panda boy

Hi Penguin, I missed you starting this new thread. Thank you doing so. I will be moving onto this thread to discuss this subject, probably starting with the promised impending reply from Southwark council. Hope to see you all over there.

Hi Loz, > people are correct in that this thread is keeping a rather dead topic (badum-tish) breathing. I utterly disagree. Why do you say 'dead topic'? This is very far from being a dead topic. This is happening right now. The council are still awaiting Church permissions for their plans. I am awaiting answers to what I think are reasonable questions. Mystified as to why you would label this as a 'dead topic'. Much as i've tried to stick to the original point of the thread and have raised several points, (some of which others have agreed with,) i've been met with mostly silence on here on some of the other points, so far, not trying to be impatient. Just keen to hear from people who are expressing an opinion on this, but not engaging on some of the details. nzjen > and the way Twitter is being used by the banned member has been a very clever tactic in keeping this thread alive. I'm not on twitter, so it has zero influence on keeping this thread alive for me. I'm trying to keep it alive on the basis of the original point, Southwarks cemetery plans and their conduct in implementing them. Fancy having a chat about that?

Thanks Newton. Your post really helps things along. I'm here to discuss Southwarks cemetery plans, and think i've been fairly consistent in my posts. What is it that I have said that has you so upset? Do you have actually have anything meaningful to add to the debate or do you just want to randomly (and somewhat ironically) have a go at me for the actions of someone else?

Thanks for the link BrandNewGuy. > There's a reference here to repesentatives of the council meeting with LWT about the council's plans a year ago: I was at this exact meeting. I'm not sure if it qualifies as the plans "being designed in conjunction with LWT" though. > And the LWT is involved in many planning matters in Southwark, but in an advisory capacity only. If the council feel > as though it's acting with the planning laws and regulations, there's not much the LWT can do. But I think it's > valuable that they're there putting the case for wildlife. I completely agree. Like I said, i'm just asking for some more detail behind this. > Why would they not be? I would hope so. I'm not trying to make any suggestions or insinuations about this. I'm just trying to add some flesh to the bone of this phrase; "have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust"

Hi Sue, > When you say they "personally wrote", how many of > these 800 just sent off one of the glossy > postcards produced by SSW which were already > addressed and were all identical save for the > space for the person's name and address? As far as i'm aware the Church only accepts letters from individuals, i'm not sure a 'glossy postcard' would qualify. I will of course check, but i've stated to the best of my understanding. So to answer your question, I don't know. Do you? Even if they were 800 pre-prepared postcards sent in, does this somehow diminish this as measure of public opinion? > I hear your frustration with what you perceive as > the council's lack of response to your queries, > however I can also understand someone who already > has a very demanding and time-consuming job not > finding the time to reply to queries from members > of the public on top of everything else they are > doing, particularly if as they say they are > "acting in accordance with all agreements and > laws". As i've already explained, I have tried for over 2 years to find answers to what I believe to be reasonable questions. I have not been impatient and don't believe I am being impatient. The point I was trying to make is that they are very quick to respond with either generic 'cut and paste' replies which do not adequately address the questions asked. Or in this latest example i've provided, very quick to respond with what I see as empty PR statements and once again failing to answer direct questions, or even acknowledge the questions. The four points I am trying to focus on are; Flooding Public opinion Costs Timescale (I omitted this from my original post, but i'm still keen to know why these pans have been moved forward by 6 years and are being pushed through at some pace.) Are these reasonable things to expect answers to, or do you think I am being unreasonable by asking? Even if we just look at the cost angle alone, why are we not allowed to know how much this is costing us? In spite of repeatedly asking them over a period of 18 months isn't it fair to say they are now refusing to answer? Being 'busy' for so long is not an acceptable reason. EDIT - To be fair I have just received a holding email to say they have received my questions and they aim to respond in more detail in the next few days. So, while I still feel the same way about the last 2 years of communication, I am holding my judgement, for the next few days at least. > I can't think that they would say that their > plans "have been designed in conjunction with > London Wildlife Trust" if they haven't, as that > would be a really easy thing to check out. The > fact that nothing to that effect is on their or > the London Wildlife Trust's website I don't find > odd, as why would it be? I find it odd because I am a member of the London Wildlife Trust and it is the first I have heard about it. It is also the first time Southwark have mentioned them, and indeed in the context of the plans being designed in conjunction with them. As for being a 'really easy' thing to check, I have, and (as I originally said) have found nothing on the Southwark or LWT websites to support this. This is why i'm asking for more information to back up this statement. That's fair enough isn't it? I am clearly more suspicious about Southwark than you are and am doing my best to explain why, given my personal experience with them over the last few years. Why are you so trusting of them in the context of the examples I have given? > ETA: Lewis Schaffer has responded to this post on Twitter, again giving my full name and linking it to the Goose. > This is childish and tedious. > ETA: And no you won't stop me posting on here, regardless of your bullying tactics. I am sorry you're going through what you are going through on twitter. Once again I am not SSW or Lewis Schaffer, and do not speak for them or represent them. UPDATE 17:15: In the interests of fairness and accuracy, I have just received a personal reply from a representative of Southwark council acknowledging my questions and saying they will get back to me soon. Which is appreciated.

