HopOne

To my knowledge, this green corridor has not been named before so am fine with that. This is probably due to the fact that it straddles the border between councils. Lewisham's "Forest Hill to New Cross Gate railway cutting" comes close but doesn't include Camberwell New Cemetery, Honor Oak Park or One Tree Hill for example.

The Honor Oak Nature Corridor may have been named recently but it is a real green chain of local importance and nothing new. See attached which is an excerpt from a sign on One Tree Hill, courtesy of Southwark Council. Not fake news, rather old news.

dbboy, I meant no offence and my attempt at parody was to make a light comparison between your post and mine. That you had the reaction you did will hopefully mean that you realise the effect runs both ways so why comment like that in the first place? Hope you see the wider point which is about debate not the nature of parody.

nxjen, This is precisely what I am referring to. The signal to noise ratio has been very poor because many have focused on individuals making statements rather then the bigger picture. I applaud penguin68 for starting this thread but the same pedantic accusations surface again and again and drown out any attempt at reasoned debate. My point is that I have realised that this seems to part of the culture on the site and diminishes its community value IMHO. It is a mob mentality that a few display and spoil it for everyone else. dbboy, I said "burial anti-tree", you said "tree anti-burial". It was perhaps a poor attempt at parody. Am not suggesting that anyone actually thinks along those lines, so how is that sort of language helpful? I was merely pointing out that you had made similar comments before and I see them as being divisive. Don't worry, you have good company and am happy to accept that you mean no harm by it. It is all about the culture on a site. The net effect, in my view, is that there was a well intentioned attempt at steering some intelligent discourse on this thread about issues that are important to a lot of people. It has largely failed to deliver and I believe that this is a shame. The posters, and I include myself in this, have a collective responsibility for that.

Totally agreed fruityloops. dbboy, that really is a rather typical divisive response from you. I used to think that it was the burial anti-tree mob that made this forum an unpleasant place to visit but I have come to realise that some who frequent here prefer the sport of goading to engaging with issues or, shock horror, actual debate. Shame in my view as there is much else that is positive.

The Geffrye is close to Hoxton station so jump on Overground from Peckham Rye or Honor Oak Park.

More background here: http://www.se23.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12324

Do Thameslink really have to have to apply to the DoT in order to run more trains? AFAICT, their agreement has minimum, not maximum, service obligations.

ETA: penguin68, I have provided you with evidence before (see posts passim, e.g. Woodland Trust, Species Ares relationship), whereas you do not seem to be doing so. It is true woodland that I am talking about and the constant references to just scrub is confusing the issue. These are not separable when you are talking about woodland, which we are. Please check the council habitat surveys should you wish to dispute that point. I agree with your comments re woodland management and, as mentioned before, I do not think that just letting nature take its course is a likely or preferable outcome. I do not think that is the SSW position either as they would accept that *some* management is required. That, in my view, is a side issue as it is the impact of the Council plans now being enacted that is more imperative. The reality is that there is a greater nett benefit from the contribution of local trees, and all their benefits, than in unsustainable burial practices for the minority. As the current council plans stand, they are not sustainable. After chopping down trees for burial, they will go after recreation ground too, as they have no long term plans in place. That is not a side issue, it is the nub of it. The woodland that connects with the One Tree Hill LNR *is* a locally special habitat. I would contend that any local native woodland is worth preserving anyway. All a question of ones priorities, but am glad we are discussing this at last.

There is a lounged thread for having a go at SSW. Please can we focus on the issues here? It is not constructive to harangue specific SSW members for answers. They have been more forthcoming when challenged than the council in my view. Blanche, I am still recovering from pneumonia myself. Please take it very easy as recurrence can occur otherwise as I can testify. Hope you improve soon. I agree with taper that there is a wider issue with burial which we need to grasp as a society. Certainly in urban areas it is not sustainable, as currently practised, long term. Have tried to make this point before and it has been drowned out by other noise. penguin68, you continue to say this: "And a managed cemetery allows for many different species of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather than a scrub mono-culture." I have refuted this multiple times as I think this is inaccurate. Preservation of native woodland, which includes scrub, is good for biodiversity. Care to discuss this time?

dbboy, rather than making such accusations, which only diminish the usefulness of this thread IMO, why not be specific? If you have a reasonable question to ask then go ahead.

