Jump to content

Our wood is being destroyed


edborders

Recommended Posts

I wasn't in the area when the wilderness of Nunhead Cemetery was saved. But that was worthy. Nunhead Cemetery is now known as a true treasure.


Today the Southwark Council is conducting a death of a thousand little cuts on the two other equally beautiful woods - Camberwell Old and Camberwell New Cemetery Woods. And just like Nunhead Cemetery, these places worth saving.


[Look at the photos attached to be reminded at how beautiful and wild these places are.]


I wrote about this two years ago. http://www.lewisschaffer.co.uk/2012/07/14/save-our-woods/


Environmentalist Blanche Cameron wrote "These cemeteries are havens for wildlife with ancient woodland which it is against Southwark's own policy to destroy. Woodland is not a number of trees, it is an ecosystem, an intricate web of a diverse range of species and habitats that, as a whole ecosystem, make up this specially balanced natural environment. These are exceptionally beautiful woods, with a diversity of species and habitats that support Southwark's Biodiversity Action Plan."


Anne Stanesby is leading the campaign. Perhaps contact her - [email protected] ? Or contact me at [email protected]



Lewis Schaffer

Local Resident

Nunhead American Radio

Resonance 104.4FM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for highlighting this Lewis.


Concerning the wooded area in Camberwell Old Cemetery, the council performed a variety of surveys on the area. Soil, tree, topographical among them. Despite promising to release the results of these surveys, instead they have moved the plans from the 'proposal' stage to the 'planning' stage, despite being aware of the opposition to them.


A promised public consultation turned into 3 public 'exhibitions' that were open for 2 hours each time. People who were informed were given less than a weeks notice to attend.


The Council have now agreed to hold a public meeting at the end of January, but this was only after people started voicing their opposition to the plans and the cynical methods the Council are employing in getting them implemented.


It appears the council are determined to force these plans through regardless of any opposition to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Environmentalist Blanche Cameron wrote "These cemeteries are havens for wildlife with ancient woodland


Actually, they're not. Ancient Woodland is (legally) woodland which is known to have existed continuously since pre 1600, and therefore may be assumed to have been 'natural'. The woods (delightful as they are and a haven to wildlife as they are) have all grown up through existing graves within a planned cemetery - in the case of Camberwell Old Cemetery purchasd in 1855 and originally meadowland (not woodland). It would anyway have been cleared so that the graveyard could be instituted.


Although I am wholly in favour of working to preserve the benefits of having a woodland which has (probably) grown up over the last 60-80 years (I am not sure what date the most recent burial is in the now wild part) it would be wrong to attribute to it the status of 'ancient woodland' which has a clear legal definition, and for which councils have clear legal obligations.


It would also be unfortunate if arguments in favour of keeping it were lost on a technicality - which is that this isn't, in any way, ancient woodland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Penguin68, although helping to determine the facts about this particular site would be helped by having surveys carried out.


Funnily enough these surveys have been carried out, but to date, despite being told the contrary, the results have not been released.

I am all in favour for finding out more detail, i'm slightly less impressed that the detail now exists, but not obtainable.


Be it 'ancient woodland' or not, it is still a positive and unique feature of the area and it's definition should not affect the current plans to effectively destroy it in the interests of creating burial spaces.


What would be lost will be far greater than what would be gained, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in on the campaign to save Camberwell Old and New Cemetery woods.


I think we need to demonstrate that:

A. Sprinkling ashes at meaningful places is wonderful way of remembering a relative, rather than destroying a vibrant, living wood in order to plonk dead bodies in the ground.

B. The eco-system is highly important to the survival of nature in London. We are at the point of the fastest rate of species extinction in 60 million years. Also those trees are needed to keep the planet cool.

C. The woodland would benefit the public more than a graveyard

D. When that wooded area of the grave yard was last in use there were more areas for wildlife than today, and now it is one of only very few islands where wildlife can survive.

E. This is off the top of my head - probably a lot more.


I propose:

1. Public protest at the site if the council decides to go ahead with any action. I will happily be bike locked to a tree if someone can bring me tea and biscuits. We can call in the media too.

2. Live demonstrations outside the council offices.

3. Finding out councillors responsible for these decisions and hounding them with information and letters of complaint/

4. Getting other organisations involved.

5. Flyers for members of the local community

6. National online petition to send to friends, family and through social media

7. Getting the community more involved with the space, and educating people about the importance of wildlife habitats. Invite the council to these events.


Do we have a clear idea of when these plans to cut down the woodland will go ahead? How much time do we have? What are the decision makers names? Which council department would this be?