In the interests of keeping this thread focussed on the original issue, I'd like to share my ongoing frustration with the councils wall of silence over this. (nb, using the phrase 'wall of silence' to describe the communication skills of Southwark Councils representatives and not meant as an emotive phrase.) Without dragging up over 2 years of 'communications' with them, on 8th Feb I asked some simple questions; (I am paraphrasing the questions here in an effort to keep things concise.) - PERMISSIONS AND PREPARATORY WORK I stated that I believed that the 'preparatory' work they were currently undertaking over reached their remit and, considering the recent letters from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith, shouldn't they halt work until they can provide the answers and details that many have been calling for. Also, their preparatory work details the removal of 10 trees, with no detail of which 10 trees these were to be. Can they point me to the document that details this. - FLOODING RISK I asked if they can provide risk assessments or links to any studies concerning the potential for increased flooding that could result from their plans. - COSTINGS Can they please provide information on costings that are more current than the estimates form 2011/12. These estimates are now out of date considering the timescale and changes to the proposals and plans. I believe we are entitled to know how our public money is being spent. - PUBLIC OPPOSITION Can Southwark explain how they have dealt with the amount of public opposition to these plans. I know this has been discussed already, and some have tried to dismiss the numbers, but over 3,500 local people and over 10,000 signed against these plans. Over 800 people personally wrote in to the Church to oppose these plans. This is a significant amount of public opinion, yet, in my view, Southwark have ignored them and decided to continue regardless. I received a response the next day on 9th Feb, so full marks for actually responding. Unfortunately the response simply stated that the Council were acting in accordance with all agreements and laws, and in fact their plans 'have been designed in conjunction with London Wildlife Trust.' This was particularly interesting as I can find nothing to back this up on either Southwarks or The London Wildlife Trusts website. They also included a link to their website, how useful. I challenge anyone to defend this as an appropriate response. I have emailed back asking if my questions could please be answered, and for some more information on the London Wildlife Trusts involvement in the design of these plans. I am still awaiting a response. This is just one example of how frustrating communicating with the council has been, and I feel they are falling way below the standards we should expect. I personally don't accept that whatever SSW have said or done should allow the council to close down the debate from all sides. In fact I find that notion paints the Council in an even worse light than before. It is also worth mentioning that I have been trying to engage the council for more than 2 years over this issue, before SSW were formed, and the councils attitude and conduct has been consistently unacceptable.

> Yes and let's not forget that ad hominem arguments, of which there have been countless on this thread, are unpleasant > in any discourse. To continue doing this, when an individual is banned so cannot defend themselves, is just not > cricket is it? No, Lewis should not have outed anyone on Twitter. But Sue, you could also engage with the subject or > leave it alone. To do neither is trolling IMO. > BTW, I have not and will not lie on this thread. I find the constant accusations of lies against anyone wanting to > preserve mature trees to be objectionable frankly. The SSW campaign have raised many important issues that should be > debated in a mature manner. Am beginning to wonder whether that is possible on this forum. Well said HopOne. Thank you.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > my understanding is that it is Church land and > requires permission to work on > > No, it is not, and never has been 'church land' - > the two cemeteries were purchased initially by the > municipality and are publicly owned. The Church's > (statutory) interest lies in the consecrated areas > only, and for those they have to give a Faculty > only for 'substantial alteration' (which includes > the movement of bodies or grave furniture or the > creation of new paths and roads through the > consecrated areas). Ok, I will look into this more. Thanks for providing this info. > I believe the Diocese may have been giving misleading information (possibly based on the questions it was asked) In the interests of fairness and accuracy, the Diocese are responding to objections (of which there are many) to the planning permission submitted by Southwark. I'm not sure how any 'misleading information' can come into this process. Unless it's from Southwark council?

> Primarily because scrub growth is growing through > and in the contaminated area; if you leave the > trees you leave that part of the contamination > they are growing in - and practically clearing the > whole space makes removing the contaminated soil > simply that much easier (and cheaper). I get your point. As far as i'm aware the majority of the contaminated ground can be identified by the large mound in area Z. I would welcome council efforts to clean up this area. Their plans to remove trees not in this contaminated area raises questions, one's i'd like answered. How can you claim that this approach is cheaper though? How can you when the costs for this project have not been updated or released? At one point the council stated this affected soil would be treated on site. Then they stated it would be removed and cleaned off site. Do you know the difference in cost between these two treatments to be able to claim the current plan is the cheapest? The comprehensive soil survey also identified certain areas that were more affected than others. There are different concentrations of contaminates in relatively small patches. After all this time, I simply do not believe (based on the information and data the council have made available) that clearing the entire area as they propose is the most effective approach. > Of course > scrub trees are also being cleared in areas which > are not contaminated - different argument there, > although I support the clearance as part of (re) > creating an orderly cemetery. Indeed, this is a part of the argument / discussion i'm trying to have. 'Scrub tree's' is an interesting way of describing them. It's a phrase often used to describe ground cover and specifically small trees that have grown in an inhospitable area. I'm not sure describing the mature trees in area Z as being 'scrub trees' is entirely accurate. Either way, i'd love to hear from someone how clearing existing mature trees and replacing them with fewer younger trees is; a - a wise use of public money. b - will not have an impact on groundwater flooding and possibly increase the risk.

