed 10% Orthodox Muslims, not Muslims, means I think we can safely say that your/SSW figures for this are therefore completely incorrect. I hope you will stop using them.

And you still haven't explained why the Muslim funeral website I linked to are offering all three cemeteries. Surely Muslims would know better than you?

[Penguin68]

Penguin68 is not correct to say Southwark's works do not affect consecrated ground - Area Z is both consecrated (1913) and unconsecrated.

What I actually said was:- 'Not all the land being worked on here is consecrated'. You can check. But by all means assert that I am wrong, if that makes you feel better.

As to Islamic burial - devout Muslims require that a burial be speedy, that the grave be orientated so that it points to Mecca and that the (ritually washed) body be buried in a simple shroud, without autopsy or embalming. (There are also requirements about the way the corpse is laid out and supported in the grave). If there have been issues about any Southwark cemetery I suspect it may most likely have related to burial speed - if it was not possible to bury quickly in e.g. COC or CNC (for any reason) then an alternative site may have been chosen. Once more orderly ranging of burial sites is implemented (in the re-use phase) it will be necessary to allow for graves to have the Mecca orientation required, rather than the Christian burial on an East:West axis if these cemeteries are to (continue to) be used for Islamic burials.

Since the ssw group (or many of them) want to stop Christian, Islamic, Jewish indeed all burials (they are at least equal opportunity non-burial mavens) I wonder why they are so keen to pray in aid such concepts as Human Rights when a right to the body disposal method of your religious, cultural or personal choice is one they do not think should be offered in Southwark.

[nxjen]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> It is good people are so interested in the

> campaign, even if they don't agree, it's what a

> democratic society is about.

Condescending? This is an issue which initially I was undecided about, I contributed to the discussion as the misinformation, faulty logic, ludicrous arguments and sometimes simple ignorance needed to be challenged. But I have become so shocked at the callousness shown towards those, and the families of those who wish to be buried locally when their time comes that I have become a firm supporter of the Council?s plans. So well done. There are plenty of local habitats that are beneficial to stag beetles etc. Apart from the Camberwell cemeteries, there are no other places locally for human burial. Kemnal Park ? really?

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

>

> [Regarding Muslim burials] It's unfair. This is why Cllr Renata Hamvas said

> she would look into it.

>

You have made a serious accusation that Southwark Council are guilty of religious discrimination, of course she has to investigate it otherwise she would be failing in her duty. It is a long stretch of the imagination to say that she agrees with you and that your accusations will be upheld.

[HopOne]

"Selective answering" - that is a bit rich, please can we call time on this. I find myself constantly answering the same questions yet never seem to get a response, just the same questions again. I think that a forum thread is probably not ideal for dealing with a complex issue such as this, especially when I suspect that no one person has all the answers. That is why it is important to keep replies on topic and constructive. It is good to see that some are doing this.

[Azira]

EDAus Wrote:

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

> 'as it breaks both Human Rights Law and

> Southwark's own Local Authority Equality Duty

> under the Equality Act 2010.'

>

> What about the right to a 'private life' under the

> Human Rights Act e.g. mourning the loss of a

> family member or loved one within a reasonable

> commuting distance of your home?

>

Could you point me to the authorities that show Art. 8 covers this? Not a stir - I'm genuinely curious.

[Penguin68]

Without commentary - the following legal discussions may be of interest

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/01/11/reuse-of-graves-in-london-statutory-provisions/#more-24356

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/01/18/re-use-of-graves-in-england-the-faculty-jurisdiction/#more-24496

This, from the second document, may be of particular interest

More recently, the Chancellor of the Southwark Diocese has issued Guidance: on Churchyards and Memorials: Reuse of Graves which, echoes Re Blagdon Cemetery, and states:

?Save where burial rights are granted subject to a particular period of years, there should be an expectation that grave spaces will in due course be reused, and this is necessary to economise on land-use at a time when grave space is a diminishing resource. This is an increasingly urgent problem which all those responsible for churchyards have to face. Sensitive solutions have to be devised and implemented.

Reuse of graves within a period of less than 75 years is likely to cause distress and offence to the living, as well as appearing disrespectful to the dead. But incumbents should promote and publicise policies for the reuse of graves as soon as 75 years have elapsed after the most recent burial therein, not least so that those presently arranging a burial are informed of what is likely to happen in the future.

Rather than planning for re-use on a grave-by-grave basis, there is merit in seeking to bring larger areas into re-use as part of a coherent plan.

Removal of existing memorials (including laying them flat) requires a faculty from the Chancellor, and consultation with any surviving relatives who can be traced will always be appropriate. Memorials remain the private property of those who initially paid for their erection, and therefore any faculty granted will contain provision for safeguarding (by some form of relocation) of the memorials. Where authorisation is sought to reuse part of a churchyard, the removal of a number of memorials can properly form the subject of a single petition for faculty.?

Whilst it should be noted that this refers to churchyards (Church land) and not metropolitan cemeteries (council land) it may be expected that a similar policy would also apply to consecrated areas where the Diocese has the obligation to grant Faculties for re-use (or not).

[HopOne]

This does assume that the 2007 act applies. Which in the case of Nunhead and Camberwell cemeteries it does not. Southwark Council have recognised this and say they plan to fix this. Will presumably require time from the Lords - until they get that how does this affect their plans?

See Box 3.2, page 12, here gives a good summary (Technical Guidance on the Re-Use and Reclamation of Graves in London Local Authority Cemeteries):

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiU0ezz9abLAhUGVRQKHWxtAl4QFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&sig2=D6Ck0BiNBFq7X5QxkH0zyg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.ZWU

*If I am reading this right* then the council cannot proceed in area Z without Faculty permission, and then only in a consecrated area and using available soil above existing graves. The public graves in this space in unconsecrated land cannot be reused.

See appendix 3.2, section 9 (11)c for Camberwell cemeteries exclusion.

[Sue]

> Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> >

> > Regarding the number of trees now felled at

> Area

> > Z, it is easily many hundreds.

I asked before and got no answer, so I'll try again.

Please can you tell me how you are defining a tree in this context.

Thanks.