In solidarity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update:

The council are planning to have a public meeting on the 11th February concerning the proposed Camberwell Old and Camberwell New Cemeteries.


They have also announced they will be sending letter to 1400 local residents on the 9th January.


They have also, (finally) released the results of a variety of surveys performed on the areas between 2012 and 2014.

I would suggest that anyone interested in these developments have a look at these surveys and the council information.


A group of us who are concerned about the councils plans will be meeting up before February 11th.


Please feel free to PM me or post on here if you'd like to get involved.


> Do we have a clear idea of when these plans to cut

> down the woodland will go ahead?

Hopefully never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In addition to the official meeting that henryb posted about above, there will also be an informal meeting on Wednesday 21st January at the Rose pub 108 Forest HIll Road from 7.30 .


This has been organised by and for concerned local residents who would like to meet before the formal meeting organised by the Council.


Anyone who would like to join is welcome but please could you email Anne Stanesby at [email protected] to let her know you are coming. This is to help the pub so they know how many people to expect.

( The pub is just down the road from and on the same side as the main cemetery gates and there is a 63 bus stop opposite it on the other side of the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, there is a national shortage of burial space, and it is particularly acute in London. Far from being ancient woodland, the aerial photos appear to show that the present wooded areas have grown significantly in the last 30 years, and tbh "exceptionally beautiful woods' is, on any view, a huge exaggeration. Is anybody going to come up with a measured response to the proposals, or are we all content with nimby outrage and pretend enviro-science?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveR, thanks for commenting.

I agree this should not be a "nimby outrage and pretend enviro-science" reaction, and I don't believe this is such a thing. There are areas of genuine concern in these councils plans.


"Is anybody going to come up with a measured response to the proposals,", yes, and we are.


Did you read the surveys? They contain some interesting facts about the site, about it's history and it's current state. I know there are a few to get through, but it is worth it in order to gain a more thorough understanding of this particular site that will be affected.

There are several details that do not tally with the councils plans, I am interested in knowing why.


There may well be a burial shortage in the UK, particularly so in London. My personal belief is the area would lose more than it would gain if the current council plans are allowed to go ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've had a pretty good look at what appear to be the most important ones. Are these the same surveys that it was suggested were being kept secret?


What is clear is (i) a lot of time, effort and careful consideration has been put into these proposals and (ii) what they represent is a suggested return of the cemetery space to a more managed landscape, allowing for a reinstatement of the intended use. There is clearly room for disagreement but the hysterical title and tone of much of this thread is way over the top. London's Victorian cemeteries have significant architectural and historical merit and it is arguable that there are a lot of interesting features in the Old Cemetery currently buried under unremarkable and random growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DaveR Wrote:

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

> I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've

> had a pretty good look at what appear to be the

> most important ones. Are these the same surveys

> that it was suggested were being kept secret?

>

> What is clear is (i) a lot of time, effort and

> careful consideration has been put into these

> proposals and (ii) what they represent is a

> suggested return of the cemetery space to a more

> managed landscape, allowing for a reinstatement of

> the intended use. There is clearly room for

> disagreement but the hysterical title and tone of

> much of this thread is way over the top. London's

> Victorian cemeteries have significant

> architectural and historical merit and it is

> arguable that there are a lot of interesting

> features in the Old Cemetery currently buried

> under unremarkable and random growth.


Interesting to you maybe other people might argue that they are totally uninteresting and the entire place should be bull-dozed for something useful like a shopping mall or a block of flats.


Ultimately any decision about land use will come down to a value judgement on the particular type of usage. Personally I think urban wild and natural green spaces have a great value. Many surveys and studies show trees and wild life and green spaces in general are very beneficial to the quality of life of people living near them.


I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't still be cemeteries - it is just that should be managed in a way that is sustainable in terms both burials but also the trees, wildlife and natural spaces they contain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ultimately any decision about land use will come down to a value judgement on the particular type of usage."


No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet forum posters, have legal duties and obligations and legally defined decision making processes.


"I don't think anyone is saying they shouldn't still be cemeteries - it is just that should be managed in a way that is sustainable in terms both burials but also the trees, wildlife and natural spaces they contain."


I think every other poster is in effect saying that they shouldn't be functioning cemeteries, because that is the consequence of maintaining all the existing woodland growth.


BTW, I just noticed this above:


"I will happily be bike locked to a tree if someone can bring me tea and biscuits."


I'd be happy to bike lock you to a tree until you learn the meaning of hyperbole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet forum posters, have legal duties and obligations and legally defined decision making processes. "


I am not sure what you are trying to say here. The council has no legal obligation clear wild wooded areas from cemeteries.