Loz Wrote: > I think that the current work is on unconsecrated > ground, which does not require Faculty. See the > map I posted a few pages ago. I disagree. Consecrated or unconsecrated, my understanding is that it is Church land and requires permission to work on. I will look into this further though. > AFAIK it was a 'council officer', not a > 'councillor'. Fair point, my mistake. I also believe it was a council officer and not an elected councillor.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The land contamination (a direct consequence of > the sort of neglect of the area which was the > initial end-game and intent of the ssw campaign > for the whole area) is a real problem - sadly, and > whatever one feels about the scrub tree growth in > this area - the only solution if the contamination > is to be cleared is to strip the land to get at > the contaminated soil - this cannot be done > 'around' existing tree growth save perhaps for the > very largest trees which well pre-date the > contamination. Such work may well, and initially, > alter the drainage in the area, and recovery work > must then remedy any issues. Indeed, although i'm not sure why the ground cleaning can not be done without removing trees? I didn't see any mention of this in the soil survey or documentation, or recommendations. Can you say where you got this info from please? > > Once the existing trees are gone, the Southwark > plan is for re-planting and this will go a > significant way towards encouraging natural water > take-up I'm still not convinced that removing established mature trees and re-planting with fewer yes mature trees will do anything to improve drainage? And if so, why haven't Southwark made this case in their defence? (the existing deciduous trees do not of > course have much impact on this in winter months > anyway, when most surface water appears) - it will > be a good idea to plant thirsty trees appropriate > for the local climate, even where these are not > natives. Silver Birch is shallow rooted and > thirsty, although these will suffer in drought > conditions. The problem of putting in deep > drainage is of course disturbing underlying > burials, but field drains may be of use here, > picking up water to be fed directly into Thames > Water drains. All well and good. None of these points have been made by the council however. There is also the small matter of the London clay underlying the area. Either way, the fact remains the council have not produced enough information about the effects of these works, and the effect they would have on water drainage and possible flooding. > Clearly there will be drainage problems, but these > can be addressed, and addressed effectively. Water > management is one of man's oldest technical > skills. Couldn't agree more. If only these skills could have been brought to bear on the landscaped area of COC that floods, and they could have maybe mentioned their ideas on drainage in their current plans. > By all means identify those things which need to > be done and chase them, but making the assumption > that the council is de nature made up of > incompetents and liars seems somewhat unjust. To > push them into corners, insult and impugn them > however may not be the best way of getting the > best out of them. Fair point ad agreed. I am not intending to tar all of Southwark council with the same brush. I do however stand by my claim that particular members of the council have lied to me, and by implication of their actions, there is a strong suggestion of incompetence. I'm not here to slag them off though, I was using words which I thought accurately described their actions. They may not be very nice words, but that doesn't make them any less true. I have pointed out, and in some detail examples of what I have personally experienced and where these public servants have fallen short of their obligations. It's simply not good enough.

> Good on you and I salute you for your continued perseverance. Thank you dbboy. I appreciate your replies and suggestions, but the root cause of my current frustrations and lack of faith with the council was the fact they constantly have not replied to me. It all started well enough when they announced these plans a few years ago. They then went silent and continue to be so. I wish I had the time and funds to take them to court over this. At the very least it would highlight their conduct. Whether or not I would be successful is almost an aside, I would like them to account for themselves a little better than they have done so far. In terms of trying to communicate directly with the relevant council officials, it appears they are simply not interested or willing to do so.

Hi Penguin68 > I am not sure what is meant here - I'm referring to the potential for increased flooding from area Z in COC after the removal of existing trees (an excellent flood defence) and replacing them with fewer trees. Ignoring the obvious waste of money this implies, the council have not provided information about the effects this would have on heavy ground water running down from area Z should the work be allowed to be completed. There is a very interesting and comprehensive soil survey done 2011/12 (would have to dig it up to provide the correct date) that highlighted the London clay beneath the top layers of soil, and the fact that clay doesn't absorb water. I'm not sure any amount of added topsoil or treatment would make up for what the existing trees already provide. The soil survey also highlighted some existing and particularly nasty contaminates still remaining in area z after the illegal dumping. Southwark have said this soil would be cleaned (first on site, then off site, now who knows?) and re-used. Then again they have said a lot of stuff, some true and some not so i'm not hanging my hat on this one. Either way, Southwark have not provided required up to date information on the potential for an increased flood risk due to their works, thus failing to show adequate protection and care to local residents. I think they should stop work immediately until they do some more homework. I would be concerned if I lived on Ryedale. And then there's the mystery costings...