Which is my point Sue. I do not think it is reasonable to castigate anyone for not responding to a particular point in a post amongst hundreds and conclude from this that anyone is being evasive.

This does assume that the 2007 act applies. Which in the case of Nunhead and Camberwell cemeteries it does not. Southwark Council have recognised this and say they plan to fix this. Will presumably require time from the Lords - until they get that how does this affect their plans? See Box 3.2, page 12, here gives a good summary (Technical Guidance on the Re-Use and Reclamation of Graves in London Local Authority Cemeteries): https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiU0ezz9abLAhUGVRQKHWxtAl4QFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&sig2=D6Ck0BiNBFq7X5QxkH0zyg&bvm=bv.115339255,d.ZWU *If I am reading this right* then the council cannot proceed in area Z without Faculty permission, and then only in a consecrated area and using available soil above existing graves. The public graves in this space in unconsecrated land cannot be reused. See appendix 3.2, section 9 (11)c for Camberwell cemeteries exclusion.

"Selective answering" - that is a bit rich, please can we call time on this. I find myself constantly answering the same questions yet never seem to get a response, just the same questions again. I think that a forum thread is probably not ideal for dealing with a complex issue such as this, especially when I suspect that no one person has all the answers. That is why it is important to keep replies on topic and constructive. It is good to see that some are doing this.

penguin68, "1. What is your evidence for 'most' abundant and bio diverse? In general any single environment (as scrub land is) will tend to have fewer species than a varied environment - the managed areas, as I have said (tediously) before included last year a hay meadow - there are many bulbs planted, there are more flowering plants than in the scrub area. Probably the average back garden, which often has a multiplicity of micro-environments has more species variety than many larger, single type areas." As I have tried to point out many times, this is incorrect. Different habitats support differing numbers of species and the larger the habitat, the more species it will support overall. This is known as the Species-Area relationship and is important when talking about contiguous areas of habitat. The habitat type that supports the most species in the UK on land is probably natural woodland. Plenty of sources but try this one, DEFRA Biodiversity 2020 report page 26: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69446/pb13583-biodiversity-strategy-2020-111111.pdf See also Woodland Trust site: http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/ Re your point 2 As also pointed out many times, it is true that practically no area in the UK is actual wilderness. If the intention was to re-wild then, in practice some management would be required so that people could enjoy it in a city context. Your other points need to refer back to my answer to point 1 above. Re name, Oak of Honor Wood would be geographically accurate but would cause a disconnect with the good people of East Dulwich don't you think? In any case, "Save Southwark Woods" is the name of the campaign - pure and simple. It is not inaccurate unless you try and treat it as a place name. Time to build a bridge on this one!

The only way to make a complaint that sticks is to make a refund application for delays or cancellations. Not enough people do this in my view.

