HopOne

DaveR, Re species loss, there is a wealth of evidence for this. It is the guiding mathematical principle of biogeography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species-area_curve It is true that no one can predict which, or how many species, could be affected in this instance. I have an otherwise high regard for the work of FrOTH but am not going to sugar coat what I believe to be a flawed assessment - they admit themselves that they are *not* considering the overall habitat impact. At the very least this warrants an independent study. No dressing or fanaticism in this - just science. Please explain how you think I have misrepresented anything.

[edit: to Penguin68 re trees and species] You are correct in that only the trees on One Tree Hill, that also happen to be in Camberwell New Cemetery, are to be cleared. Unlikely as it may seem, these do include mature trees as described. It is indeed a very costly exercise that is coming out of capital expenditure. Re species: there are some interesting ones actually, e.g. the blotched emerald moth, originally known as the Maid of Honor as it was first named from a sighting in Oak of Honor wood (Donovan 1797): http://www.ukmoths.org.uk/species/comibaena-bajularia/ Note that this lives in woodland and feeds on oak. And this is the point: native woodland including oaks support a wide range of species. However, the number of species an area can support is proportional to the habitat area (Species Area relationship). Ergo, significant loss of habitat will cause species loss. Do you think that is important?

No, you haven't. I have been in touch with FrOTH about this - basically they are only concerned with their patch of One Tree Hill (which is only the delineated nature reserve part of it) and sadly, have used the Council's environmental assessment to guide their own thinking. A bit of a shot in the foot in my view, and many others I have spoken to about this (not associated with Save Southwark Woods BTW).

Ok Sue, no worries. I am finding some of the "wood choppers" to be using emotive language too but I would rather cut through this and discuss the issues. Penguin68, you seem to have an unusual definition of a wood. It is 'a place where trees have happened to self seed' - exactly that, only more expansive than found at the bottom of most people's gardens! On One Tree Hill some of the woods are very mature, especially on the south and east sides. Whether they are ancient or not am not sure, but they have been there since at least mid 19th century (see Nisbet) so are no less woods than those at Sydenham Hill in my view. Whether one classes these as woods or not, it is true that the environment there supports many interesting species. Can we agree on this point?

So, Penguin68, as I understand it you do not believe that there are woods on One Tree Hill?

What a strange response, am not being emotive at all, in fact trying to bring some rigour into this. Why do you think I haven't asked the council? Sadly, the only point at which I have been able to discuss this with a council representative was at a public meeting as am a Lewisham resident. Their stance has changed since then but still leaves questions unanswered. I was hoping to establish a simple fact which some on here would seem to deny - there are woods on One Tree Hill. It is not unreasonable to want to try and save them. Hope your gig goes well.

Yes, I had taken that to be St Augustines and the old Honor Oak golf club house to the left. Happy to be corrected on that.

But it is also evident that many people share at least some of the concerns raised by Save Southwark Woods. So, in the interest of having intelligent debate, rather than "I'm right, you are wrong", fancy telling me what your view point has to say about my last post?

Funny that, am having the same feeling about your viewpoint Sue! Let's try and make this simple - there are woods on One Tree Hill, some of which also happen to be in Camberwell New Cemetery. This is a fact and is easily verifiable - just go and have a look. The part I don't get is, given that the Council have now decided they can now reuse the existing graves after all, why do they need yet more space for new burials? There are plenty of plots more than 75 years old already which can be reused now.

Thanks for posting mikeb. That first photo is great as it shows the sheep grazing and also backs up Nisbet when he says that the South and East sides were wooded at the end of the 19th century.

Sorry that should have read page 22 of appendix 3.1 or just search for Camberwell.

I seem to recall Des Waters saying that this did not apply to Southwark. Now they could get this applied and lobbying Lords to do so would seem to me to be a better use of resources than planning to dig more graves ad infinitum. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjmuNaO5qHKAhUK1xQKHVJNCBEQFgg0MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&sig2=htzRGonUyj4sLX2BHTAHFw&bvm=bv.111396085,d.d24 See page 22, section 11c

Already noted. Am not sure why this invalidates the methodology for a London report. I did not say it was specific to this area but the conclusions are still pertinent in my view.

Dbboy, if this is in response to me then I Have suggested no such thing. Fancy answering my question?

It is only the same thing as some people only want to talk about the same things. There are many important issues here - some people might want to have a say. Why not just ignore if you have nothing new to add?

oh it is hard to have a discussion round here for the tree choppers! Edhistory, yes it was statistical. Problem?

dbboy, how about clarifying what you *have* said. Are you in favour of clearing part of the woodland to make space for graves on One Tree Hill? Check where this is if you are not sure. Note that only able bodied people will be able to visit there anyway due to steep access.

dbboy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One Tree Hill and Camberwell New Cemetery are > separeated by One Tree Hill allotments, Sorry, this is plain wrong. Parts of CNC are on One Tree Hill and this is where the wooded area that is threatended is located.

Great idea PeckhamRose. Do be aware that your body will get buried at some point anyway. I think by default it is normally cremated first.

Sorry dbboy, am confused by your position on this now. You say there is woodland on One Tree Hill, yet part of that is, for now at least, in Camberwell New Cemetery. You support the reuse of graves but would rather cut down part of that woodland than do so. What happens when all that space is used up too? Whether you include Nunhead or not (non-starter in my view), the same principle applies to all the Council burial space - as it stands, unless graves are reused (or burial elsewhere), they will run out of it. Where is the burial strategy? Yes, I have been known to hug a tree but am also trying to apply some calm rationale to this. Am sure "tree choppers" can play along too ;-).

Reusing grave space is very old practice indeed. In fact, I think this is what I would rather Southwark Council did than digging up mature trees! I would be in favour of an ossuary - it seems bizarre to me that anyone would expect to be interred for perpetuity in an inner city area.

There won't be an application necessarily as there is no change of use. A fish and chips shop isn't classed as sui generis, sadly.

It is true that there were sheep grazing on the hill, at least some of it - if I find a link for this will post it. It is not completely out there as most the local land was agricultural just 200 years ago. That is plenty of time for mature trees to grow, whether you believe any of it is ancient or not. Better view of fireworks from Blythe Hill IMO.

This is a shame. We used to use this every couple of weeks. It was certainly very busy at times but maybe not busy enough at others. Their fish was nearly always excellent. Chips were not so consistent but once we discovered we could ask for them to be double cooked then pretty good after that. There are really not many comparable local alternatives: Olleys & Brockley Rock are the only ones I know of.

That is the disappointing response from the Friends of One Tree Hill (Local Nature Reserve) who seem, AFAICT, to have based their ecological assessment on Southwark's own submissions. They make a valid point about Holm Oak but ignore the effect on the local environment or even the Hill itself. Have you seen the London iTree eco report? Very relevant I think especially when you consider flood water runoff and carbon sequestration. http://www.forestry.gov.uk/london-itree