dbboy, thank you for your response. I did ask. > Zac has accepted what ssw have told him without clearly knowing all the full facts, Fair enough, that's your opinion. Regardless he is an MP who has called on Southwark to stop working and I welcome his intervention. From Harriet Harman, this is paraphrased but no less accurate; Ms Harman says: ?it would be wise to await any further report, including report from an independent expert before clearing any further trees or shrubs.? The MP says the work on clearing trees should not have happened before the completion of a full drainage report on the site. She also questions whether the council has full planning permission for the tree felling ? saying the application did not make clear exactly how many trees were to be felled. > Regrettably the only way to hold up the works is an injunction, nothing else is going to stop the council doing what needs to be done. Regrettable indeed. I still find it unacceptable that after being ignored and lied to (not meant as a contradiction) over 2 years that my only recourse is a step I cannot afford. This wouldn't be the last resort it is if Southwark had acted more honestly in the past. > The Council are not engaging probably because they got tired of the tirade received from ssw. Again, unacceptable. I am not part of SSW, so for the council to refuse to engage with me is childish in the extreme. I have asked some pretty simple and straightforward questions. The fact they are ignoring them in once again utterly unacceptable. > Having looked through the report as I have said before, I believe the report was well researched and it provided the conclusions that need to be implemented. As have I, and I was broadly satisfied in 2011/12 when they were conducted. They raised some interesting points that suggested further studies were needed before any work could be considered. Although with the current drainage question hanging over this, for you to claim 'well researched' is a bit of a mystery. The same goes for the costings. I'll have to repeat what I just put to Loz, but; Also, the very fact they are refusing to to release details of current costs should raise suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed (implying incompetence) or they have and are refusing to divulge this information. I'm not satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were estimates and do not wholly reflect the current plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is this going to cost? I know for sure it will be comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots in COC will be among the most expensive in London. What an accolade for East Dulwich. > I accept your concerns however the council have undertaken a comprehensive study and are implementing what needs to be done. Well quite frankly the exact opposite is true. There are unanswered questions Southwark are refusing to answer, and I disagree with them doing 'what needs to be done'. It doesn't need to be done. 3 points; Budget - why are we not allowed to know how much this is costings us? It is our money after all? 2011/12 estimates are not satisfactory, nor would they be in any other walk of life. Church Permission - Still not been granted by the Church of England, yet the council have started 'preparatory work' which has included felling trees and rather large scale digging. They didn't put the number of trees to be felled at this stage in their planing application, so yet another example of their sly tactics. Also, why are they in such a rush? After all these plans were originally penned for 2022, with zero explanation as to why they have been brought so far forward. Potential flooding - Well you know about this one so I won't labour the point. I completely accept some people are in favour of these plans and I cast no judgement on them for their opinions, although to be honest i've met more on this forum than in real life who are against. I am interested to know why they don't question the councils conduct more and why they are so trusting of Southwark when there are quite a few examples of their unacceptable conduct in this. Are people really not that bothered that our elected officials, using our money appear to be acting with impunity and no public accountability? Especially considering the criminal actions of a previous councillor which caused the contamination and helped result in the situation in COC in the first place. I'm not.

> But I also think the council is going to press on > with the cemetery works and any wider issues (i.e. > costs, etc) will land on deaf ears. Yes indeed Loz. This is part of my abject disgust with Southwark and they way they have presented and are forcing through these plans. I asked them some time ago now if they could provide me with their terms of reference in dealing with public opposition against planning permission. For example Bath county council have framework terms and conditions they adhere to to account for public reaction. It's an important document as it's gives the public some confidence that their voice will be heard. Southwark have no such mechanism. This basically means they can act with impunity (as they are doing) and it would need a court injunction to challenge them. I personally don't have the time or the funds to take this option up, and the fact this is the only option open after they have ignored each and every opposition to these plans I find depressing. Especially considering their own admission that they are trying to rebuild confidence with the local community (their words) after the criminal actions of a councillor in the past. Funny way of doing this. I expect more than empty PR and meaningless words from people who we pay to represent us and our best interests. Also, the very fact they are refusing to to release details of current costs should raise suspicions. Either they haven't re-costed (implying incompetence) or they have and are refusing to divulge this information. I'm not satisfied with the 2011/12 costings as they were estimates and do not wholly reflect the current plans. It's a pretty simple question, how much is this going to cost? I know for sure it will be comparatively expensive as the proposed new plots in COC will be among the most expensive in London. What an accolade for East Dulwich. Whether people are for or against the plans, we should surely all expect the council to act with a little more transparency, honesty and duty of care to it's residents concerning the potential flooding issue, and at the very least stop work immediately until they can fulfil these criteria.

So, any chance we can all move on from the people vs SSW / LS and actually focus on the real issues around this? Sue, dbboy and Loz, i've asked you all specific questions about your feelings on some of the facts (as I see them) have presented to you. I'm not being impatient, but i'd be keen to hear a response at some point?

dbboy, Once again, i'm personally unaware of SSWs tweets. I do not and cannot speak for them. From my point of view, being a concerned independent resident I welcome the intervention from Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith calling for the council to stop work immediately until they answer important questions they are ignoring. And I simply don't agree with you the and injunction is the only way forward. Sure it is an option, a last resort when both sides reach and impasse. My feelings on the council should be pretty clear by now, but if you believe an injunction is the only way forward at this stage doesn't it suggest that council have failed in their duty of care to their residents? I'm baffled that you're satisfied with their conduct. Southwark cannot claim to have been open and honest in this process, they have withheld important public information, and they have failed to deliver on a number of valid points raised to them. > what was mis managed Absolutely it was mis-managed, and desecrated by a corrupt council official. What give you the confidence that these plans aren't being similarly mis-managed? The previous recent works in COC were not particularly successful and led to flooding over graves, leading to more works to remedy this, all costing valuable public funds. Based on their previous track record, and the way they have conducted themselves I have zero confidence in their honesty or competence, and I'm not sure we can afford much more of Southwarks competence in implementing their 'cemetery strategy' until they come clean on these plans.

