panda boy

dbboy, thank you for your reasoned and detailed reply. I will respond and get back to you as soon as I can.

Sue, yes i will answer your questions in due course. I'm a little busy right now.

Otta, I am not part of the SSW gang. I originally posted about the cowardly behaviour towards Lewis personally on here, and attracted some cowardly ire of my own. Some very classy people on here nowadays. I find it common that people who have nothing of substance to say often 'play the player and not the ball', if thats the right way of expressing that phrase? Your assumptions are staggering. I'm more than aware of how little money local authorities have at the moment. This is precisely part of the reason I am against these plans. The costs provided a few years ago were increasing. Who knows what the current costs are as the council have not made these figures publicly available. And at the end of it locals will be left with a choice of some of the most expensive burial plots in London, so hardly a bonus for the local community. I'm genuinely curious and increasingly suspicious about how southwark have conducted themselves over this. "but there are lots of wooded areas you can go to." Indeed, by the same token there are lots of places and methods people can get buried, so where does that leave us?

Er, no, not quite Loz. That's not what hypocrisy means. I'm struggling to see the connection between an guy on TV who was sacked for punching his producer with a petition signed by people local to an issue that affects them directly. Just saying they're both petitions and thats that is puerile in the extreme. When you've stopped laughing maybe you can explain a little more? Without wanting to get bogged down in semantics of what the definition of a valid petition is, have you actually seen the plans and renders of what the council want to achieve? Are you happy with them?

dboy, the intended use of the area in Camberwell old cemetery was indeed for burials. That was when it was designed and built in 1855. I personally don't see this as any justification for the councils plans at all. What we have right here and now is a significant and valuable area of woodland. I think thats worth keeping personally. Out of interest have you seen the plans and renders of what they want to achieve here? Are you happy that they seem to want to make Camberwell old cemetery resemble world war one war graves? (I'm not being emotive, that is what the councils renders look like.) Actually people have asked 'Lewis and co' to act on this, but obviously not the people who are in favour of it. I can cite over 3,500 people in the borough and over 10,000 who are against these plans though. As to the way the council have acted, I find your attitude to be very trusting of them. The studies they published re out of date. The assurances that new studies would be made have not been fulfilled. Their consultations were cynical at best, arranging them at times that were difficult for people to attend and with very little notice period. Subsequent consultations have not happened. Like I originally said, I expect more transparent and honest behaviour from the council. If you do not then thats just fine, strange but fine.

Loz, I don't believe spending money on up to date surveys and studies to be a waste, quite the contrary, as they would no doubt reveal the current environmental state of the area. The council using previous surveys and studies that are out of date is part of the disingenuous way they have acted over this. They can't simply circumvent this step because of expense, or if they do it would suggest their plans have not been costed effectively. These new plots in Camberwell old cemetery were already going to be the most expensive plots in the borough, and that is based on costs released by the council in 2011/12. They have failed to update their projected costings, or at least have failed to release this to the public. Are you happy that people have not been made aware of the current costs of these plans? I'm sorry to say your dismissal of the number of people who have expressed an opinion against these plans is strange, and your comparison with a petition to keep a TV personalty on TV is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about over 3,500 people in the borough who have expressed an opinion. If you wish to discount over 10,000 people outside the borough then fine. Why are you so willing, and quite frankly who are you to ignore the opinions of 3,500 people? At least it's all giving you a good laugh though eh?

Hello Loz. Not quite sure what is you feel you have to 'bite' on, but at least you have the guts to ask a question publicly on the forum and not send childish cowardly nonsense in the form of a PM that I have just received from someone. In my view, and the direct dealings with the council I have had on this matter, they have lied. There were promises of more public consultations. Didn't happen. There were assurances of more up to date studies on the area, (the ones they published were years out of date. These plans have been floating around for a long time.) They didn't deliver on this. There was also the promise to listen to peoples concerns. With over 3,500 southwark residents signing a petition against, over 10,000 non locals expressing they are against the plans in general, and over 600 individual abjections to the planning committee of southwark, i'd call it a barefaced lie that this strength of public opinion has just been ignored and the plans forced through regardless. Regardless of the details of this particular situation, the council have behaved appallingly.

Jesus wept, what a collection of nasty little keyboard warriors there are on this thread. Lewis S and SSW are trying to protect an area of woodland within a metropolitan area. They are not personally gaining out of this, they are doing it for the benefit of the community. The personal attacks, goading and p*** taking towards him are nothing short of disgusting and cowardly. The council have acted in a wholly dishonest and disingenuous manner about this. I have (unfortunately) had direct dealings with the council about this and quite frankly after their lies and obfuscation they have lost my trust and respect entirely. Regardless of your feelings about how the opposition to these plans are conducting themselves, can we assume you are content to have a council who lies to get their own way, and who's plans are so economically illiterate that they are wasting valuable funds to push these plans through then your moral compass is truly broken. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

.

dbboy - this is exactly what they are proposing, exhumations. I will try to find the relevant document and link it for you. I hope this leads to people in the borough revolting over this. Personally my objections stem from the cynical way the southwark councillors behind this have acted on this issue. Disinformation, failing to act in an open and transparent manner, failing to undertake proper public consultations, scheduling public meetings with little notice and at times designed it make it hard for people to attend, basically being pretty underhand in their approach. Incompetence at best, cynical money grabbing at worst.

I'd be more inclined to use them if they; a. wasn't yet another company practicing "tax avoidance on an industrial scale" http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/20/uber-pays-low-uk-corporation-tax and b. properly vetted their drivers http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/12/uber-whistleblower-exposes-breach-driver-approval-process Unfortunately a good idea being abused by greed.

