Penguin68

Do you really believe the Church's own legal department is misleading itself? The Church of England's Consistory Court? Referring to Faculty Rules about tree felling in its own judgement in a case on municipal cemeteries that took six months to write? Simply - yes. The 2015 Act (I have now read it twice) refers to Churches and Churchyards and makes no mention of consecrated grounds in Municipal Cemeteries. Further it makes no mention of the requirement to grant a Faculty in case of a path or road being built on the consecrated area - which DOES specifically require a Faculty for consecrated grounds in a municipal cemetery. In fact, because it only refers to Churches and Churchyards it makes no mention of consecrated land at all - since there is no necessity to - it all is consecrated as far as this 2105 Act is concerned. Lawyers can make mistakes - if a lawyer was actually involved here he or she certainly did, by referring to an Act of no relevance to the case. The time taken to write the report has little relevance to any time actually needed to write it, and probably delays were caused by the interference being run by your own group. It should be noted that the documents cited in the ruling (other than the misleading and incorrect comment made in it about tree management, and the incorrect reference to an Act solely about the management of Parish Lands) all focus on the ways bodies and memorials are to be treated during any development of a cemetery to allow increased burial. There is no mention anywhere of gardening or ecology. Maybe Renata, who I know has a constituency interest in COC might raise this with Southwark's own legal team, who do appear to have missed a trick here, in not challenging the citation of the 2015 Act. Although, since the court otherwise agreed in (virtually) everything they proposed they may have decided not to bother!

I can see where you have been misled - but the Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 quoted by you (and, wrongly, by the summary of findings) refer only to Church Land - (read them, I have) - there is no mention of consecrated land in Municipal Cemeteries there and all the pro-forma petition documents include the blank space to be filled 'Church of....'. The section A8 -page 58 which shows what trees can be felled and B6 - page 63 - are both clearly written in the context of Church's and Churchyards - not Consecrated Ground in Municipal cemeteries - they also include rubrics on what can be done with bells, clocks and central heating! [And in addition a Faculty for these lands has also to be granted for the planting of trees - why have you not been complaining that Southwark has failed to get any agreement for its re-planting programme?] Both the relevant tree sections (A8 and B6) refer out to guidance of The Church Buildings Council - wholly irrelevant as regards municipal cemeteries. I'm afraid that the Faculty Court has been wrong in Law to pray in aid legislation (which does also refer to Faculties) but which is specific in its reference only to Church owned and administered land. Were this to go to an actual secular court (as the Council is a secular body not governed by Church legislation) it would be laughed out of it. You have been wrongly advised (or have chosen yourselves to steer people into wrong advice).

A Conservation Management Plan is required and also has to be agreed by community stakeholders such as FOCC SSW. the Camberwell Cemeteries Working Group, Friends of Honor Oak Park and others Perhaps you could explain, Blanche, where this is mandated? The Council may choose to discuss things with relevant groups (and can choose whom they think are relevant) - but I suspect they are not required to. It required legislation for them to have to consult with the Diocese about the land in their cemeteries which is 'consecrated'. Where any Council plan must be approved is in the Council Chamber, by elected councilors. And, again, a council may chose to have a conservation management plan, and chose where this applies, but I am not sure this is mandated (it is probably, where appropriate, good practice). What you would like, and what is actually so, are not necessarily the same thing.

i would like to ask why is it they do not plant any form of fruit trees instead at least we could benefit from it If they want trees to be tall in that area then fruit trees wouldn't be suitable - very soon the fruit would be out of reach and then just fall as windfalls and rot (and encourage wasps!) Trees with berries (such as rowans) which birds and other wild-life could benefit from is a different issue. Horse Chestnuts used to be a good bet (at least kids enjoyed the 'fruit') but recent disease problems have made these less attractive to plant. Trees should be (a) appropriate for the site (height and spread - when fully grown) (b) sensitive to the likely climate (as regards temperature and water availability) and © add value to the environment - spring blossom, berries, autumn colour would all qualify there. As climate (may) be changing issues about native species (which in future might not be suitable any longer) may be less relevant, even though these tend to support a wider eco-system. Also long term costs of care (pruning, leaf collection etc.) need to be taken into account. As to planting time - spring planting (after the last frosts, from pot grown saplings) or autumn planting (bare rooted) are most frequently advised, to allow the plants to establish themselves. The very dry winter this year would not have been that good for bare rooted plants - which could well have dried out in the soil. Equally those planted now will need regular drenching if they are to establish.

