Penguin68

I have British Gas cover for my boiler and central heating system. Over 28 years I have had 3 new pumps, one boiler/ hot water timer control, one heat exchanger (would have been very expensive), 2 boiler thermostats, a major leak in the central heating sorted out, and several leaky radiators dealt with, and the radiators rebalanced twice. All for no extra cost over and above the annual fee. Very good value, as far as I am concerned (and no, I do not now, nor have I ever worked for British Gas).

Ample burial provision is available at cemeteries like Kemnal Park without the need to obliterate or > excavate other families' existing graves The 75 year rule means that, in most cases, there will be no living relatives within the first degree (children, siblings, parents) still living when the grave may become available for re-use. Kemnal Park only offers a 25 year 'guarantee' of continued use. Where family graves are being used, then it is 75 years since the last burial (not since the grave started in use) that is the trigger. In the case of infant burials, when 75 years might not be long enough, I would guess that most cemetery managers would be sensitive to this. The graves of thousands will be mounded over with crushed building demolition waste I suspect that crushed building demolition waste (presumable crushed stone, clay bricks and concrete, most of which as constituent elements will have been taken out of the ground anyway - particularly the bricks from London Brick Clay - will offer a better drainage solution to standing water than the local untreated clays. And if 'crushed building waste' is used, that's surely a good example of effective recycling which should be applauded. And to suggest that the (net) few trees which will disappear (in this leafy neighbourhood) will contribute to respiratory deaths is laughable. Reducing the number of diesel cars, lorries and buses on the roads by even 10% would have a far greater (and more immediate) impact. Trees are mainly responsible for CO2 uptake - CO2 is NOT a gas involved with respiratory problems - although they may also I think uptake some NOX (maybe a biochemist could confirm this?)

Please note that not all wireless peripherals (such as wireless printers) are configured to 'hear' 5Ghz. I think most modern hubs (certainly modern BT HomeHubs as well as the Virgin Hub), operate on two frequencies. And most computers, phones and tablets can 'hear' them. One simple way of checking out the problem is to connect up via ethernet. If the problem persists it may well be a network issue, if it doesn't it's most likely a hub:router wireless problem. However also check on more than one peripheral, if you have more than one. One of my computers has drop-outs when my phone and tablets don't. I think it's either a hardware problem in the computer or more likely (since it cures easily using 'trouble-shoot problems') it's a software clash, which I can't actually be bothered to bottom out.

How is renting a temporary site not 'commercially viable', especially if the rent were comparable? Post Offices are not like shops, they need significant security (including safes) and data communications installations to allow them to operate; installing these and then removing them for only 12 months tenure would not cost-in, I would guess. It's not the rental but the fit-up that makes a temporary full Post Office not cost effective. Remember that Post Office 'stock' (money, postal stamps, forex, official forms and stamps) is very vulnerable to theft. And requires very secure surroundings for operation.

Building a relationship with the neighbours (actually, more difficult if they are not to be resident during the work) is key - together with a clear understanding of what is to be done and a discussion of any impact that might have on you. However one slight word of warning - a recent 'big build' on my street led to the house (never occupied by the 'owner'), at the end, being put on the market immediately the work was done - so any bridge building with the current owner was completely wasted. The build, then was all about leveraging value out of the property so that it could be sold on for a profit - ?100k of work lifted the price by ?300-?400k - that's what developers do, of course, so you do probably need, as much as you can, to find out whether you are really getting the new neighbour you think you are getting.

For me the most pressing issue for COC (the cemetery I know best) is not the re-use (that seems a sensible use of a resource) or the removal of the scrub growth to allow those areas to be re-used (that seems necessary, as does the removal of the fly tipped rubbish) but (1) that the public burial area memorials which are still (broadly) viable - that is not too badly damaged by root growth and toppling - should be preserved, not, obviously, in situ but (I suppose ideally) ranged round the cemetery perimeters - this is quite a common practice and that (2) the replanting intentions (type and justification for choosing those types) be part of an open discussion. Thirdly, I suppose, considering the issues have been raised, I would like to see the drainage plans for the revisited areas made public, and particularly a review of the use of field drains (porous clay pipes to allow area drainage etc.).