Second sighting of a little owl hunting on Peckham Rye today. Tremendously exciting...

Again, well said Temmso. They, the council could make more effort to inform people about their plans in general. They appear to choose not to. Why is that? Not very transparent of them, to say the least.

Regarding the council plans to redevelop COC and CNC, they have recently stated this on their website; "The burial strategy was consulted on extensively in 2011 and 2012..." It transpires that Southwark sent out paper copies of a questionnaire to 2,793 addresses in Lewisham and to only 902 to addresses in Southwark, and only in the area of Camberwell New Cemetery and Honor Oak Recreation Ground.* Of the 972 people who responded 63% lived in Lewisham and only 35% lived in Southwark. I personally don't think this can be defined as 'consulted on extensively' by any stretch of the imagination, failing to consult people who live around these areas, yet they appear willing to employ such disingenuous language to bolster their proposals. Pretty disgusted by their tactic to be honest. (*Credit the person who found these figures.)

Very good points Tessmo. Is there any information on how the council actually use the responses they receive in these 'consultations'? They surely have to have some kind of formal 'mission statement' (or similarly corporate bilge phrase) which qualifies how they use and react to these 'consultations'?

The same council consultation (or lack of) 'tactics' are being employed in their plans to re-develop Camberwell Old and Camberwell New cemeteries. Proposed plans released to the public at the start of December, offering 3 public 2 hour 'exhibitions' within 10 days of releasing the plans. They have stated; "The burial strategy was consulted on extensively in 2011 and 2012". Further investigation reveals that the majority of local residents were in fact NOT consulted during this period. I hesitate to call this a lie despite it being the very definition of the word. Under protest they have offered a public meeting about the plans on the 11th February. One councillor has offered an impromptu meeting this weekend, which I applaud, but again the lack of notice means many concerned people will not be able to attend, again limiting our right to reply. There appears to be no framework or structure to allow people to co-ordinate a response to the council. Also, and rather telling, during one conversation with a councillor about this, they implied that "if people don't express a negative opinion, then it means they are in favour of the plans". Apart from being rather twisted logic, it is disingenuous in the extreme. Reducing and limiting the opportunities for peoples right to reply to council plans appears to be part of their planning strategy. Rather cynical and shameful in my opinion.

Thanks for posting this Siduhe, i'll have a read soon... I think it's important to scrutinise all the council documents as the devil is in the detail, for example the original feasibility study the council had done on this recommended around 300 burial plots in the wooded area. This has now risen to around 1000 in their current proposals. Personally thats quite a hike and i'm keen to find out where this rise has come from...

> No, it won't. Local authorities, unlike internet > forum posters, have legal duties and obligations > and legally defined decision making processes. Yes DaveR, councils do have a legal obligation to provide burial services. However there is no legal requirement to locate these services within the borough. And far from being just an internet poster, I, as well as others objecting to this, are local to the areas that will be affected, so it is our obligation (also not legal) to ensure these plans are acceptable to all concerned. > I haven't read every word of the surveys, but I've > had a pretty good look at what appear to be the > most important ones. Kind of hard for me know which you have skimmed through. I recommend reading them all in full. Regarding the surveys, yes those are the ones that, despite repeated requests and promises, have only just been made available for public view, hence the suggestion of secrecy. Indeed a great deal of time and money has been put into formulating these plans. That doesn't give them any special rights however. Yes a great deal of work has been put into them, I would expect nothing less for such plans. I'm not quite sure what your point is here? I'm sure you are aware that these current plans are actually part 2 of the councils plans. That the original idea of re-tasking Honor Oak Rec ground for burial plots was rejected by local residents. So all the effort and work put into these plans has been part of a long term project and not just about the current proposals. I don't particularly want to get into a forum to and fro with you about this. I would be more than happy to carry on discussing this with you though, so PM me if you're interested in knowing more.

DaveR, thanks for commenting. I agree this should not be a "nimby outrage and pretend enviro-science" reaction, and I don't believe this is such a thing. There are areas of genuine concern in these councils plans. "Is anybody going to come up with a measured response to the proposals,", yes, and we are. Did you read the surveys? They contain some interesting facts about the site, about it's history and it's current state. I know there are a few to get through, but it is worth it in order to gain a more thorough understanding of this particular site that will be affected. There are several details that do not tally with the councils plans, I am interested in knowing why. There may well be a burial shortage in the UK, particularly so in London. My personal belief is the area would lose more than it would gain if the current council plans are allowed to go ahead.

Link to the surveys: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/4010/cemeteries

Update: The council are planning to have a public meeting on the 11th February concerning the proposed Camberwell Old and Camberwell New Cemeteries. They have also announced they will be sending letter to 1400 local residents on the 9th January. They have also, (finally) released the results of a variety of surveys performed on the areas between 2012 and 2014. I would suggest that anyone interested in these developments have a look at these surveys and the council information. A group of us who are concerned about the councils plans will be meeting up before February 11th. Please feel free to PM me or post on here if you'd like to get involved. > Do we have a clear idea of when these plans to cut > down the woodland will go ahead? Hopefully never.

I agree Penguin68, although helping to determine the facts about this particular site would be helped by having surveys carried out. Funnily enough these surveys have been carried out, but to date, despite being told the contrary, the results have not been released. I am all in favour for finding out more detail, i'm slightly less impressed that the detail now exists, but not obtainable. Be it 'ancient woodland' or not, it is still a positive and unique feature of the area and it's definition should not affect the current plans to effectively destroy it in the interests of creating burial spaces. What would be lost will be far greater than what would be gained, in my opinion.