What news? - Anything changed since April 2016 and Renata's last post (2 above and a year before yours)?

Contrary to what has been posted here on the forum, the Church DOES have to grant permission (faculty) to cut trees over 75mm diameter - or do any works which involve graves - on consecrated ground in municipal cemeteries. I am sorry, but what is your source for the tree element of this? The only source ever quoted by ssw is a set of ordinances which covers Parish Land - municipal cemeteries are NOT parish lands. I have never suggested that the diocese can not set up rules regarding lands it administers. The rules regarding consecrated ground in Municipal cemeteries cover the treatment of bodies, of grave furniture and of 'extent' - that is to say that a reduction in the extent of consecrated land for use by creation of new roads and pathways has to be agreed. Can you show me the documents you are relying on for your assertion? I am (always) happy to stand corrected, but, as I have said, the only document so far offered by ssw is specific to parish lands.

"Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints. I had assumed, in responding to this, that ssw meant the sorts of restraints placed on developers by councils (clearly there are wider laws outwith planning which would impact council's as much as any other corporate body). In practice council's can even ignore their own planning rules, if they believe by so doing they are acting in the greater good - whereas a developer cannot breach local planning rules (in theory at least - vide threads here on M&S and many other developments). If fact, other than issues such as building regulations, health and safety legislation and so on there are actually very few restrictions on developers (in their roles as developers, not as corporate entities per se) except local planning rules.

Does anyone know when the gates will be installed on underhill rd? I suspect (I don't know) that these will be the final part of completing the new road/ entrance into the cemetery there - which will be the last job done after the clearance, mounding and possibly much of the replanting. So quite a long wait, I'm guessing. They may even depend on final measurements being made, once the road is complete. Certainly the wide gap now available there will be useful for the entry/ exit of heavy machinery etc. which might otherwise have to negotiate (and probably damage) any installed gates. I too would like to see that all finished.

Southwark has also not notified the Church of England or applied to the Diocese of Southwark for permission as legally required for its next planned felling on consecrated land which these woods are. Once again, the C of E has no gardening rights over municipal cemeteries - their interests in tree felling refer only to Church (parish) lands - and possibly the consequential impact of tree felling where the trees are actually growing through graves and grave furniture. Some of their own advisers have been mistaken over this. [There are arguments about trees planted specifically as memorials in consecrated land, which might be argued to constitute the 'grave furniture' which the church does have an interest in - which the Church might have a say about - however such planting has not, I believe, occurred in the areas in question.] Southwark is acting like a developer - but without any of the legal restraints. That's what councils can do with their land. Tough. The council is 'developing' its cemeteries so that they can bury more people in them, in a manner which has been agreed (where relevant) by the local diocese and supported by genuinely interested parties, such as the War Graves Commission. 'Consultations' are not a numbers game - particularly where those 'against' are self selecting (and massively mis-informed by propaganda). A more reasonable complaint would be where the council is developing its land for a different use than that previously agreed by councilors, such as, well, converting cemeteries to leisure palaces - oh - ... Some councils have chosen to sell off their cemeteries to (effectively) developers for nominal amounts - I am very glad that Southwark has decided to retain theirs and make the most of them, as working cemeteries, to the benefit of all the community (and not just wannabe picnic-ers)