Without commentary - the following legal discussions may be of interest http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/01/11/reuse-of-graves-in-london-statutory-provisions/#more-24356 http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2016/01/18/re-use-of-graves-in-england-the-faculty-jurisdiction/#more-24496 This, from the second document, may be of particular interest More recently, the Chancellor of the Southwark Diocese has issued Guidance: on Churchyards and Memorials: Reuse of Graves which, echoes Re Blagdon Cemetery, and states: ?Save where burial rights are granted subject to a particular period of years, there should be an expectation that grave spaces will in due course be reused, and this is necessary to economise on land-use at a time when grave space is a diminishing resource. This is an increasingly urgent problem which all those responsible for churchyards have to face. Sensitive solutions have to be devised and implemented. Reuse of graves within a period of less than 75 years is likely to cause distress and offence to the living, as well as appearing disrespectful to the dead. But incumbents should promote and publicise policies for the reuse of graves as soon as 75 years have elapsed after the most recent burial therein, not least so that those presently arranging a burial are informed of what is likely to happen in the future. Rather than planning for re-use on a grave-by-grave basis, there is merit in seeking to bring larger areas into re-use as part of a coherent plan. Removal of existing memorials (including laying them flat) requires a faculty from the Chancellor, and consultation with any surviving relatives who can be traced will always be appropriate. Memorials remain the private property of those who initially paid for their erection, and therefore any faculty granted will contain provision for safeguarding (by some form of relocation) of the memorials. Where authorisation is sought to reuse part of a churchyard, the removal of a number of memorials can properly form the subject of a single petition for faculty.? Whilst it should be noted that this refers to churchyards (Church land) and not metropolitan cemeteries (council land) it may be expected that a similar policy would also apply to consecrated areas where the Diocese has the obligation to grant Faculties for re-use (or not).

I am baffled that James appears to have absented himself from recent discussions Mr Barber is normally assiduous in responding to posts on this forum, but hasn't posted since 17th February - and there have been a number of topics on which he would normally post. I would suggest that before he is taken to task about non response we should assure ourselves that there is no legitimate reason (such as ill health or holiday or work absence) which would be preventing him from participation, something he has never shied from in the past. We are lucky that he and other councilors are prepared to use this forum and (very frequently) offer good help and advice. Regular readers will know that I am not (always) a fan, but we should be prepared to cut him some slack. He has no legal or even moral obligation to respond to us on demand.

Penguin68 is not correct to say Southwark's works do not affect consecrated ground - Area Z is both consecrated (1913) and unconsecrated. What I actually said was:- 'Not all the land being worked on here is consecrated'. You can check. But by all means assert that I am wrong, if that makes you feel better. As to Islamic burial - devout Muslims require that a burial be speedy, that the grave be orientated so that it points to Mecca and that the (ritually washed) body be buried in a simple shroud, without autopsy or embalming. (There are also requirements about the way the corpse is laid out and supported in the grave). If there have been issues about any Southwark cemetery I suspect it may most likely have related to burial speed - if it was not possible to bury quickly in e.g. COC or CNC (for any reason) then an alternative site may have been chosen. Once more orderly ranging of burial sites is implemented (in the re-use phase) it will be necessary to allow for graves to have the Mecca orientation required, rather than the Christian burial on an East:West axis if these cemeteries are to (continue to) be used for Islamic burials. Since the ssw group (or many of them) want to stop Christian, Islamic, Jewish indeed all burials (they are at least equal opportunity non-burial mavens) I wonder why they are so keen to pray in aid such concepts as Human Rights when a right to the body disposal method of your religious, cultural or personal choice is one they do not think should be offered in Southwark.

Why do you think they are not catered for? Because it makes a better story for those not bothered actually to do the research?

Similarly, you can't force you neighbours to show you the public liability insurance details of their builder. My understanding is that where a builder (acting as an agent) doesn't have public liability insurance that liability then falls on the party commissioning the builder as agent - so your neighbour would then be the first port of call to sue - and you know that they have at least a part of an asset - the house being worked on. It is thus in your neighbour's best interests that he/ she ensures that their agents do have public liability cover - whether you are shown this is less material. If you know who their chosen builder is it might be worth while doing your own check on them (Google is helpful, so is this forum) - if you are then worried share your worry - and the evidence - with your neighbour. They may even thank you.

If that is the case, my understanding of what Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that the ground clearance does not effect the consecrated ground. Actually, I intended to say that the Diocese (if it grants a Faculty) does so in regards of what is described as 'substantial alterations' - examples of which are given as moving bodies, disrupting grave furniture and building paths and roads on consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. Not all the land being worked on here is consecrated. This issue about path and road building is there because these would be (by definition) those built on consecrated land which would thus take this out of use for Christian burial. Such a use of consecrated land would need a Faculty. I do not believe that work around removing 'wild grown' trees - or indeed any trees where such work did not cause damage to grave furniture could be treated as 'substantial alteration' - remembering that this is posited around the consecrated nature of the land. The Faculty takes account of bodies, of memorials to those bodies, and to the extent (availability) of consecrated land. It is substantial alteration to the consecrated nature of the land for which a Faculty needs to be granted. What others might see as 'substantial' (i.e. removal of large trees) is not in this context. Decisions about e.g. trees on municipal land are made by the tree officers of the council, not the Church (and, frankly, a damn good thing too). And as I have said (till I'm blue in the teeth) the Church has shown itself, at least until now, very sympathetic to the re-use of cemeteries to allow continued local burials. Most (inner) London parish cemeteries are already several corpses deep, which is why these have ceased to be used.

