henryb

These projects seem to come in at around ?200/300M per mile. So not so cheap and the cost per mile doesn't seem to decrease with distance. By comparison Phase 1 of the Manchester Metrolink cost ?268M (in today's money) for 19 miles and was delivered in a few years. I can't help but think a fast tram service would be better value for money.

I don't see how objecting to a local school and hence local school children from using the playing fields in the park is "perserving the park as an amenity for all". It is not as if the sports fields are over utilized during the week. Is it still the official position of the "Friends of Peckham Rye Park" that they object to local schools using the park for sports?

The council's plan is for meadow areas to be reused for burials as well after the wooded areas are used - much like the area on wood vale. The council have been asked for natural meadow burials in the meadow areas to preserve them but they have refused so far. The meadow areas you like will be gone to. Have you actually walked arround the areas to be developed penguin? There is a oak with of a girth of 4ms in there. That would mean the tree predates the cemetery and be close to the enclosure act date. The old native oaks are repopulating the area so the there are lots of young oak saplings in the area. There are younger native shrub plants hawthorn, elder growing in between the larger trees a "scrub" as call it but these are very important to wildlife and beautiful imo. So yes let's save the meadows.

It is worth making a complaint every time. Certainly if it is waking you up. http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/what-you-can-do/make-a-complaint-about-noise

Yes I agree with that about Underhill and I don't live on it. Residential side streets should primarily be for residents - not for speeding motorists who want a short cut to avoid traffic lights.

Simply because is it an existing business doesn't make it exempt from Noise Pollution legislation. I think you are perfectly in your rights to be annoyed and complain. Maybe you could try talking to them first? Can those reversing alarms be turned off or down?

Certainly sounds annoying. 8am is normally the reasonable start time for construction noise although this isn't that category. No harm contacting Southwark to ask about it. http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/412/noise_problems

St Francesca Cabrini School is closed due to no water.

It is not looking good though. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565

Are Southwark even allowed to do that legally? The parks are funded out of public funds. Everyone should have access. Can this ban be confirmed - how can the decision document be traced?

I have a hard copy of the presentation they gave in February but it is late now. I will see I can find a a link tomorrow. The situation is very dynamic at the moment and Southwark's regularly changing their plans and what is up on their site. Yes I saw the 10k sequence as I was typing it out. Camberwell borough population was around 270k at the time so a death rate of 5k a year does sound reasonable considering the circumstances and times. Was everyone going in COC at the time? Were there burials from other Parishes? However the actual number is not really the point. The question is these graves and cemeteries are an important link to our past and heritage, especially to those who have family roots here. That applies to the common graves as much it does the private graves. I really can't see how wide spread re-use will not lead to big lose of that.

Southwark Cemetery Strategy. They presented it at the public meeting in Feb and it is one their website.

Regarding the burial numbers from "Camberwell Old Cemetery - London's Forgotten Valhalla" by Ron Woolacott 1984. The total burials were: 1861: 5,433 1866: 12,785 1874: 30,000+ 1893: 100,000+ 1900: 117,030 1927: 265,310 1948: 273,851 1956: 279,714 1984: 300,000 + In the Acknowledgements the original cemetery records and documents are mentioned.

COC is a 30 acre site. 10 acres is the wooded part in the north. The North west corner (area Z) which is the condoned off part ( although it only fully cordoned off when the campaign to save it started, before there was easy access and well trodden path through). It is about 3 acres and they are going to get around 800 plots. That is around 4 supply. Areas J, K and L which are the wooded lanes areas- they won't be fully developed until other areas in the New Cemetery are used up but they are planning felling all the younger trees this year. When it is developed they estimate another 1060 plots. Then there area H which is the lovely meadow area which houses on Ryedale back on to - that is down as another 480 plots. So 2200 plots - 10 years supply at 220 a year.

Weirdly it seems go to have got better for us the last couple of months. I guess it must depend on the whether the flight path is directly over head or not.