OK - I've just about had enough - the '10 acres' quoted as the file-name of the picture posted are - Area Z - 2 acres; Area D 'about 0.5 acres'. So pretty well 5 times less than the figure quoted. These from para 2 and 4 of the attached (via link) document. 25 of the 48 graves of the war dead in the area will be properly marked - the remainder would prove difficult to mark (this from para 30 of the attached findings) - those not commemorated on the existing memorial will be added. Paragraph 45 of the document records that the War Graves Commission is happy with Southwark's proposals. (interestingly the authors wonders why these graves did not form part of the 'normal' war graves burials, unaware perhaps that the Commission was not formed until 1917). I attach a link to the relevant document - which I got from ssw's own web site. It is fairly typical that they are prepared to mislead even when they have the facts available. It downloads as a .pdf We really are in a post-truth world. http://savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/download/i/mark_dl/u/4013025308/4631603353/Petchey%20Consistory%20Court%20Ruling%20Camberwell%20Cemeteries.pdf

Tens of thousands of public graves are already being mounded over, including 48 Commonwealth War Graves in one area of Camberwell Old Cemetery. I do not believe that any Commonwealth War Graves are being mounded over - this term has a very specific meaning. There may be 48 interments of the military who died of their wounds in the UK before 1917 - in marked or unmarked graves - and there will certainly be (probably quite large) numbers of those who served in both World Wars who later died - not as an effect of war - and are now buried in the cemeteries, but the War Graves Commission has been clear that there are no plans for the Commonwealth War Graves in COC. They are entirely happy with Southwark's proposals. And the graves being mounded are in the main currently invisible (there are no markers) - so their 'loss' is practically only theoretical. The Council has said they would store the headstones for a while and offer them to new families to use. If no-one wants them they might get rid of them - I am so sorry, I know this may be hard to hear. But this is why we are fighting. This is standard practice (which I have already referred to). The records of where burials have taken place are still retained. Many of the older headstones are now sadly unreadable. Their preservation would be for (rather pointless) sentiment only. Anything recordable off them will also be retained. For most the deceased will be remembered by no one living - even as family history - so probably not that hard to bear. And no - your are not fighting for this, but for the closure of the cemeteries as working cemeteries, and their conversion to recreation centres.

Or maybe the title amended? - it was actually Le Chandelier which was closing.

I think it could be blitzed to minimise this but that isn't on offer. Not while every job goes automatically to Conway's. I recall the complete disgrace of the work around Northcross Road and LL. Some competitive tendering with time penalties would be nice. Or proper T&Cs around a call-off contract. No doubt any paving needed would have to be sourced from Mars a slab at a time. And work would be started not when the slabs were in stock, but way, way, before they were even ordered. Just to make sure the disruption was absolute.

If you have foxes you are much less likely to have rats/ mice. I would certainly trade the large wild mammal for the smaller ones.

Southwark's own records say this:- In the 1850s, The Camberwell Burial Board was established to solve the problem of Camberwell's burial shortage in its churchyards. In 1855 the board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell. The cemetery has fine examples of gothic revival architecture. The lodge and chapels were designed by George Gilbert Scott's architecture firm who also designed St Pancras station and the Albert Memorial. By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space. The majority of burials now take place in this cemetery. http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/185/cemeteries/2 ssw is not unreasonable therefore in quoting this number. But as I have said, with their re-use plans how many were buried (since 1855) is really not that relevant. The more the merrier, I say.

Here's a certificate from 1952. Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears to support ssw I believe that the grave number (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked public (paupers) graves held a substantial number additionally, by all account. Additionally private graves will include family mausoleums - which again may contain a number of burials. Looking at the gravestones on my walks I would think that private graves may hold on average two burials - so that would make about 60k in private graves in 1952, based on that grave number. However, and in fact, the number of those buried is hardly material. And on the basis that there are still parts of the cemeteries where no interments have taken place, even with 300k burials it is not full (and indeed the plans for re-use will allow many more).