"I think every other poster is in effect saying that they shouldn't be functioning cemeteries, because that is the consequence of maintaining all the existing woodland growth. "


No it isn't. Hyperbole on your behalf I would say.


"I'd be happy to bike lock you to a tree until you learn the meaning of hyperbole."


Right back at you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet

> forum posters, have legal duties and obligations

> and legally defined decision making processes.


Yes DaveR, councils do have a legal obligation to provide burial services. However there is no legal requirement to locate these services within the borough.


And far from being just an internet poster, I, as well as others objecting to this, are local to the areas that will be affected, so it is our obligation (also not legal) to ensure these plans are acceptable to all concerned.


> I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've

> had a pretty good look at what appear to be the

> most important ones.


Kind of hard for me know which you have skimmed through. I recommend reading them all in full.

Regarding the surveys, yes those are the ones that, despite repeated requests and promises, have only just been made available for public view, hence the suggestion of secrecy. Indeed a great deal of time and money has been put into formulating these plans. That doesn't give them any special rights however. Yes a great deal of work has been put into them, I would expect nothing less for such plans. I'm not quite sure what your point is here?


I'm sure you are aware that these current plans are actually part 2 of the councils plans. That the original idea of re-tasking Honor Oak Rec ground for burial plots was rejected by local residents. So all the effort and work put into these plans has been part of a long term project and not just about the current proposals.


I don't particularly want to get into a forum to and fro with you about this. I would be more than happy to carry on discussing this with you though, so PM me if you're interested in knowing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the wilderness in the overgrown parts of the graveyard has some merit, this part of SE London is actually well served (and much better than many other areas) for woodland and park - I am more concerned that the clearance will also clear the old Victorian (and actually somewhat later) burials - many of whose memorials stones are tumbled and deemed 'unsafe' but are also fine examples of late 19th century demotic funeral art.


The trees have grown up very quickly (and would do so again, given the chance) but the memorials, once cleared and destroyed are gone forever, and will never 're-seed'. I would be happy for the over-grown elements to be cleared back to reveal the monuments, these be stabilised where necessary and any additional space used for new burials. Ideally the graveyard might retain its screening of established trees around the perimeters.


I find more 'amenity pleasure' in the areas of the Old Cemetery where I can view and contemplate the memorials than where I am walking through scrubby woodland with the memorials at best half glimpsed. I fear that the clearances, when they come, will be savage and unthought through, but more damaging to monuments than nature. I particularly dislike those graveyards where memorial stones are uprooted and, for instance, line a periphery rather then remaining, however decayed, in-situ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the cemetery was owned and run by the council so they manage the facility, so is it not there wood and not ours, we just use it?


People still want to bury their relatives and as much as people like walking through the wood, with diminishing burial space and to prevent other recreational grounds being used, would it not make sense to re-use the existing burial grounds in London?


Earlier this week on Inside out on BBC1 they showed an example in North London were they have a scheme whereby old graves are reused. Once the council has gone through a lengthy process of finding the owner, they then if in agreement can reclaim the grave, re-inturn any remains, clean and turn the monument so the grave can be reused. Surely that is a sensible way to proceed and make use of old graves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like many of the posters on this thread, I think it's good that the Council is engaging more widely about their Phase 2 plans for COC and I also agree that there should be a balance in the plans between the various issues (burials, nature, woodland, residents' concerns).


Where I differ from some, is that I do think the balance should be weighted in favour of the use of COC as a cemetery, for families and relatives who visit it regularly, and as a place of remembrance. I live nearby, walk through it most days and regularly visit at the weekends, but I don't feel like this gives me priority over families of those who are or will be buried there as to how the space should be used. It's a cemetery, it's not a wood, nature reserve, park or place for families to ride bicycles. To be clear, I think it's great that it can also be used for those things and I agree Southwark shouldn't be trying to shoehorn a cheaper scheme through that takes no account of the wildlife, when there are some things they could be doing to protect it. But the balance should be in favour of its original and primary use as a cemetery.


If the suggestion is that no further burials should take place at COC to preserve the woods that are there, and local people should be burying their family members and visiting their graves out of Southwark, then I disagree. I'm not sure anyone is actually saying that, but it's a potentially logical conclusion from some of what has been said. Part of the difficulty for Southwark is that they have run out of burial space in the borough, and they've found it very difficult to identify new land - my understanding is that there were substantial legal difficulties for them in trying to take back Honor Oak Recreational Ground for a completely different use after such a long time.