These are the least abundant or biodiverse of any of COC's 30 acres. For the solitary bees, the stag beetles, bats and myriad of other species, it is the wilder places that nature loves and needs so badly. Messier places that humans haven't controlled, sterilised and subdued. 1. What is your evidence for 'most' abundant and bio diverse? In general any single environment (as scrub land is) will tend to have fewer species than a varied environment - the managed areas, as I have said (tediously) before included last year a hay meadow - there are many bulbs planted, there are more flowering plants than in the scrub area. Probably the average back garden, which often has a multiplicity of micro-environments has more species variety than many larger, single type areas. 2. What makes you think that a former managed cemetery area, now fly-tipped with building waste and possibly asbestos qualifies as an area that hasn't been impacted by humans? - 'controlled, sterilised and subdued' would describe almost all areas in the UK - all farmland, most managed woodland, parks etc. Those are the places that people do want to see. True 'wilderness' areas (as the cemeteries never have been, and never would be) tend to be mono-cultural and bleak. In practical terms the area (over time) would be impenetrable until (a few) trees came to dominate the surroundings, when the remaining scrub growth would 'lose' the competition to survive and we would be left with many fewer trees and not much in between them (we are probably talking 50-70 years of time here - but woodland is about the long-game). The canopy would block out most light underneath it (that's what canopies do) leaving little undergrowth. Actually, without any tending, there probably would be a plethora of ivy (there is already) but this supports little - wasps in the autumn for the flowers, pigeons in the spring for the berries. And, I am sorry, but I still cannot take seriously a body whose very name is founded on a marketing lie - there is not now, nor has there ever been, an entity called 'Southwark Woods'. 'Save Camberwell Cemeteries' woods' would have been both more meaningful and truthful. But then meaning and truth...

With BT Broadband you also get (with BT Mobile) pretty good mobile deals (EE the underlying carrier). ?12 a month gives you a 4G connection, 2GB of data, 500 minutes of talk and unlimited texts, for instance. There are higher and lower cost offers as well. The deals are SIM only, although you can also get a ?50 discount on a number (not a wide number, and not that impressive) of handsets.

They will be on our roof, in our garden, the fence will be down etc and we are understandably concerned. Not without your permission, unless they actually own your property. They have no rights of trespass in order to undertake works. And they need to get a party wall agreement before they can start. Depending upon the scale of the work being proposed they may well need planning permission, and they will certainly need building works agreement from the council planning department before 'permitted development' can be accepted. It is possible to complain - particularly regarding loss of amenity - height of new extensions can be challenged - particularly if out of character for the area. I am assuming that you are living in the 'other half' of a semi or in a next door terrace?

To all those haters of nature "Buzzzz off" !! .... from miss bumblebee. Xxx To clarify, I doubt if any of those who have written to challenge the hard line views of the ssw pressure group, or to (broadly) support Southwark's plans 'hate' nature. Most of us, certainly I, actually quite like it. Which is why we chose to walk, inter alia, in the cemeteries and not the streets. But there is a balance to be drawn between a love of nature and the needs of those who (now,and in the future, not just the past) want to inter and mourn their dead reasonably locally to them (or to where their dead have lived). And I can enjoy nature in the managed part of the cemetery (which is where the parakeets appear to have been roosting) as much, if not more, than gloomy and overgrown scrub. And there is very little 'natural' about trees sprouting through open graves and fly-tipped spoil heaps (particularly where these may, possibly, have been contaminated by building asbestos). I might just as well characterise those who support the ssw campaign as 'people haters'.

A lot of local residents DO care and want to have a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees and wildlife. Well, I'm a local (Southwark) resident, and I also care how the cemeteries are manged for the recently deceased and their mourners. As that is a need which is being ignored by too many here. There are many parks and wild areas very close by, there are only 2 working cemeteries. When the trees and beetles get a vote (and start paying council tax) I'll put their needs on a par with people. (And yes, I do know that people also appreciate wild life and trees, my point is that the cemeteries are not the only place, very locally, they can do that, whereas they are the only places, very locally, where people can be buried and mourned).

