kiera

I would say that the reason Sue was targeted was because she was openly trying to discredit him/SSW publicly. In Sue's own words ".......My thoughts were more that any of their supporters reading the thread would see the lie of the land,so to speak, and stop being supporters - not necessarily of the actual cause, but of the organisation relating to it."

Penguin68 Wrote: (extract) ------ You suggest that the council should reuse ?the currently used space that they have for local > burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they > intend only to reuse space in the existing > cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish > this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that > means, presumably you would insist on a residence > test both for the deceased and those arranging the > funerals? The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral.

Loz quoted from the council's website - "- We plan to remove 19 significant trees in total - Following redevelopment of the site we intend to plant 60 new trees" Sue asked "Edborders, what do you have to say about those figures? Are you suggesting that the council is lying?" The answer is it all depends on how you define a tree. The council are using very different standards according to whether they are referring to felling trees or planting trees. So, when the council say that only 19 trees are to be removed, they are only counting trees with a diameter of over 150mm. Anything smaller is included as scrub. However, when referring to new trees they are to plant, they are referring to trees of 14-16mm diameter. If they used the same standard of 150mm, they could not claim to be planting any trees. Many more trees than 19 are to be felled. Extract from the tree survey in the planning documents "Detailed (measured) survey of all trees where set in dense vegetation is not always possible ............. In the case of woodlands or substantial tree groups, only individual and accessible trees with stem diameters greater than 150mm are usually plotted" http://planbuild.southwark.gov.uk/documents/?GetDocument=%7b%7b%7b!RJlwBh45WSKmsD25Hfirbw%3d%3d!%7d%7d%7d

He is referring to Kemnal Park cemetery, which is on the A20 in Bexley. It's a privately owned cemetery which is fairly new, so still has space. It's about 10 miles away. Tower Hamlets council has bought space there for their residents.

It isn't something anyone wants, I shouldn't think, but it's a compromise and doesn't seem to me to be any more disrespectful to the monuments of the long dead than your vision of leaving the cemeteries unmanaged and letting trees root all over the graves. Some local people acknowledge that the council is going to continue using the cemeteries as cemeteries, but want to preserve the wildlife and trees, so are looking for ways to achieve this. It's a compromise - trying to steer the council into leaving the woodland and start re-using old graves in the maintained area, earlier than they had planned to do.

taper Wrote------------------------- > Problem with this whole debate is I'm still not > entirely sure whether the wood in Camberwell Old > Cemetery (on the northern and north eastern side) > are genuinely under threat. I think the failure > of the campaign, on top of the hyperbole, is to > spread their goals too wide. Plus resorting to ad > hominem against Southwark's political leadership > has been a big mistake as they are the people that > need to be persuaded to modify or clarify their > plans. > > I like Lewis and his group a lot and admire their > passion and energy. But I think they need now to > re-assess the scope and tone of the campaign and > focus on that which is really worth preserving, > maintaining and improving. And they need to work > with Southwark to come up with a plan that manages > and preserves the woods in COC for the future. The woods ARE under threat because Southwark plans, in a few years' time, to prepare that area for new lawn grave burials. Some local residents have been trying to bring forward the re-use of 75+ year old graves in order to persuade the council that they will still be able to accommodate current burial demand - about 220pa - without needing to use the woods. Save Southwark Woods is well aware that representatives of local residents are already working with the council on this.

dbboy said "Are you really sure your video is in Camberwell Old Cemetery, I think NOT, It looks much more like One Tree Hill." Yes, the video IS of Camberwell Old Cemetery and clearly shows the woodland there. It does look like the One Tree Hill nature reserve, which has got something to do with why people want it to be treated similarly - as the nature reserve it has become.

Siduhe. I think you'll find that none of the reclaimed plots currently or recently being sold by the council for new burials are on consecrated ground. Similarly, all the planned new grave spaces in Camberwell Old Cemetery will be on top of public graves and public graves are on unconsecrated land.

Alan Medic - the permission of whoever owns or manages the land. For Sydenham Hill Woods, the London Wildlife Trust, but I doubt they would want a Christmas tree, as it's not a native species. It's a nice idea of yours to donate it, so I was thinking that it would be preferable to find a location where it would be appreciated. Southwark Council's Tree Officers would be the department to contact for parks, council flats,or any other council-owned land.

Would it be a better idea to plant the Christmas tree in front of a block of flats, where it could perhaps be decorated and enjoyed each Christmas?

To ask the council to consider double yellow lines, this is the procedure from their website:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200140/parking_projects/2766/local_parking_amendments/4

Yes, until a few years ago you could still buy decent products at the door, from sales reps from reputable companies, such as Kleeneze. The last rep we had was a local mum with a young child and my mother was pleased to be helping her by buying from her, as well as being pleased with the products (including very versatile scissors). Not to be confused with these present day purveyors of rubbish.