Does anyone know how can I make sure that my family graves will 'not' be demolished? The 'rules' which I believe Southwark is following are that no grave where there has been a burial in the last 75 years will be disturbed. For private graves (where there has been no burial in the last 75 years) then the normal policy is to 'lift and deepen' so that bodies will be disinterred (for a short space of time) and then re-buried in the same spot but deeper, allowing a new burial over it. Other graveyards 'turn' the monument so that the inscription of the original burial is now on the back of the tomb-stone - but I have no idea of Southwark's policy here. Most named graves are 'private' - public burials (once called 'paupers graves') do not carry grave markings. I think there is an option to argue about whether a grave spot can be re-used (if the final burial there is more than 75 years old) - the authority must advertise any such intentions (again, I think). For most London graveyards - where there is often quite a high population turn-over - continuing family connections in the area after 75 years have lapsed is relatively unusual (save of course for infant deaths). If your family graves have seen an interment after 1942 they should not be touched (this year at least!) I would anticipate that it will be some time, actually, when final burials as late as 1942 will be called on for re-use. At the moment they are mainly working in much 'older' areas. Some sites in the cemeteries, such as those officially 'Commonwealth War Graves' are even less likely ever to be interfered with.

If you have suffered no injury and made no claim on your own insurance then there would be no obvious process for this. Damage to your car would be sought for (and received by) your own insurer from the other driver or his/ her insurer; if you had made a claim - with them settling any repair bills. If you haven't followed any claims process then you are being scammed by an ambulance chaser - they may indeed be able to instigate some process - but they would take the lion's share of any proceeds and it is this sort of action which drives up insurance costs for all. Of course, if you are out of pocket because of another drivers's fault you may wish to pursue a claim properly through your own insurer (remembering that even a no-fault accident may increase your insurance risk and your premiums - the insurer's own scam here is that - even where you have a protected no claims bonus - they will increase your risk profile because you may be leading a life/ driving to places, where you are more likely to be hit by other rivers - so your NCB discount may remain the same, but discounted off a higher base premium.) My advice - ignore...

Burial on top of burial is absolutely common in cities in the UK (other countries operate different norms, for instance disinterment and relocation into ossuraries after a limited time (as little as 25 years) happens in some countries). In some inner London parish graveyards there are bodies 6 deep. Nowadays there are no 'paupers' graves' - so we are talking about re-use, as for 'private' graves, after a minimum of 75 years (in terms of these graves very much longer). Graveyards are an asset and all charge for burial - parish and municipal. This release by ssw is non-news, but yet another attempt to whip up a frenzy. I might be more prepared to be angry about private graves being re-sold (to no benefit of the original purchaser), but I'm not, because I recognise efficient use of graveyard space (and revenue streams to support their upkeep) is a good use of resources. I want burial sites locally for those who value such things (I don't, but I won't stand in the way of those who do) - it is a valuable amenity for many who (as recent mourners) will be at their lowest ebb. I rarely have much time for councillors, but good-oh to Councillor Wingfield for his succinct response.

I'll take your silence re Westminster Bridge as conceding the point! The attached picture clearly shows a dedicated (narrow) cycle lane (but not segregated, there I was wrong) on Westminster Bridge. That, together with the pavement, gave a much clearer (wider) run for a 4x4 than if the traffic had been solid to the pavement. I note that a cyclist isn't using the lane, and pass no comment. I have already said that the line is not full width.

ban cyclists from the rest of park, isn't that what you meant? No, not really, but it would be good to put in some chicanes or gates to stop muggers and thieves being able to ride unstopped out of the park. If we are to allow vehicles to access any of the parks (many of the spaces are not actually meant to be vehicle accessed anyway) then putting in some sorts of barriers to restrict further free egress (past parking spots) from the parks by cyclists would discourage those (criminals) aiming to use bikes for quick get-aways from thinking the parks are good hunting grounds for them - and yes I know there are practical issues such as buggy access and so on. Our parks are lovely and (mainly) safe at the moment and I would want them to stay that way - free for all users (including cyclists and dog owners/ walkers) to enjoy them. As they become abused in their usage then restrictions may need to be put in place. But, again, my issue is about the priorities that this survey seems to indicate the council has, rather than anything specific about abusive and criminal cycling use, which was introduced simply as an exemplar of what else they could have been putting resource into.