Sadly I think there might have been a media via which would have upset fewer people even if it satisfied (wholly) none. Campaigning to keep at least some of the wild area in COC (perhaps over the hillock now exposed) whilst allowing the planned re-use elsewhere, but with clear oversight of, and participation with the council in terms of the planned landscaping and replanting might have led to a better (and less bitter) outcome. Opposing, in its entirety, the council plan for re- and continued use of the cemeteries, despite the past research and consultation which resulted in this being determined to be at least the least worse option ? together with the concomitant furore which has not been a close friend to truth at times ? attempting, indeed, at the last minute to entirely re-set the agenda, has led to this being a, frankly, pointless and sterile confrontation ? not helped by a suspicion that it is being used to fuel material in someone?s performing career. Most of us, I suspect, who broadly support (with reservations and concerns about delivery) our elected council?s decisions have only come in to the debate to attempt to refute clear misinformation and exaggeration, which might lead others to support a cause for the wrong (i.e. not true) reasons. At a time when polls and petitions are trumping informed debate, ensuring that these are not being conducted through hyperbole and untruth is important to some.

Penguin68 - 2 questions - Do you have any relatives that are actually buried in that cemetery and do you work for Southwark Council? No, I don't have relatives buried (as far as I know) anywhere - and how interesting that the questioning of the independence of commentators not of your persuasion has surfaced again, so, as I have already said on a rightly lounged thread, I am not employed by Southwark, or indeed any council now or in the past, or, indeed, to stop further questioning of my bona fides to comment on this issue impartially , with anyone associated with this work, nor are any of my relatives by marriage or blood. I do, however, as I have done for close to 30 years, live within 2 minutes walk of the Old Cemetery, somewhere I regularly walk and which I enjoy. Edited to remove the implication that I just use the cemetery as a cut-through, rather than as a place to enjoy (including enjoying, if that's the right word, the memorials to those buried there). My error in phrasing.

I do think that we are talking about a carelessly driven vehicle, but one that didn't actually go over a grave, or grave furniture, though it clearly did ride over the road edge. It was too close to the grave, granted, but didn't actually impact it. The pooled water had nothing to do with the council work. I mention the date only to suggest that this problem (water logging) has been a long run one. I wonder whether it was reported and what actions (if any) were taken to remedy it?

However it should be noted that as far as I can see from the picture the woman's daughter died in about 1985 (of course it will continue to upset her, but her loss dates back 30 years) and it is one of those that becomes waterlogged in very wet conditions, every winter for the last 30 years or so it will have looked like this - I would guess the large tracked vehicle just went over the edge of the road - I don't think the actual grave was damaged by this (the water logging has nothing to do with the current work) - it would always have looked bad with a muddy puddle outwith any current actions of Southwark. A lot of the damage to the sides of the road has already been addressed and repaired. The grave has been allowed to settle too far - and should have been re filled-in some time ago, so that a dip could not then have filled with water. The state of the cemetery (including water-logging) is a function of past neglect (and, if the cemetery was abandoned as some people want, would only get much much worse).

It is very relevant - your reference to scrub retaining water actually reinforces this view. My reference was to water pooling in the scrub, so evidently not being taken up by that. There have been NO floods associated with either cemetery - so defense against flooding (where there isn't any) isn't sensible. The run-off (during rain storms) is about water running down tarmac-ed roads down hills. And 'flood defense' is about reducing the feed into rivers (which can/ do flood) not cemeteries on the tops of hills, which tend not to. This whole flooding trope is a red herring - and is confusing issues of localised water pooling during periods of very wet weather (probably more linked to the underlying clay soils than anything else) with 'flooding' - which is (ask householders who have been flooded) a very different issue.

The contractors are certainly leaving some trees, although some large trees (in terms of trunk width, based on the stumps left) have gone - most removed are however very weedy saplings. The hillock in the cemetery area being cleared is now very visible. I am concerned that the contractor's machinery may be compressing the ground, which is unhelpful should it start raining continually again, but I suspect that pro-tem that cannot be avoided. The few dry days we have had recently have allowed most of the pooling water to dissipate (indeed one of the few really boggy areas I saw yesterday was in the area of uncleared scrub!). We are seeing this area now at its worst, before the work is complete and well before any replanting, which I guess won't take place until the works that need a Faculty can be completed. Once it is tidied and replanted - and new growth starts - it will start to look good (if different from before) again. I do think that the council needs to consider drainage more clearly - with the work being undertaken it would be a good opportunity to put in field drains - but references to tree planting being used for 'flood defense' of course refers to uplands where water is feeding into main waterways - which led, e.g to the floods in York and Carlisle - and is not relevant to the situation here.

Thanks for the update

This thread (and the intention to revise the forum) seems to have gone very quiet - is there still any intention to change the underlying software driving the forum, or are we where we are, for the foreseeable?