kiera

There is a lot of point. The council are clearing and reusing areas on a rolling programme agreed by cabinet in 2012 and based on a consultation of mostly Lewisham residents. They did not consult residents around Camberwell Old Cemetery and it didn't occur to them that anyone living nearby might care about the woodland or wildlife. A lot of local residents DO care and want to have a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees and wildlife. The council have amended their plans several times due to public objections, so the strategy will have to be reviewed by cabinet, probably this year. I would hope that the opinions of local residents will be

Precious Star is talking about the nature on our doorstep. The gradual destruction of small pockets of wildllife friendly areas such as front gardens, leading to an irreversible loss of wildlife in the area. She is quite right that children living in East Dulwich today are unlikely to see hedgehogs or many species of butterflies in their gardens. Every front and back garden which is ripped up, or piece of waste ground which is built on, contributes to the overall loss. Neglect can be very good for wildlife. It is the neglect/minimal maintenance of this part of Camberwell Old Cemetery which has made it such a rare and special place in this urban area, which is why some local residents feel so passionately about it. Many local residents believe that these cemeteries can continue to be used as working cemeteries without destroying the nature which has become established in them. To walk along the woodland paths, seeing butterflies and listening to the birds is an entirely suitable use of this part of the cemetery for the bereaved.

panda boy Wrote: ------------ > Does anyone have any opinions on; > > Timescale of the project significantly changing......... Might this be the answer to your question?? The council moved forward with their plans because of protesters, who were supported by Peckham Rye ward councillors. The council had planned to use the recreation ground, but abandoned that because of the strength of public protest. They moved on to wanting to use the meadow behind Ryedale, which they'd already prepared for burials, having raised the ground level above the public graves, as is still quite evident. Ryedale residents protested, so the council moved on to "area z". Quote from Peckham Rye councillors' blog ? "As ward councillors we all thought it vitally important to protect Honor Oak Rec. This is a green space used by local residents and also used by local schools and football clubs.? Whilst I think many parts of Camberwell Old are beautiful and a haven for wildlife I think that sensitive reuse of parts of the cemetery which allow us to protect Honor Oak Rec are worth pursuing. All three of us are also committed to protecting the land immediately behind Ryedale at Camberwell Old as I do think burials would have an impact on the houses that back onto it and the alternative of planting a screen would mean a loss of light for these residents.? ?? What we proposed in 2012 was that instead we brought forward plans to bring back into use 'Site Z' at Camberwell Old........" http://peckhamryelabour.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/local-cemeteries-whats-going-on.html?m=1

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.