HopOne

Yes

oddlycurious Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 347 people objected to the plans (for the sake of > the argument let's say they all live in > Southwark) > > 288,283 live in Southwark (census data 2011) > > Well over 99 per cent of residents have no > objections to the plans. So you are assuming that 287,936 approve just because they didn't object in writing? Oddly curious indeed. Also, far removed from the issues if you think that this is just about Southwark residents.

Bic Basher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rahrahrah Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > They are a bit knackered - but surely an > argument > > for introducing new ones, not reducing the > > service. > > We are getting new buses on the 176 once the cuts > are implemented, but less of them compared to now. More at peak time but less during the day it seems: https://se23.life/t/176-bus-service-cut-from-november/3682/8?u=brett

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Honor Oak Nature Corridor > > 1022 burial plots in somewhere which exists only > in the imagination of ssw. Well, nice work if you > can get it. This has been refuted before but the same untrue accusation is trotted out again. They may have named it but am glad they did as it does exist and didn't have a handy name previously. See my answer up-thread: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1637832,1787652#msg-1787652 Re ancient woodland. Again, Southwark's and the LNR own documentation do refer to the unique woodland present which includes Wild Service trees. These are indicator species of ancient woodland and this is part of the mix present. Sorry this isn't the sort of black and white answer people seem to like here but the truth rarely is like that.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's a local person? Great question! Penguin68 Wrote: "Sorry - you and your crew are clearly on record as wanting NO Burial for ANY People - this is yet another attempt to flim-flam by pursuing any idea which might get traction (like nesting birds, war dead, the graves of the parish poor etc.)" Not quite. A lot of people would rather there wasn't yet more burial in the city (feel free to disagree but a valid position) but it seems that Southwark are intent on it anyway. It would seem that the real sham here is that Southwark justify their actions through wanting to provide burial in-borough, however an alternative justification is the revenue stream from this. Given that this is opened out to non-borough residents, it does call into question the original premise of the project, i.e. insufficient space for local burial (whatever that is, round CNC mostly Lewisham residents). Put another way, if only local provision is catered for, would the small burial provision from the damaging One Tree Hill works even be "necessary"? As this is all so opaque it is hard to know but these are valid questions. It is also hard to escape the conclusion that the council will not stop until the entire area is grave space. They do not have the law on their side so cannot reuse. When all the woods and playing fields are gone, what will they do then?

Sally Eva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I right to take it that this is the application > to remove the nursery site (a lot of it seems to > be hard standing)? Yes it is. There is some hard standing there but most of it is not.

Thanks for your comments JoeLeg, much appreciated. Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > These people enjoy their walks. They feel that > their walks will be less pleasant once work is > done. That is all that this has ever been about. > They will clutch at any straw they think might > help their cause, but they couldn't really give a > shit about birds or dead soldiers, just their > walks. > > Very selfish bunch. I really don't know who "these people" are. The issues are surrounding local green space and the best use for it, especially in close proximity to a built up environment. It is as well to point out that wild space, whether managed or not (though I appreciate usually the former) does have a value too. Most the local cemeteries were drawn up when they were in a more rural space. London has since grown around these areas and they have become part of the urban landscape. So, whatever the original intention, the context has changed. I think that the local councils and population need to adapt their thinking and provide for future generations. At least speaking to the locals in Honor Oak, it would seem that it is Southwark council that have the most catching up to do. I like a good walk as much as the next man but would still feel the same way if I were not fond of the odd constitution. There are clearly those present who will disagree with this sentiment but I bristle at the idea that this is about being selfish - quite the opposite.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Birds sing throughout the year. They sing less, > some species, once they are paired and nesting. So? Do they also keep quiet when the others are nesting? The point of saying this is that there are many birds in the area. If they are not nesting they are thinking about it.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear HopOne > > Firstly, disturbing nesting birds (however you > disturb them) is contrary to the act. I think that > assuming that council operatives will not break > the law is better than 'a supposition'. > Particularly in a time/ place which is getting a > lot of publicity. (Cross posted with Sue - sorry) > > Secondly - (an earlier remark of yours) - you may > be confusing sapling with seedling. Saplings can > be both quite old and relatively substantial. This > website may help you > http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-tree-sapling.htm > . Given that the area is audibly alive with birdsong and that the programme of works has started, please excuse a supposition that felling could ensue, given that council operatives have drawn up this plan. There is nothing wrong with drawing attention to these facts as the danger of illegal activity is there - I very much hope you are right though. As I mentioned earlier, there is little point in complaining about it afterwards. Some of the trees which were felled were well in excess of 10ft tall so according to your definition not saplings.

They would need to be aware they are doing it. It does not necessarily just apply to the tree they are working on. That you think it unlikely is supposition. I strive only to deal with facts here.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just to clarify Blanche's post > > (1) Tree surgeons WILL NOT disturb nesting birds - > I was talking to one recently who described the > frustration of rigging up to pollard a tree and > then coming face to face with an 'early bird' in a > nest and having to de-rig and wait for autumn. > There is actually now a narrow window to achieve > this work before nesting begins - a hold-up for > which I am sure ssw takes the bow. > > (2) 'Smaller trees' would be sapling growth. > > (3) - as edhistory notes. > > The fact that Southwark is 'moving swiftly' > reflects the narrow window they have now to > achieve what they want before nesting actually > does begin and (I suspect) the end of the budget > year. The sooner the ground is cleared and made > ready for burials, the sooner can the replanting > begin with as much of this 'growing year' left for > establishing the re-planting. > > Oh - and 'environmental crime'? - Come on. (1) Supposition (2) Not so. Have seen the smaller trees chopped down - none were saplings or could have been be classed as one in the last few years at least. (3) I suspect your statement about the budget period is probably true, but again supposition as the council will not reveal the financing around all this. Have you wondered why? Re environmental crime: if nesting birds or bat roosts are disturbed, whether occupied or not, then this would be literally true. There is little point in complaining about it afterwards. Besides that, the loss of precious woodland on One Tree hill is viewed very dimly by locally residents and this is confirmed by the council's own consultations. Some would see this as criminal and, morally, I agree.

Mostly correct Burbage except that most people who refer to One Tree Hill refer to a... hill. They generally do not make a distinction between the nature reserve and other parts as up to now no clear distinction has been relevant. The delineation is there as a fence but you need to trek through woodland to follow it. That may change and yes, up to now, only trees outside of the nature reserve have been felled and in the main that is where they will be felled under the current plans. Sorry, don't have a map to help visualise this.

I think you *are* being difficult. I could equally challenge you to show me a source for the name of a different hill which the New Cemetery also encompasses. The *primary source* I am supplying is first hand evidence which you can replicate if you felt inclined to. My suspicion is that you would prefer to be a keyboard warrior for the fun of it - sorry that is the impression you give. Bye.

Pay attention this time. If you go into Camberwell New Cemetery, walk up the *slope* to the glade, you will find yourself on a hill. Lo, it is the same hill that has St Augustine's on it. That is my source - it is easy to replicate and am inviting you to do so and compare answers. If you don't know a hill when you are standing on one then you need to check a different forum, e.g. one about primary school geography.

"This is called moving the goalposts." Indeed it is. You seem to be redefining a hill. I care not how you interpret a map (they typically name such features in a convenient space), local knowledge has the answer. I suggest you climb the hill, visit the glade, admire then view and then tell me which hill you are standing on (AKA Oak of Honor Hill).