henryb

It is strange. The rate they came and went during covid was very high. At one point there were several now there are none. There was a rumour some grinch from the council was coming and cutting them down but I can’t believe that. They must just wear out from use.

I would just like to recommend the lovely Debbie Warden as an acupuncturist. She works out of the Goose Green clinic and is really helping me with my various ailments.

I would of thought it would have been mentioned at one of the stake holders meetings or one of the public council meetings if had been planned at all. But then you never know with this lot. That really would be news. Maybe one of the councillors knows? But yes please let us know what you find out.

Yes that's their claim. However they don't seem to have taken into account that the burials at Nunhead are not suitable for all Islamic burials. There are no plans I am aware of to use the virgin area on One Tree Hill as a specific Muslim burial area. If you have details/evidence of that please can you provide it?

The point about the discrimination is that LBS is providing subsidized burial service for some sections of the community but not providing them for a substantial group. As LBS could provide burials outside the borough for everyone as Tower Hamlet Council does, I can?t see how this exclusion is justifiable under the Equality Act - but that would be for a court to decide. It is my understanding from others who have had meetings with local Imams, the Turkish area in Nunhead cemetery isn?t suitable for Orthodox Muslims and they go out of borough. Regarding the Financing of any potential Wild Life reserve: LBS are spending 5.1M on this project ? (1.5M for this part for 900 plots). This money will not be recouped and is on top of any subsidy the burials service will need to cover its revenue costs. From a FOIR over the last 4 years burial service has running a deficit of on average ~200k per year. If LBS moved to a cremation only locally and invested the capital budget allocated for burials areas outside the borough they could make substantial savings. They could even provide the plots at a fraction of the current cost they charge and still save money. These saving could be reallocated to other services. Using Tower Hamlets as an example a net subsidy spend of 1.2 million is providing their residents with 3000 plots that residents will be charged ?600 for; whereas Southwark plan is have net subsidy spend of 1.5 million to provide 900 plots that will cost residents ?1,300. I don?t how much it costs to run a nature reserve but I can?t imagine they spent any money on Area Z or Area D until recently. I certainly don?t think it runs in to the millions. Maybe Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park or One Tree Hill Nature Reserve would be a good benchmarks.

You mean like a funeral the of the child whose grave was desecrated to do this?

Sue Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > henryb Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > No, using the rec is still on the table. > > > Isn't that because it was originally bought with > the intention of using it for burials? And its > present use was always intended to be temporary? > > Or have I got that wrong? Yes along with the allotments. One tree hill nature reserve was originally purchased as a golf course.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta is of course completely right - but: No one > is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at > the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of > parks or allotments.... > > ...actually there have been specific points made > about ceasing burial in Southwark and moving such > burials to outer boroughs. And what current > cemetery plans, agreed by the council, put in > jeopardy any existing allotments or parks? All > current agreed plans refer to existing cemetery > areas. This again is prophet of doom, 'worst case > scenario' stuff and is significantly hypothecated > on no or reduced re-use in existing cemeteries. . No, using the rec is still on the table. And yes moving most if not all burials out of the borough when the cemeteries are full is a totally sensible thing to do and they should start now so people who are really do need a local one can still get one.

Bad writing and a lack of clarity there but it was never the intention stop burials in the existing active areas in CNC or stop existing burial rights. The point has always been to protect the wooded areas and open grassland areas from being re-developed and to stop the re-use of graves.

Re Penguin's last post. What a patronising post. I am sure most local people are capable of making their own minds up about the issue and as the petition linked to Southwark's plans I am sure they did. You are more than welcome to start your own petition if doubt that. Don't be deluded that most people in the area read, let alone post on this forum. But if as you imply a few regulars on this forum somehow represent widespread public support for these plans why didn't one single person submit a comment saying they approved of the plans to the planning committee. No one is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of parks or allotments. No one is saying the existing burial rights shouldn't be respected or that the remaining plots shouldn't be used up.

Well I would say you're in everyone's face endlessly complaining about Lewis's language. There is nothing illegal about emotive language and I would say factually most of what he has said has been true. Certainly more so than the Council output. Many local people feel very strongly about this - ad hominem and emotive attacks one campaigner are not helpful to a reasonable discussion.

I meant - Hell Yeah http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-chains-himself-to-tree-cutting-machinery-in-protest-at-south-london-cemetery-a3170336.html

Damn Skippy he did. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-chains-himself-to-tree-cutting-machinery-in-protest-at-south-london-cemetery-a3170336.html

They don't have permission from the church for felling significant trees. My understanding is that as it is consecrated land - that is illegal. A church representives said if it was church land and the council was acting without facility they would call the police. The church haven't decided on the matter. That is the purpose of the public meeting in March.

It is not just SSW. The Diocese have said they don't have permission to do what the say there are going to do. It is not up to the Council to to decide what is legal and what is not. It is up the Police and Courts.