Sue, Vary rare, as in unusual, uncommon. I'm happy to remove the use of the phrase 'very rare' and replace it with unusual or uncommon if that helps? I suppose I feel the area is very rare due to it's particular nature and the fact it has been left untouched for such a long period of time. We can each call it what we like, what we can't really dispute is the haven for nature it provides. Just looking at the bird life there, for such a small area it provides habitat for a wide range of species. I believe this to be a rarity in London and something worth preserving. I feel the plans to remove existing trees and plant fewer news ones is bordering on insanity and a massive waste of money. Yes indeed, there are other wild local areas. We are fortunate to have such natural beauty so close to us. I'm afraid that this provides zero justification for the plans in COC though. How about the other points raised? The strength of public opinion against this being ignored by the council? The potential for increased flooding risk that is being ignored by the council? The costs? Who knows what they are now? The way the council have conducted themselves so far? But there is some hope it appears. Harriet Harman and Zac Goldsmith are now publicly demanding the work to be stopped until more answers have been provided by the council and further independent studies made. Good.

> Actually, the flooding was worst around the > Langton Rise boundary, until the work was carried > out to raise the ground levels there, since when > that part hasn't flooded. Out of interest Penguin68, do you know when this work was completed? I believe there was substantial flooding in Feb 2015. I'm not aware of this part of the cemetery being 'fixed', but I could be wrong, that why i'm asking. > It has been a very wet > winter, and much of the underlying ground is clay, > so I was not surprised to see some pooling. It has been a very wet winter for the UK as a whole, but records suggest London has not been particularly wet at all compared to previous seasons or years. > However I noted that a couple or more of dry days > allowed a lot of water to dissipate - and I never > saw any flowing towards Forest Hill Road Again, water from the cemetery has previously run onto Forest Hill Road. What time period are you referring to? > from the tap in the middle of the cemetery which > is often not properly turned off by users drawing > water for flowers - and that never got very far). > It is likely that the proposed mounding, if it > goes ahead, will address more of this problem. Something being 'likely' is encouraging, but is not the kind of assurance that is required for an area that has had flooding issues in the past. > A case could be made for vegetation being good at > taking up water - so the planned tree replanting > is important. Hmmm, so we agree that trees and vegetation are a very effective way of combatting flooding. In an area that already has a good amount of trees, what kind of money wasting sense does it make to cut down existing trees and plant fewer ones, thereby reducing the existing effectiveness, to replace them? That seems, apart from being expensive, just a little bit insane. > As I have said, focusing on doing > the job properly, rather than on not doing it at > all, would have been a far better use of the > vigour of the protesters. Well quite. Although to be fair the council have not once lived up to their promises of listening to concerns, alternatives or compromises. They are and seems always have intended to push these plans through regardless. When faced with such a wall of silence and disingenuousness, from councillors who are supposed to represent and serve us, and on the back of past corruption and mistrust, I can understand their frustration. One pertinent point is the cost of this project, and the proposed revenue generated. The last costing i'm aware of was put at ?30m. In the case of area Z, the costs of a burial plot was projected at being over ?1,200, making them some of the most expensive in London. That was when they wanted to squeeze over 1,000 graves in. Now they are proposing 700 graves, the price goes up. These costings are now 4/5 years old. I'd be quite keen to know what the current costs are. I'm not trusting of public servants with public funds being spent effectively, especially on a project like this that has included subterfuge and unanswered questions. Personally i'd rather be part of a community than can boast the benefits of a small wild area in metropolitan London (very rare and something I think we should be proud of) rather than earning an accolade for being one of the most expensive places in London to be buried in.