I'm very sorry to hear about your cat and thank you for raising awareness. It's a reminder that cats like/need to chew grass, so, if they're kept indoors,it's a good idea to give them something which it's safe for them to chew, such as kitty grass or spider plants.

If you're waiting for a P13 tonight, expect delays as there are 4 of them stopped in Underhill / Whateley road at the moment.I think one of them must have broken down.

Builders' merchant

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ALL food waste is taken to the new integrated Waste Management Facility........... > > Would anyone be interested if I organised a group > visit from East Dulwich residents? James - I would be interested in a group visit.

I'm not excusing the original poster for trying to mislead people, but, I went into the cemetery last Sunday (12th) and there were definitely no signs to explain to the public why the monuments had been removed.

L16579 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- They have no > intention of replacing the fence. On closer > inspection the front(neat side) of the fence faces > their garden which suggests it belongs to that > property. No, it suggests the opposite. When someone constructs a fence, they work from their own garden. So, the fenceposts are in the garden of the fence owner and the neat side faces the neighbour.

The council will not be using every inch of space for burial - there will, for example, be tarmac (or similar) roads for hearses.There are also a few graves from the 1940s in area Z which are still being visited and cared for, which the council will have to respect. Henryb's figures add up to 2340 and do not take into account another 775 burial plots proposed for the remainder of the woodland - the area behind the gardens in Forest Hill Rd, so 3115 new lawn graves in total in the woodland, as part of the council's plans to cater for burials for the next 15 years. These figures are in the cabinet decision of 19.06.2012 page 9 para 44 which is on the council's website:- 480 new lawn grave burial plots in the meadow behind Ryedale (H1), 1000 in area Z (the area currently fenced-off) and 1060 burial plots in sites J,K and L (the woodland paths area) plus 775 in H2 and H3 (the rest of the woodland - behind the gardens in Forest Hill Road).There are a further 430 elsewhere (G1)in the Old Cemetery, making a total of 3745 new lawn graves. The only change since then is that, because of practical difficulties, the figure for area Z (the next area to be used) has been revised down from 1000 to 800, so now 3545 in total. As Henryb has said, this will have a huge impact on the character and appearance of the cemetery.

@Woodwarde - No, it is simply a notice of road closures and alternative routes - in this case, Townley Rd, Lordship Lane and East Dulwich Grove in one direction and East Dulwich Grove, Dulwich Village and Calton Avenue in the other direction.

According to the notices in Southwark News,that end of Townley Rd is due to be closed from 4th July to 1st September. Also the bottom of Northcross Rd 6th - 24th July.

dbboy wrote that he "....can think of no where nicer than to to be buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery...." I am not speaking for 'Save Southwark Woods' As it stands, Camberwell Old Cemetery is very attractive. It has a mixture of areas - historically interesting Victorian graves, open grassy areas, meadowland and woodland paths. The most unattractive part is the new burial area of lawn graves.This has been designed with the priority of ease of maintenance. Hence, it consists of back to back headstones on gravel strips, with no space for memorabilia and no planting allowed. As the council plans to cut down woodland to create more lawn graves, I am alarmed. I believe it should be possible to meet the council's requirement for an average 200 new burials a year, without further damaging the character of the cemetery. I would like to see the woodland retained - there have been no burials in it since a few in the 1940s and the council have not maintained this area as a cemetery since that time. I would like to see burials continued in a more attractive and considerate environment than the current stark lawn grave style.And, yes, there are definitely over 300,000 people already buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery - new burials are on top of people already buried.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edborders Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Forest Hill Society says that 300,000 > people > > are interred in COC. > > Where is the evidence to support this assertion? > > John K Camberwell New Cemetery opened in 1927 because Camberwell Old Cemetery was full. On Southwark Council's website, it says this about Camberwell Old Cemetery:- In the 1850s, The Camberwell Burial Board was established to solve the problem of Camberwell's burial shortage in its churchyards. In 1855 the board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell. The cemetery has fine examples of gothic revival architecture. The lodge and chapels were designed by George Gilbert Scott's architecture firm who also designed St Pancras station and the Albert Memorial. By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space. The majority of burials now take place in this cemetery.

Ingrid - I'd like to request a mural by Vibes (who painted the kingfisher on Frogley Rd.) I like the mural and admire the artist's skill.

That's good news, but I can't see how a wheelchair user would be able to get up to the platform at East Dulwich station - it's such a steep incline. Would assistance be available for getting to the platform from street level?