One of the things I think is amazing about COC is the number of regularly visited and maintained graves there are and how many relatives regularly go there - it's quite different from what I was used to before I moved here.


My personal focus, and what I've already written to the Council about, is how they can be sure these works are properly thought through - unlike (in my view) the Phase 1 works (the raised area created on the Wood Vale side of the cemetery). The creation of the raised area is leading to massive drainage problems on the lower part of the cemetery, meaning that graves are sunken underwater and a number of them appear to be tilting/collapsing as a result.


I took this picture on my way through a couple of days ago - it's worse now given last night's rain. The problem is compounded by the decision to lay down thick, non-porous roadways. This problem has never existed at the cemetery before, as far as I know, and has been entirely created by Southwark and their contractors, but no-one at the Council is willing to even discuss it or take responsibility.


If they are going to do more works at the lower end of the cemetery, it would be good to know they've learned their lessons from the Phase 1 works. And if it's the same team of contractors, some of whom chose to take their breaks in the Phase 1 works by actually sitting on graves and leaning/sitting on gravestones whilst having a cigarette, then I'll be walking up to them and telling them how disrespectful and offensive they're being again, and complaining to Southwark, just like I did last time.[/end rant]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be happy for the over-grown elements to be cleared back to reveal the monuments, these be stabilised where necessary and any additional space used for new burials. Ideally the graveyard might retain its screening of established trees around the perimeters.


Totally agree but, as I understand it, one of the big problems with "filling in additional space" at COC with new burials is that Southwark don't have accurate records of where existing burials have taken place, particularly the older burials. So a big part of the Phase 1 works was finding areas of the cemetery where they could be confident that no burials had taken place. This was to avoid the risk of disturbing an old grave where the monument or headstone has fallen down or been removed, and is how we've ended up with major Phase 2 works in only part of the cemetery. I think still have the Phase 1 consultation docs somewhere which had a lot of info about this, if anyone's interested.


Edited for sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Siduhe - I would be very interested in seeing the Phase 1 consultation docs please if you had them to hand/had a link to them - I'm finding the Council's website fairly difficult to navigate (e.g. as Cemetery strategy appears on a different page to the Cemeteries plans page)..


I would also just comment that a couple of new surveys have been put up as of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to correct one point Siduhe made, burials have been made throughout Camberwell Old Cemetery - it was totally full, which is why Camberwell New Cemetery was opened in the 1920s. What the council are doing in Camberwell Old Cemetery is raising the soil level and burying more people on top of those already buried there. So what they did in phase 1, at the Langton Rise end of the cemetery, is exactly what they are proposing to do now. They will be clearing the phase 2 area of self-sown trees, wild flowers and memorials and disposing of them, in order to heap more soil on top and create enough burial space for another 4 years.

Siduhe is correct in saying that the council do have land alongside Camberwell New Cemetery which was originally purchased in order to extend the burial area when needed, but which they allowed to be used as a recreation ground until that time. I was not aware of legal difficulties - I would be very interested to know what these were Siduhe. My understanding was, not that there were legal grounds, but that.Southwark Council succumbed to pressure from Lewisham Council to leave the recreation ground for their residents. Southwark decided instead to re-use Camberwell Old Cemetery, but this decision has not been open to consultation. Camberwell Old Cemetery was widely believed to be a nature reserve - it's a grade one site of borough importance for nature conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll definitely see if I can find the Phase 1 docs and post them - they should be in a folder somewhere at home.


The issue with Honor Oak Recreation Ground as I understand it (and I don't have any confidential info at all - this is based on what was said at the various public meetings I went to about that site) is that the council bought the site in 1901 but it had been in use as a recreation ground for a very significant period of time, and the council had not maintained a clear or unambiguous position that it would or could be used for burials in future, including in many publicly available documents - leading to arguments around "legitimate expectations".


The debate was around whether Southwark had put out documents in the past which essentially contained a promise to preserve existing policy to use it for recreation (which would be binding) or whether it had only established a policy of using it for recreation which local people were entitled to rely on, which would mean Southwark had to conduct a fair consultation before making any changes. There were some documents and letters Southwark had issued which local residents relied on as being a "promise" which Southwark couldn't back out of, and took legal advice on.


Thanks keira for the info about the rest of the cemetery, I had thought there were some bits they had identified without any people buried, but I may well be wrong about that. If they're using the same process as Phase 1 (building up the level of the soil) then they really do need to answer the questions about drainage and lessons learned. That seems like it could have a big impact on residents on Ryedale who back onto the cemetery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...