> I also wonder why the Councillors have remained so > silent on this matter - maybe those concerned > about losing the trees and flooding need to direct > their concerns in their direction. (now that is a > major concern and it is not just the water that > can be seen, but the water table as well) and I do > hope the Council have suitable plans in place to > mitigate any risk of flooding (Ask those in Herne > Hill who got flooded a couple of years ago how > devastating it is) Yes dbboy, the flooding issue, and ongoing silence from the council alone should ring alarm bells. As i've pointed out to Loz, the landscaped area in COC gets flooded in heavy rains. It appears from this example alone that flooding is not one of the councils priorities. I would be concerned if I lived on Ryedale.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they have. Over on their FAQ page they have > stated: "Burial space in Southwark will run out > sometime in early to mid-2017 if the council takes > no action." This is exactly my point. The date has changed and been brought forward from the original date of 2022 with no explanation as to why. The change just happened in the documentation with no context or reason. The council quite rightly got a bloody nose after trying to turn Honor Oak Rec ground into burial ground, so presumably this is why they brought the date forward for COC, but without any information from the council we can only guess. I'm not satisfied with having to second guess people who are supposed to be working for us. It is simply not good enough. Also, why the rush? Planning permission was expedited last year and they have started work without the correct Church permissions. (Yes, this is currently being debated, but the church has reacted with surprise about the work the council have already done.) Once those trees are cut down then thats it. Maybe that's their ploy, I wouldn't put it pas them based on their previous conduct. Surely it would be more prudent, democratic and more respectful to the people opposing this to delay the works until the valid points have been answered? > Maybe, just maybe, if you had been leading the > charge instead of Lewis there would be more > sympathy generated around here. You certainly > have a better grasp of the issues and a better > manner of communication. But, frankly, as you see > from his last posts, Lewis hasn't exactly won the > hearts and minds around here with his endless > stream of quarter-truths and outright fiction. If > there ever was a exemplar on how not to conduct a > campaign, this would be it. Quite, and thank you. Unfortunately I have limited time to engage in such a thing. I have been in direct communication with a variety of council officials about his for a number of years now, hence my complete lack of respect and trust from any of them and their plans. In two years they have not conducted themselves in any way approaching acceptable in my book. If a council acts in such deceitful ways as these members of southwark have, you have to ask yourself why? The broader context of fast reducing burial space in London should have given Southwark an opportunity to suggest and attempt to find different solutions to burial. Of course some peoples faith requires burial, but like i've mentioned 77% of people who responded to Southwarks own consultation, a document they tried and failed to use as justification for their plans suggests there is not great appetite for increasing burial spaces. The way I see it is that this is primarily about revenue generation. I'm not saying this is not a valid reason, I just wish they could be honest about it. If there is one aspect that should rise above the 'trees' vs dead people' debate, is the very real risk of increased flooding due to the removal of the trees. I don't need to use emotive words to the people who live on Ryedale who will face an increased flood risk. This alone should require the council to stop work immediately and investigate this further. I said it before but the competence of the councils contractors to manage the flooding at the landscaped end of COC, and the mess it becomes in heavy rain does not instil any confidence they will manage this competently, or within the ever expanding budget. Coming from the point of view that area Z was contaminated by a corrupt council official, I would have hoped the council would have, like they assured, be running this process correctly to try and restore some public faith. In my experience the exact opposite has happened.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK, so therefore can we conclude that numbers - > whatever they may be - are not the point here, but > you complaint is that the council is refusing to > consider this particular issue? > > See, that's just not objective. You are clouded > by the issue. You don't want the council to take > petitions in general seriously - you just want the > council to take THIS petition seriously. No, not even remotely Loz. And who is trying to cloud the issue by brining up an entirely irrelevant example of a top gear presenter? 3,500 people local to this issue have expressed they don't agree with these current plans. You do not have the right to dismiss this. There are councils that publish terms and conditions about how they respond to public feedback. Southwark don't do this and don?t intend to do this. Presumably it makes peoples feelings easier to ignore. Southwark invited feedback to these plans and said they would listen to local concerns. 3,500 people signed a petition. Southwark have ignored them. I don't think thats acceptable. > It was a useful and effective tool in pointing out > that you are seeking special treatment for this > one petition. Simply that. Simple yes, effective no. I am not asking for special treatment. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? I am asking for the council to live up to their assurances, something they have not done. Despite your attempts, you cannot deny or diminish there are a large number of local people against these plans. > Not at all - I am merely saying that support for > the SSW cause is not as strong as the number of > petition signatories would initially suggest. Based on what exactly? 30-40 people attending a demo at very short notice for such a local issue is actually quite impressive. Or do you expect every single person who signed to make themselves available to attend a demonstration organised in a matter of days? > The report is really quite detailed, covering in > depth the environmental issues and the legal > issues. The work they have done in establishing > just what lies buried in there is really quite > impressive. Yes, the plans were done a few years > ago, but that's not unusual in a long term project > like this. Unless parameters significantly > change, most costs will rise in line with a quite > predictable factor, and I can't see that those > parameters have changed. What would change them > is a significant delay, which SSW are trying to > force on them, which is why I think the council is > keen to push on. Hmmm, interesting. You can't see how the parameters have changed, yet you've read all the documentation? So you would have noticed that these plans were initially intended to be implemented in 2022, and have been pushed forward to now. Silence from the council as to why. I would have thought even a simple explanation would have been offered, but they are incapable of answering this relatively simple question. You've obviously noticed the proposed plots reducing from 1,000 to 700 then? (A good thing in my view.) So a changed parameter then? I notice you've completely ignored my drainage question. The council are ignoring it too. COC has drainage issues already with many plots being underwater during heavy spells of rain. With this level of competence on the work they have already performed here, and their silence on the issue, I do not have much faith right now they are taking this problem seriously. You seem satisfied with the councils conduct on this issue. Fair enough, although I baffled as to exactly why. I am not satisfied and believe our public servants should behave in a more accountable way than they are now. > > Councils are duty bound to consider the impact of > all the things you mention, by law. Again, if > people think that the council is not upholding the > law in this regard then they have a solution - get > an injunction. All the shouting at the council, > tweeting of rude messages to council leaders and > staging inadvertently comical parades and stunts > in the world will not change the councils mind. > Only an injunction will do that. Once again i'm not here to defend or represent SSW so I can't comment on shouting at the council (when was this?) tweeting rude messages (again, what messages? Just curious.) I originally had more faith in the councils assurances and promises to listen to people about this. Seeing as they have no intention of listening to anyone apart form those who support them, then an injunction may be the only way forward. Shame it's got to this state thought, where a council will lie to people to get their own way. Once councillor even said, to my face, that they are trying to rebuild trust with the community after the corruption of the past, specifically the illegal dumping. All just meaningless empty words. > When you pare down the > habit of SSW to wildly grasp any possible issue > that might help them (today: building rubble), it > comes down to a council that want to renew a > cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an > area they like walking in. Reburial, mounding > over of graves, grave leases, drainage, using > building rubble, non-existent birds who build > their nests in January are all issues that would > not normally concern the protesters, but they see > as a convenient tool to save their trees. And once again I can not and will not speak on behalf of SSW. Kind of pointless to keep bringing them up to me. The fact you say this; > it comes down to a council that want to renew a > cemetery vs a group of people who want to keep an > area they like walking in. suggests you really haven't got a handle on what is going on. The main area in COC to be affected, area Z has had no public access for a long time so not a lot of walking going on there. I'm against these plans and i'm not against them for the reason you have stated. If you want to carry on having a go at SSW then go ahead. I'd be more interested in discussing the details of the plans and the councils behaviour. Also describing the issue in such a myopic way tends to shut down any kind of compromise that could be available. You see Loz this is one of my main bugbears with this. At no time have the council offered to discuss any compromise whatsoever that could actually suit all, or at least most parties involved. > So it really just comes down to old trees vs new > graves. And at some point someone - in this case > the council - had to make a decision. Some people > won't like that decision, some people will, most > actually won't care either way. Those that don't > like it can try and change the council's mind, but > it is pretty clear they're not getting very far on > this. So, they can either carry on protesting > fruitlessly until the work is complete or, if they > do have the strong legal argument they claim they > have, go out and legally stop the work via an > injunction. Well to be accurate if we really must simplify this argument it actually comes down to relatively new trees vs re-using old graves. Yes they're new plots, but they're on top of many layers of previous burials. The broader argument is the current and rapidly decreasing space available for burials in London generally. I personally think the area of untamed growth that has flourished over decades provides more benefit to the local community than adding a handful of graves for a short term gain.