Thank you for posting Renata. When you say: "There were consultation days at Camberwell Old Cemetery, Camberwell New Cemetery and at Tooley Street. The survey was also on the Southwark website and in Southwark life. I do remember that the local consultation events were well attended (I don't know about the Tooley Street one). local people were consulted!" this does seem to only recognise Southwark residents as being local. There must be just as many, if not more, Lewisham residents local to these cemeteries (you may not represent these but they are still local). I don't recall being invited to any of these events, however I did get wind of a consultation meeting held at the Honor Oak Baptist church hall. This was well attended too and there seemed to be almost total opposition to the plans presented. "Councillor Mills and I represented residents from Ryedale at the Cabinet meeting that discussed the plans." Was this the same meeting that received a petition against the plans but ignored it? "It is a situation where we can't make everyone happy. The works at area Z have been reduced in size to protect more trees. There is the issue at this site that we don't know what exactly was dumped in the many truckloads of rubble that were deposited here. This site would have needed to be sorted out anyway (hence why it has been condoned off for years). The sampling trees are growing with their roots in dumped waste and have a limited lifespan." I find this curious as these are only issues if it assumed the land is re-used as burial space. "The council is not being mysterious about not giving exact costings for sorting out this site. Until we know what is there (eg how much asbestos etc) the clean up cost can't be determined!" There must still be a budget for the project with cost estimates. That this isn't this being made available is mysterious. "I do believe the cemeteries can be managed to be functional cemeteries and havens for nature too." I happen to agree with this. What a shame that there does not seem to have been a consultation on how this could be achieved - I believe that this could have been a game changer with the right stakeholders. The focus would seem to be rather more about burial even though most people do not want this and the council is under no obligation to provide in-borough.

Penguin68, sorry, not helpful. There are two cemeteries where woodland is threatened - at Camberwell Old Cemetery, it is being cleared now, probably without faculty permission from the church. While it is not inconceivable to reach a compromise, the Council have not been minded to do so and so it is churlish to single out the Save Southwark Woods campaign for not wanting to either. The council's consultation found only 22% in favour of burial (yet thousands have signed a petition objecting to the council's plans). They have no obligation to provide this within the borough. Am not in the slightest concerned with anyone's performing career, or the relevance of it, and surprised to see you mention this on this thread - there is a lounged thread for this. No one has a monopoly on truth and it is surely the point of this thread to tease it out - what has been said on this thread that is not true?

Not all environments have the same biodiversity value. Natural woodland, which in this case includes scrub too, is very rich in this regard. We should be preserving what woodland we have, it is a precious resource.

dbboy, do you think that Nunhead cemetery looks disgraceful? Or even disrespectful? I think the old graves being gradually absorbed by nature is rather distinguished. The reference to "sterile car park like cemeteries" is apt, not just aesthetically, but because such environments have very little biodiversity. "Untidy" scrub beats that hands down in this respect.

Sue, this is where: "Here we go again. Didn't take long, did it? Anybody who disagrees with this group's views must have some vested interest. " Please don't start this again - we are attempting a rational discussion and there is no need to take sides. Yes, you are right it is not a black and white issue so please take some of your own medicine, by jumping on posts like this it is just inflammatory. There is nothing wrong with what the SSW campaign are doing, and as I thought I had made clear before, I am thankful to them for putting the issue in the public domain. I have only marginal disagreements with their proposals but utterly reject what Southwark council are trying to do.

And Sue, while we are at it, perhaps you could consider that just because someone says something you disagree with, does not mean that they are part of any group!

penguin68, am not sure why you would make such assertions when clearly not armed with the facts. There have been flooding incidents as we can testify. Anything that retains water, even briefly in a pool, when there is a large downpour is helpful. You are correct to mention the clay soils though. Probably not the best soil type for cemeteries on hillsides for this reason.

"it will start to look good (if different from before) again. " Not very likely to look as it did though. "I do think that the council needs to consider drainage more clearly - with the work being undertaken it would be a good opportunity to put in field drains - but references to tree planting being used for 'flood defense' of course refers to uplands where water is feeding into main waterways - which led, e.g to the floods in York and Carlisle - and is not relevant to the situation here." Sorry, this does not make sense. Just because flooding in other parts of the country caused by rivers breaking their banks could have been mitigated with upland trees, does not mean that flooding due to water run-off couldn't be mitigated the same way. It is very relevant - your reference to scrub retaining water actually reinforces this view.

Which they do not. To penguin68, not sure how many but the habitat surveys refer to woodland rich with oaks. From a fauna diversity point of view, including the Stags, it is the gnarled old oaks that are best of all. I would not dispute that some management is required, that is normal, but scrub will grow into mature trees and you get the best of all worlds - biodiversity, air quality and carbon storage & capture as well as flood defence.