Given that last week you were looking to blame the (non-existent) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge for facilitating the attack there, perhaps it is..but your anti-cyclist prejudice clearly doesn't allow time to pause for nuances! (1) There is a (narrow) cycle lane on Westminster Bridge - it is not full carriage width and it is separated from the road by raised paving, but for a 4x4 (which was what was used) that, together with the width of the pavement did allow for the car to proceed at speed causing the damage it did, straddling road(s) and pavement. (2) My prejudice is against muggers using bikes to attack and get-away quickly - I am also against muggers using mopeds or motorcycles. Actually I am against muggers. My point was that this survey seemed to be focusing on further criminalising dog ownership (I am not a dog owner or walker - I don't, as it were, have a dog in this fight) rather than looking at other issues which might make use of the various spaces more pleasurable (and safe) for the public. But it is a lot easier to deal with those with dogs than real criminals. My opening remarks 'The park is a brilliant (and generally safe) place for young people to learn to cycle - I would hate to see that stopped,..' should surely belie the claim that I am anti-bike (or anti-biker). If I was anti-bike I would presumably not want to see people learn how to ride? But if the parks were to become a biker's muggers' alley I hope even cycling enthusiasts would be concerned. And perhaps even consider remedies?

The park is a brilliant (and generally safe) place for young people to learn to cycle - I would hate to see that stopped, although perhaps the parts where they could ride could be sealed from the exits so that others couldn't use the parks to ride and get away. But maybe it is time to consider the dangers that two-wheeled thugs can offer park users - maybe it is time to focus on policing things like this, rather than focusing on dog crime (indeed focusing on extending the definition of dog crime). If a questionnaire had been set-up which asked the question - which should we be focusing on - cracking down on dogs or thugs - I wonder what the responses would look like? 'Dogs' would be only getting a look-in once 'thugs' were a thing of the past, I'm guessing.

As a result of EPA's regulatory efforts including the removal of lead from motor vehicle gasoline, levels of lead in the air decreased by 98 percent between 1980 and 2014. So nothing to do with the stop of use of leaded paints and the eventual over-painting or removal of these from the built environment? Removing lead from petrol was about making the catalytic converters work - it was a (happy) accident - if the converters which remove un-burnt hydrocarbons had worked with leaded petrol no changes would have been made - the lead additive was otherwise very beneficial for both the engines and fuel efficiency.

James, I'm interested in your comment about lead removal from petrol contributing to crime rates falling. Is that really a thing - I was not aware of that. A prime example of mixing correlation with causation. Lead particulates from tetraethyl lead are heavy and fall to the ground - so you'd be having to lick the road a lot. Tetraethyl lead was added to petrol as an anti-knock additive, it was removed because the lead bunged up catalytic converters which filter exhausts for lots of other nasties. The most likely sources of environmental lead are in fact from lead based paints (now fully withdrawn from use) - their removal additionally from most wall etc. surfaces over the post war decades probably accounts for any reduction in environmental lead - whilst this removal happened at the same time as reductions in criminal behaviour there is no clear link to this and lead levels. Lead is a poison, and high enough levels will lead to sickness and death (and can lead to irrational behaviour as a symptom) - however this makes an assumption that criminal behaviour is the result of either sickness or insanity (which if it were true would suggest that all punishments would be inappropriate). Amended to note that the BBC article is making an assumption that leaded petrol is the primary source of environmental lead, although as I have said lead based paints (whose flakes are very light and easily windblown) are a far more likely source. And although it is also true that lead poisoning can lead to ghastly symptoms (and can effect the unborn) - the lead from petrol fell mainly on the roadside (the particles in the exhaust are very heavy and not so easily windblown). A simple study would look to see if lead workers were peculiarly prone to criminality -as they are certainly most exposed to lead poisoning and have to have regular health checks. I know of no such study with any useful conclusions.