Dbboy > Well that is were we have to disagree, what you define as woodland is actually as I have already said, I see as overgrown burial land that the council was NEGLIGENT in maintaining, I think we can agree on that?? Yes, I kind of agree, although it?s worth pointing out one of the reasons for area Z in COC being neglected was due to a corrupt councillor taking backhanders and allow illegal dumping. > Yes, I have looked through the report and overall it makes sense from the background information provided, reasoning consultation, the studies, findings, conclusions and recommendations on how they intend to proceed, Curious. So you?re satisfied that according to the councils own documentation there is no majority appetite for burials in the area? (22% for burials, 77% intend cremation.) That the council have organised public consultations with less than 10 days notice? Have not followed through with further consultations. Have not performed up to date surveys of the area. Have not updated their costings for this project, what it will cost and what the end cost of the burial plots will be to residents. Have failed to adequately answer what they intend to do with he contaminated soil, or what the effect of groundwater running down to Ryedale could have once the trees are removed. You are far more trusting and accepting than myself then. > Again, YES, I am more than happy to see graves laid out in a clear and coherent manner, rather than the way some of the Old Cemetery is, and if you look where the knotweed work is being done you'll see where very old graves are laid out in rows. This layout maximises the use of land for graves to be prepared and presented in. Fair enough, you like the aesthetic. Personally I disagree and certainly don?t think the new scheme fits in any way with the rest of the cemetery. > I think it's more like 800 of which probably 30 - 40 are active as was evidenced from today's turn out. Again fair enough you think this. Although why are you so willing to dismiss 3,500 signatories and reduce this figure to 800? 30-40 people able to physically attend at sort notice is actually quite impressive considering the relatively small local issue this is. > Have to disagree with you on that, the report they produced was prepared in a structured manner and what I would expect from them, anything less would have not justified the works that are being done now and future plans. So you think it acceptable for the council to give less than 10 days notice to announce a 3 day window of public consultations, open for only 2 hours each day and 2 weeks before Christmas is cynical in the extreme. They have failed to provide further consultations despite assurances they would. Again you appear to be far too trusting of the council. > You have to remember that it is a cemetery, it's purpose is for the living to bury, mourn and remember their dead, you can argue that burial is out dated, but for some faiths and some believers, that is what they want, I'm sorry, I cannot see that their wishes can be denied to be buried locally. Yes indeed. My main objections stem from the council forcing these plans through and ignoring any and all public opinion about them. Yes, some people want to area left alone. I agree this isn?t going to happen. I am however not remotely satisfied with the current plans trying to squeeze as many plots as possible into such a small space. The council appears incapable of compromise. This is unacceptable in my view, especially considering the councils own research suggesting there is no majority appetite for local burial. In my view the council are trying to maximise their revenue with these plans. Again, as has been pointed out previously, local authorities are strapped for funds and need to raise revenue. Destroying (not being emotive) this area is not in my view the correct approach. I am highly suspicious of their actions as they seem incapable of behaving in an open and honest manner. > You can expect more transparency, I think you need to request this, but the way ssw have conducted themselves to date, in particular some of the tweets to councillors and MP's, does not surprise me that they are not engaging with ssw and in fact are ignoring ssw. Like i?ve said, i?m not SSW, and would agree their approach has created some animosity with others. I have repeatedly asked questions of the councillors responsible for this and they appear incapable of honesty or transparency. What to do next? > I think you have tried to bring the case back to the table and in removing the emotive language from the argument that Lewis used, you may find your case reaches more ears. Thank you. Clearly I have a view on this issue, and have not been involved on this forum about it. I snapped yesterday though at some of the disgusting posts aimed towards Lewis. I?m happy that you, and a couple of others are able to discuss this in a grown up and mature way.

