HopOne

edhistory, I have tried to answer your question. These plans mostly impact Lewisham residents day to day. You can start the discussion with who owns the land but it doesn't end there, in fact this just muddies the waters as it means that Southwark Council are both the applicant and the planning authority. Let's move on and address the 2015 issues.

Thanks nxjen. I think it is also worth pointing out that St Augustine church has a parish that is mostly in Lewisham. One Tree Hill is the focal geographic point of Honor Oak which is mostly Lewisham too. Southwark just want to use part of it for a cemetery!

edhistory Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That's right, there are temporary occupants. > > I've never quite got the Lewisham Council > connection. > > John K This used to be part Lewisham and Southwark land. I think that the boundary line followed the old parish markers, one of which is still visible on the top of One Tree Hill. Both Southwark and Lewisham locals felt a strong connection with the area, as is evident when you read about the "agitation", and still do evidently. The land that was acquired by Southwark was not about foresight, they were short of burial space then too. Which leads back to the systemic issue here - when do you stop expanding burial space and make better use of the precious green space we all share and enjoy? We need carbon capture in urban London more than ever, this isn't about arbitrarily drawn borough boundaries.

"Isn't that the land acquired with foresight by Camberwell Vestry/Council for burial expansion?" That was over a century ago. Land use can, and does, change. In these cases, it has.

DaveR, I agree that multiple threads are not helpful. Other than that, will not "give it a rest" - isn't this the point of a forum? You are at liberty to disagree but I for one am not happy at the prospect of damage to local woodland on the much cherished One Tree Hill. I see no reason why the same burial strategy should not consume the Honor Oak Rec also - it is just not sustainable.

This is called the subset sum problem and will take a lot of number crunching. If you can break the problem down into a number of sums that are all positive or all negative then it will be much quicker to solve.

They probably see that as an advantage. Is that unusual?

Not a complete replacement I realise for a bank branch but you can pay in cheques at the Post Office.

When this was last a pub it was a Harvester. Of course it was crap. This doesn't stop it being a good pub under good management. I would say a great location with a big beer garden - could do very well indeed.

Only guessing but I imagine they will need to source extra buses and drivers.

It would probably cost about 2 car parking spaces to turn the 63 round on Brockley Rise with the P12 and 172.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A better question would have been why Southwark > don't build a number of properties itself on the > site. Had the same thought. They could probably have built 3 houses and sold a lease on one to pay for the build. Councils are struggling to make budgets balance and provide social housing yet they squander assets in this way. Is there something which prevents this from happening?

"On Halloween, my neighbour said some guy caught his own motorcycle on fire riding around Hilly Fields letting off fireworks" This guy?

Thanks Siduhe. I suspect that our positions on this are not as divergent as you may think and appreciate your response. There is nothing wrong with cemetery space and see no reason why we can't keep trees and burial space. I just think that we should re-use it. This is normal in most places but has been made difficult in this case due to mismanagement. Rather than correct this approach, Southwark Council's preference seems to be to continue in the same vein.

"Is it not better to clear the overgrown area and use it for burials rather than using more of Honor Oak Rec. This is surely the best option, as maybe when land for burials is full in the borough, an area of Peckham Rye Common could be next to be used as a cemetery and no one would be happy to see that happen." The root issue here is being missed I feel. Southwark Council have a history of adding new burial space as they need it. This, as a strategy, is clearly not sustainable in an inner London borough. What this boils down to is whether we should regard burial space as more important than quality of environment for the living. There is a balance to be struck but given that we are experiencing high pollution levels (above EU norms), chopping down mature trees (whether one regards them as part of a wood or not) in order to bury more people seems like an odd focus to many people. I realise that this is a nettle to grasp but Southwark have the opportunity to lead the way in this but are choosing not to. The end result will be these trees will be lost and then in 40 years time, so will more of the Honor Oak rec or Peckham Rye, who knows? Then we will suddenly realise that we have lost much of the green space we value now. It is not sustainable and it is right that the community should debate this.

John K, yes. Is there a problem?

dbboy, there is no need to shout. Let's pretend that no one mentioned Southwark Woods. Local people still value the green and wooded areas local to them and we are lucky that we have more than other areas of London - they create green corridors which enhance our environment via biodiversity and replenishing the atmosphere. They also have heaps of amenity value which of course can include remembrance and bereavement in the case of cemeteries. There are 2 local cemeteries which both have such amenity value and there is no need, in my view, for them to cease their function as cemeteries (for your info, CNC also includes a playground and playing fields). However, that does not mean to say that we should chop down trees by way of continuing the mistakes from the past. We only have a finite space in which to bury and I believe urban councils are watching how this develops with interest. There are other ways of dealing with this IMO but you are entitled to disagree. I, for one, am glad that SSW have taken up the issue and it seems that many people agree. If I am honest, I don't particularly like the "Southwark Woods" name either but I see that as cosmetic almost. A tag was needed to connect the two cemeteries, that is all.

We are talking below the line of sight in that picture. There are oaks that are clearly well more than 100 years old (2 arm spans of circumference). The woodland that existed on that hill before it was grazed (as in the picture), was part of the Great North wood. Am not sure if the trees are actually part of that or not, but either way it can be viewed as historic.

Not so. There are 2 cemeteries involved and there is some historic woodland on One Tree Hill that is under threat. Appropriate, proper action would be to reuse space that is already managed or to use space in a sustainable way. The council's preferred course is neither of these things.

"Burial grounds in London have always been re-used - this is being done in an entirely proper way" Sadly not true in this instance. If the burial space had been used in a proper way on these sites, then there would have been no need at all to chop down mature trees in order to make space for further burial. This mis-management is something that the Council have admitted and did so at the meeting they held to outline their plans. That they held this meeting at all was largely thanks to the SSW campaign. "Southwark Woods" is merely a campaign name to represent both old and new cemeteries. Keep the wooded parts and these will be enjoyed by the living and help mitigate pollution levels.

Some great mentions for rock, jazz and blues guitarists though I think Albert King should be in the mix too - he may only have had a few licks but they were all his own. The best blues guitarist from this country would be Peter Green IMO. Really though, for me there is only one: Django Reinhardt.

Results now online: http://honoroak.org.uk/2014/04/05/where-do-you-live/

While I understand that many readers in this forum will not feel affected by this, am principally reaching out to residents who live close to One Tree Hill. Crofton Park Ward have submitted a plan to Lewisham Council for a Neighbourhood Plan forum. This is based on an area which is the ward boundary: https://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/policy/LDF/Neighbourhood-plans/Documents/Crofton%20Park%20and%20Honor%20Oak%20Park%20Neighbourhood%20Area%20Map.pdf If you live outside this area you will be excluded, by the forum's proposed constitution, from contributing to the neighbourhood's plans. You may also wish to comment on whether the area defines a neighbourhood you are comfortable with. More details here: http://honoroak.org.uk/2014/02/13/when-a-forum-divides-a-community/ If you feel affected by this, or merely wish to have a say, then please do fill in this survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/CBMY5KS Will post results online for those interested. You can also email Lewisham Planning directly - their consultation finishes on the 20th March.

Spot on Michael_FH. We wouldn't have any tube lines at all if we just compared existing bus route running costs to capital cost of digging tunnels. The bus overcrowding is very strong evidence of demand for a better transport service.

if you have them hibernating in your house then they may well be Harlequins. These are an invasive species which, as the link above confirms, predate on the native population. Whether destroying them will help or not is debatable but I wouldn't personally take issue with them being hoovered. There is an excellent iRecord app which helps with identification and it was submitting a record which elicited this hibernation info in an email from one of the scientists conducting a census of ladybirds in the UK.