I think both locations are incredibly beautiful and I don't think there are enough wild places like this in London. Yes we are lucky in the south of the borough but if you take it the context of the wider area then there isn't enough. There is a commitment from the Major's Office in the London Plan to increase woodland habitats by 30 hectares in the next 15 years not decrease them. Clearing these areas will only a give a few years of provision.

I found 3 20/25 year old Sessile Oaks up in the woodland area they are going to clear on One Tree Hill in Camberwell New Cemetery along the boundary with the Nature Reserve. Sessile Oaks or Cornish Oaks are the other UK native species of oak and support more wildlife than any other native tree species.

Just a question but wouldn't aiming for a larger catchment area resolves many of these disrupts. If there is an over subscribed school whatever criteria is used could seem unfair to people who don't get in.

nxjen, Thanks for that. I stand corrected. Sue, We didn't feel this event or the previous events were of significant scale to warrant permission being given under Southwark's open spaces policy. However we have publisized them in such a way that the relevent councillors and officers should have been aware and indeed invited them along. We have been in contact with the council specifically about this event and have assured them that we certainly will treat the cemeteries with respect they deserve. Also the councils take on the matter is available on their website which is linked to from the petition's web page.

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Southwark Council had an action plan for > the cemetery but it was the formation of the > Friends of Nunhead Cemetery that brought new > energy to the renewal process aided by funding > from both Southwark Council and the National > Lottery. So while the mix of nature and crumbling > tombs and gravestones appears haphazard, a lot of > work, money and maintenance has gone into creating > this apparent random disorder. To paraphrase > Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of money to look this > natural! I believe the Southwark Plan at the time was to redevelop all of Nunhead cemetery as per the area that is still used for Turkish Muslim burials by the gate. As I understand it, it was resident group action FONC that prevented the entire cemetery being reused in the same way. Whether we like it or nor Camberwell Old Cemetery is full and has been full for some time. That is why they started to use Camberwell New Cemetery in 1920s. The council tried to start redeveloping COC in 1991 but that it was successfully blocked by residents then. This is just the same thing happening again. This site has great historic importance; it is a Grade 1 Site for Nature Conservation and has a Woodland Level Tree Preservation Order on it ? meaning each tree is supposedly protected. I fully understand the need for people to have burials for their loved ones however I simply don?t believe redeveloping historic cemeteries is the right way to achieve this. The cost to tax payers alone makes it prohibitive. It looks like the plots in COC will come in at ?1,700 each to develop. As the cemeteries are only breaking even on revenue costs i.e. excluding capital cost for the redevelopment then ?1,700 is the subsidy from the Southwark council tax payer for each plot and will not be recouped. If you throw in the loss of woodland, the historic monuments and the fact that burials can be provided at a much lower cost to both the tax payer and the families further out in far more pleasant suitable settings then I really can?t see the justification for it. That is why so many other London cemeteries are not being redeveloped e.g. West Norwood, Bow Cemetery to name two. The day is intended to be a low key community event to simply raise awareness of the issue and enjoy the wooded areas which haven?t been used for burials for many years, on what will hopefully will be a lovely summers day. No disrespect was intended.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/wood wood - an area of land, smaller than a forest, that is covered with growing trees. Looks like a wood to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76wj7BO8yI

THIS SUNDAY 21ST JUNE IS SOUTHWARK WOODS DAY! All come! 11-12pm: Family Honey and Bug Hunt, Camberwell Old Cemetery 12-1pm: Community March and Picnic from Camberwell Old to New Cemetery, to celebrate these beautiful wild woods and the hundreds of thousands buried here, and protest their destruction by Southwark Council. 2-4pm: FREE Writing the Woods Workshop with author Claire Collison, Camberwell Old Cemetery. Book your free place: [email protected] More info: http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/southwark-woods-day/4589650280

Yeah in your face Brockwell... :o)

Yes that would be a lovely addition to the park.

Thanks James, Have they reviewed the situation since the WHO and IARC announcement it is probably carcinogenic in March? http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/MonographVolume112.pdf http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11487118/Weedkiller-alert-over-cancer-link.html