Sue, > Were these public consultations going to be related to the current work being carried out, or related to future work? Where and when did the council make these promises, and who in the council made them? They were to relate to the current cemetery plans, part of the Southwark 'cemetery strategy'. A number of councillors were signed on various emails; Darren Merrill, Rebecca Towers, Avril Kirby to name a few for you. > When were these assurances given, and who made them? 2014. See above. > How much were these more up to date studies going to cost? I don't know Sue, the council have failed to release up to date figures for this project. The last budget for this project was, I believe ?30m. The plots in Camberwell Old cemetery were looking to cost residents over ?1,200, and that was with the proposed 1,000 graves. And these were projected 2012 costings. Now they are suggesting 700 plots, the cost of each plot has increased, although to what amount is unknown sue to the councils failure to release any revised costings. This is an expensive project and i?m struggling to see how producing the most expensive burial plots in London can be described as a ?benefit? to local residents. Regardless of the cost of the studies I don't think they are something that is negotiable. Data collected in 2011/12 is hardly current. Would you buy a house and save money by not doing a survey? (A simplistic comparison I know, but hopefully you get my point.) > What was the time scale, and what were the studies going to study, exactly? Time scales seem to be pretty flexible from the council on this issue. For example it took 10 months for the council to release existing public information about this area, yet they were able to organise their planning application in double quick time. The surveys were to look at the flora and fauna in the area. Comprehensive soil surveys were performed in the past which revealed some particularly contaminated ground after the illegal dumping (by a corrupt councillor) in the past. One of the main questions about these plans is the effect of, once the trees have been removed and the ground scrub cleared, the potential for this contaminated ground to run down to the houses on Ryedale. Originally the contaminated soil was to be cleaned on site. Then the soil was going to be removed and cleaned off site. Now the appears to be a proposal to use some of this ground (cleaned or uncleaned?) to top graves off. This is just one detail that causes concern, as the contamination levels in areas of the soil is significant. > This "strength of public opinion" has been due to a sustained campaign by SSW of approaching people personally, via glossy postcards and via social media and (from what I have seen) only giving them one side of the story. I'm sorry Sue but I don't agree with this one bit. As i've stated I'm not SSW and am not here to defend them, but i've not been approached directly, received a glossy postcard and i'm not on social media. > If there had been a similar sustained campaign from people in favour of the council's plans, then you may find opinion is actually quite evenly balanced or weighted in favour. Again I don't agree with you. At the few public meetings that the council allowed the people who were against these plans far outweighed the few who expressed they were in favour. In 2012 the council had a public consultation asking if people would prefer burial over cremation. 77% said they would opt for cremation, while 22% opted for burial. I know this isn't as direct a question as 'would you like trees or more graves', but as a measure of local public opinion, there appeared to be no majority appetite for burials. > But isn't your complaint about the council's behaviour specifically about this particular situation? Yes. At the same time I am against these plans. I am trying to give this discussion a broader context and move away from the slanging match it has become.

Loz, you are creating a entirely false dichotomy here; > I thought that would be obvious - numbers. Why should a 1M person petition be ignored, but a 10k petition be immediately taken notice of? They are measures of public opinion. Yes, both use numbers to count people who have signed, that is pretty much the only similarity. If you seriously cannot see the difference between these two issues then I cannot help you understand this any more. Now i'm starting to laugh at someone who thinks a petition to reinstate a tv personality assaulting his boss and a petition to stop the council developing a contentious area are in any way similar because they both use numbers as a counting system. Really? > You're the one that made a big song and dance about the number of people that have signed the SSW petition - Now who's using hyperbole? I have not made a song and dance about anything, maybe you can point out my 'song and dance'? I pointed out these facts to highlight the measure of popular opinion about this. > Do you really want the council to comply with every single petition that they get sent? That's a recipe for chaos. Or is it, as I suspect, you want the council to comply with every petition that you sign? Sigh, no, I don't think this. You are now setting up your own conditional argument that has nothing to do with what I have said. I would however expect a council to behave in an honest way and do what they have said they would do, as in listen to local concerns, which I don;t believe they have done. > It's notable that, for all these thousands of 'supporters' they claim, SSW can barely get 50 people out on a weekend. What exactly are you suggesting here? That there is some fraud involved now? Why be so coy? Just come out and say what you mean. Either way Loz, I feel we are moving away from the actual debate here. I'm not here to defend SSW, to promote them, or to help define what a valid petition is or isn't. I'm glad you have read the reports. So do you think the current plans to fit rows of graves, as tightly packed as they can be, in keeping with the rest of the cemetery? Do you think the contaminated ground should be cleaned on site or off site? How do you feel about the drainage issue? The council are being oddly quiet about this. Do you think costings done on this in 2011/12 are still relevant now? > The council plans to upgrade cemeteries - they started as cemeteries, they will end up as a cemeteries. No great surprise or issue there. I have no problem with re-using graves or mounding over - in fact I think that given the lack of burial space it is a very practical idea. Yes indeed. When you reduce the issue to such simplistic terms then who could possibly disagree? Unfortunately things are sometimes more complicated than this.