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.

> > This is absolutely bizarre. Bizarre in the > extreme. > > So basically, you have based your whole campaign > not on the council's actual plans for the areas in > question, but on what YOU IMAGINE they are going > to do? No the strategy documents says what the plans are. In that all 12 acres of the current wooded areas are to be developed, as is an open grass/meadow area and the old nursary site, after that will start grave reuse which by definition involves exhumation. No one is imaging anything. The current phase is to develop 2 areas of the 8 or 9 areas that will eventually be developed. The council are now trying to spin that they are only planning to develop these 2 areas and not the others. If all the the other areas and exhumation is now off the table as they seem to be now saying publicly. Then lets see the new strategy document. What happens when these two areas get used up in a 3 odd years time?

> You have proposed Kemnal Park cemetery in Bexley > as an alternative. It's about a 90 min trip each > way by public transport from ED. Add in the time > spent in the cemetery, that would be about a four > hour trip just to put flowers on a grave. I think that the fact it takes 90 min to travel 5/6 miles on public transport maybe more of the issue there. The solution to bad public transport is better public transport - not chopping down trees. It is a 20 min train from Peckham Rye to Eltham and the Cemetery Manager at Kemnal Park said he would be willing to put on a free shuttle service to the station if there was demand. Tower Hamlets have decided it is reasonable for people to travel to here for burials and the most of their residents would be even further away. I think you said earlier that is it about choice. Well why not give people the choice? Subsidize the out of borough burial at the same rate they are subsidizing in borough burials. Let people decide themselves. I think for many in the borough the distance would not be prohibitive and they might appreciate the lower cost.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wonder why this group is so mournfully > protective of the long dead, with no one left > alive to mourn them, but so despises the wishes of > those who are about to be bereaved and wish to > have somewhere local where they can mourn and > commemorate their loved ones? What a ridiculous and offensive statement. Simply because a lot of local people think that preserving the cemeteries for nature and heritage is more important than providing new burial plots or that maybe there are better things to do with ?5M of public money than subsidizing a local burial service - doesn't mean they despise anyone.

Sure. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/7216/cemetery_strategy 6.3 Medium Term Camberwell Old Re-use of public graves (in consecrated areas and subject to a Faculty) in which new lawn new layouts would be set out over public areas where last burials took place more than 75 years ago. Any remains found would be lifted and re interred in a new consecrated grave at the ends of the new burial rows. d. Re-use in these private grave areas and where consecrated, subject to cancellation of rights under the 1975 Act, subject to Faculty. This again would offer the opportunity to record Long Term Options Camberwell New Assumes comprehensive (90%+) Re-use of graves converted to lawn burial (but with memorial sited on plot)

I think I will stick with the technically correct words and the ones Southwark use rather ones that make it sound better than it is if you don't mind.

No, exhumation means to removing remains from a grave - which is what they will be doing. Southwark's own document use the word. It is true that the any remains they find will be re-interred either in the same grave or somewhere else.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11857/lednet_report "because if the council started to do anything like that, and as I am sorry to repeat, the residents in the borough would be in revolt," Quite. I guess that is why they are are keeping quiet about it but that is their long/mid term strategy.

It is both. There are mounding over the public graves and some private graves as part of this phase and for the short term. Later they will be "re-using" private graves which means digging out and exhumation. It is all in the strategy document.

> Not to overlook for some "I want my house to > continue to overlook a wooded area rather than a > cemetery with the traffic this entails - so much > better for property prices." What wooded area? I thought the woods didn't exist - why would anyone pay more for a house that was near some "worthless scrub land" or a "toxic dump" as one Labour Councillor called it? Surely your whole argument is it is really important for people to be near a cemetery so they can bury their loved ones? If that was the case wouldn't they value that more highly?

You could make the same argument about a lot of Victorian cemeteries. High Gate is right next to Hampstead Heath. I think a lot of people would be appalled if anyone suggested that cemetery should be re-developed simply because there are other parks near by. Ultimately it comes down to a value judgement of what is more important the best use of the space. New burials or preserving the trees and the old graves.