henryb

.

Some minicab companies do child seats if you ask.

I think the road is the boundary with the Peckham Rye ward so maybe you should contact those councillors as well. Renata Hamvas is one that frequents this forum.

"henryb... the cycle path does not go in a different direction. it and straker road go the car park and the cafe. so, no problem for you after all" Yes it does. I come from the park from the south and turn right on Strakers up to the crossing on Peckham Rye east. Turning left onto Strakers, going through car park, then right on the cycle path would much longer. So bumps would be a problem for me if a minor one I have never witnessed speeding cars on this road. I see speeding cars and dangerous driving on Forest Hill Road and Colyton all the time. Given we are supposed to living times of austerity I wouldn't have thought putting bumps here would be a priority. I don?t object to traffic measure in principal but bumps seem very expensive for what they achieve and affect bikes and small cars more than they do people with large 4x4s.

its poetry..

Late and at night and early in the morning you see a lot of people racing down the hill at very high speed. Someone is going to get seriously hurt or worse one day.

I cycle it twice a week. I know it quite well. The fact there is a cycle path going a different direction doesn't actually help. I cycle about 75 miles a week in London so I am also fully aware that pedestrians walk out in front cyclists without looking.

You wouldn't go all the way to a needle exchange then at door go - "ah sod it" and throw them on floor.

> Short-term because road humps cause discomfort to > some. IMO they discourage cyclists which I thought the council was trying to encourage. What is irritating is that they could easily be done in a way which doesn't affect cyclists.

If it is people who are using as rat run that causing the problem then surely blocking it off would make more sense. Put a gate there.

The land was allocated by Victorians for burials because it was outside London. That is no longer case and so that justification is no longer valid. These decisions should be based on the situation now not 100 years ago. Now those areas are part of the few natural green spaces left in London and in that regard I think they are worth protecting. Southwark should be dong what other councils are doing and protecting green space in London and acquiring land outside London or burials. This will have to be done some point in the future anyway.

> Getting transfixed > by the fate of a few acres of land is missing the > point. We live in a city, not the countryside. > People come first. Green space in cities is about people. It is well documented that green space in cities and towns both natural and maintained improves the quality of life in many ways. > It will be interesting to see how many mature, > healthy, indigenous trees are to be brought down, > rather than the apocalyptic picture that the > whippers up of public moral outrage paint. So how many mature trees were brought down when the old nursery site and the area down to the railway was cleared in Camberwell New Cemetery last year? Was that even documented?

> These are not wild spaces. They are, at best, > feral spaces. Once used as active cemetaries, then > neglected because they were full and of no use, > now they are to be re-used for there original > purpose. Some of the areas destined for clearing have never been used for burials and have been established wooded areas for many years. They contain mature oaks and other native species and much wildlife. I suggest you go have look around the areas marked D1/D2 in Camberwell New Cemetery on the strategy document. > Some wildlife will be displaced. No species will > disappear, no genus wiped out. A environmental impact report would give a better assessment of the exact damage. > If the Council was senstive to local concerns they > could create environmentally friendly burial > spaces with a rural feel, irregular grave > patterns, between existing mature growth. This > instead of the rather sterile approach so often > seen in cemetaries. Of course this is probably > more expensive to maintain. > It may be that changing demographics mean demand > for burials will increase. Many religions and > cultures require burial rather than cremation. > > Where are we surposed to put the bodies? Out of borough burials need to be provided. Other boroughs in London do this now and it will have to be done in Southwark once the wild areas in the current cemeteries have been cleared. This is only delaying that point. I don?t think anyone wants them not to be primarily places of memorial but they need to used in a way that is sustainable and less damaging to the environment.

Wouldn't installing a speed camera be cheaper?

I agree with that. If there was a question on the consultation that asked: "Do you want local woodland and wildlife preserves in the borough destroyed to make way for new burial plots?" - then I think there would have been an overwhelmingly negative response.

Less than 7% of land in England is woodland compared to an average of 40% across Europe. Less than 2% is ancient woodland. But regardless this is about green space in London. An area of woodland on one tree hill is on the plans to go.

I don't see how that article is relevant. If the council were planning on replacing some arable fields outside of London with a new cemetery - I don't think anyone would have problems with that. It is well documented that accessible green spaces both natural and maintained are very important to the quality life in cities. http://www.green-space.org.uk/downloads/articles/Urban%20green%20space%20and%20mental%20health.pdf ?The scientific work reported here provides clear evidence that among many sectors of society there are positive benefits for mental health and well-being to be gained from both active and passive involvement with natural areas in towns and cities. Regular access to restorative, natural environments can halt or slow processes that negatively affect mental and physical health. Walking in natural areas provides opportunities for social interaction that are particularly beneficial for the elderly. Exposure to natural scenes reduces stress. Trees play an important social role in easing tensions and improving psychological health. People feel better living around trees. Houses surrounded by nature help to raise children?s attention capabilities. Thus living in areas with trees helps to reduce anger and violence and improve the ability to concentrate and work effectively.?

How sad.

Renata Hamvas Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Henryb, all the planned areas for doing burials > are all within the cemeteries. There are no plans > to use parks! Using the Rec not in the current short term plans but it is clearly stated as part of the long term options in the strategy document. As is re-using Nunhead cemetery. Over the years Victorian cemeteries have become important areas of natural green space and wildlife in the city and are regularly used for recreation as well a burials. The reason why these areas were originally allocated as cemeteries was that they were on the edge of the city. That is no longer the case. You cannot use Victorian land allocations as a justification for clearing natural green areas in the city. > I don't know when the old Nursery site was cleared, Was there an environmental impact assessment report done? For any of the proposed clearings? > It is very hard to find a good solution to this! Why not do what the Victorians did and allocate land outside of London for burials?

How about the idea of any possible subsidy coming the Southwark's devolved highways budget?

Here are some relevant strategy documents http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/file/7216/cemetery_strategy http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/file/7215/cemetery_strategy_appendicies In Camberwell New Cemetery a huge area of woodland and haven for wildlife was lost when they cleared the old nursery site and started the expansion down the bank to the railway. If you look at the strategy document the council have plans clear the woodland on the cemetery side of One Tree Hill and in other places. Even Nunhead Cemetery isn?t safe. Rare green spaces in the city are not safe until the council stop their unsustainable, environmental damaging policy of clearing woodland and parks to make way for gravestones. Of course people should have the right to bury thier loved how want, however that doesn?t mean they have the right to do it in a way that substantially reduces the quality of life of others or that is environmental damaging.

Nice work.

"...blah, blah, blah.' I not sure that would have set the right tone either.

I come from the south down through the park then right on to Strakers when taking my son to nursary.

Any chance they can be done in such a way so there is space so cyclists don't have to go over them? Bumps are a pain on a bicycle, especially if you have a toddler on the back.