edhistory

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've just been forwarded an email received by a > resident complaining to the M&S CEO about > inconsiderate building on site. > > First they say they plan to open the new store > July 2016. > Second that as they're not on site the developer > is responsible. We wash our hands.

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > edborders Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > 3/4th of Southwark's dead are cremated. A large > > percentage of the rest are buried in Muslim > > Cemeteries outside the borough. Only an extreme > > minority want to be buried in the borough. > > Any current data that informs local debate is > helpful. > > Please can we know the source of your data? > > John K Data?

I've read it. Did you read about the methodology used? John K

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There is a degree of disinformation in that > document. > > Is it known who wrote it? > > John K

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who have a family member buried in the > Cemeteries may want to know that the council is > going to be digging up their loved one's grave - a > plot they bought for eternity. The English graveyards I know sell limited period leases. I own a 75 year lease on my parents' grave. Do they sell "freehold plots" in hometown USA? John K

Sheep on the hill? Do you have evidence? John K

Are those the giant "people" architects use in their illustrations to diminish the perceived size of a proposed building? John K

This may help Mr Cameron raise his phantom army: Treguna Mekoides and Trecorum Satis Dee

easytiger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's the seacow going to be turned in to? A fish 'n' chip shop? Street noise has a change from A3 usage to A1 usage. If accurate this is interesting.

I'll sit this one out and watch with interest. BUT, do include what the British Land Company did in East Dulwich. John K

Does anyone know what Helen Hayes MP has to say?

nxjen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > HopOne is partially correct. Used to be part > Camberwell and part Lewisham land until boundary > changed in 190O. See Nisbet p32 It's good to know that you are one of the few people who has read John Nisbet's book. Next time someone brings up "Ancient Woodland" you can jump in. My query is about the 2015 Lewisham Connection. Essentially this starts with who owns the land. John K

And I think you made that one up! Does anyone know the proper Lewisham Council connection? John K

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Councillor Hamvas' post need to be unpacked. Carefully. John K

henryb Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not personally but if you write a book about the > history of railways in SE london I promise to come > into your shop to buy a signed copy. :o) I'm afraid you will be waiting a very long time. The books have been written. A few crumbs may still emerge. You could always drop by for a chat about this. DaveR has a theory about East Dulwich being a Victorian railway suburb. There might be something to be teased out here. John K

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Adults on bikes on pavements, not shadowing their > children, on pavements that don;t allow cycling on > them is annoying. But otherwise fine by me. It > isn't like when I was a child with much less > traffic no roads making it easier to cycle as a > child on them. I had such freedom on a bike then - > late 70's. Do you need to re-write that? It reads as if you approve of law-breaking. John K

That's right, there are temporary occupants. I've never quite got the Lewisham Council connection. John K

Or Borrow-to-Let.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Burial in Southwark is waste of money when it is > going to cost twice the amount (or more) to > provide a gravespace in Southwark than providing a > gravespace on land outside the borough. That that > land outside won't have trees or your > great-grannies grave on it. > > The Cemetery Plans, as far as I can tell, is > mainly a vote-getting scheme by Southwark Labour > and a giveaway to Conway and the local morticians. > Is your tax money is being wasted? Yes. I was going to unpick this density too. There's lots of assertions there with no evidence adduced. Perhaps they need to be dealt with one at a time. > "a giveaway to [...] the local morticians." It is unclear to me what extra advantage our local undertakers [sic] will gain. Can someone explain? John K

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > James Barber Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The plans Southwark are embarking on will cost > > millions of pounds and effectively subsidise > > future burials in Southwark. They have no plans > > for a sinking fund or endowment so still we > > maintain these cemeteries on in year revenue. > > Which plans are these? > > I'd like to read them and see the budget > projections. > > John K Mr Barber is busy.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 3/4th of Southwark's dead are cremated. A large > percentage of the rest are buried in Muslim > Cemeteries outside the borough. Only an extreme > minority want to be buried in the borough. Any current data that informs local debate is helpful. Please can we know the source of your data? John K

Here is the measured position of the Friends of One Tree Hill: https://friendsofonetreehill.wordpress.com/

That's why I am not progressing the hawthorn hedge assertion. You say it is no longer there. There is a record of the remains of a firethorn hedge.

edborders Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These include the cutting down of trees, digging > up the graves so that the plots can be sold, > covering over large areas with 1.8 metres of soil > to create addition grave sites, roads being rammed > up One Tree Hill - with the potential for > flooding,water pollution, increased traffic, > religious discrimination,and major financial > waste. Oh dear, that would be terrible. A new road (narrow, metalled, and gentle gradient) to the top of One Tree Hill would be good for the old, the infirm, and the disabled. I hadn't thought of that. .

I forgot the bibliographical reference: London Ecology Unit, Nature Conservation In Southwark, Ecology Handbook 12, 1989, 1-871045-08-8 It's a rare book now, but Southwark Libraries should be able to lend a copy.