Penguin68

NOTE TO ADMIN - TAKE THIS DOWN IF YOU DON'T THINK IT HELPS Previous threads seem to have generated more heat than light, including personal accusations and counter accusations, so in an attempt to bring discussion back to the detail of the Councils? proposals and implementation:- The story so far: Southwark Council, who manages these two municipal cemeteries, created in the latter half of the 19th century from pastoral (meadow) lands bought from farmers, plans to extend their use for burials by starting to bury in areas not previously used and (eventually) re-using grave space, as allowed by law. Their proposals cover only those areas which form designated parts of the two cemeteries, although bits of these have not been used previously for burial. Their initial focus is on areas which have been allowed to run wild (following a period when the council abrogated its responsibilities to look after the cemeteries properly) or which have been taken out of use (concreting). This work initially involves clearing scrub growth (and some older, intentionally planted trees) and areas of contamination following fly-tipping. Some of this work takes place over 19th century graves, both private and ?public? (formally known as paupers graves). For private graves (the majority of recent burials) the law requires that no grave be disturbed (other than for new family burials) for re-use in less than 75 years after the last burial. Where private graves are re-used the normal rules are for ?lift and deepen? where the original occupants are buried lower down (but in the same spot), with new occupants buried above. In other London cemeteries it is common to ?turn? the grave marker so that the original inscriptions now are on the back of the gravestone. Some of the land is ?consecrated? (particularly public grave areas) ? the Diocese of Southwark must give a ?Faculty? for consecrated areas to allow what is described as ?substantial alterations? ? which includes the removal of any remains for re-interment in consecrated ground (which is their current policy regarding public graves), the disturbance of grave furniture and the creation of new paths or roadways. Some actions (in practical terms ?gardening? and tree management) do not require such a Faculty, nor would clearance of contamination and fly-tipping residue where this did not disturb graves or grave markers. The council?s plans include plans for replanting trees (though these will tend to be saplings rather than mature trees). Over time they suggest any net tree loss will be minimal, though this probably ignores removal of current spindly sapling growth. It is inevitable that some wild habitats will be removed or substantially altered, although it should be noted that different habitats will consequently arrive. Last year, for instance, in the existing managed areas of Camberwell Old Cemetery a substantial portion was allowed to grow into mature hay meadow during the summer. The existing areas which have been let run wild in the cemeteries are limited (i.e. most of the cemeteries are already fully managed). Camberwell Old Cemetery is 11.62 hectares, Camberwell New, 12.2 or 58.86 acres together. The council?s current plans for removal of trees and scrub growth etc. cover 3.12 acres in the Old Cemetery (not all of which is tree covered) and 0.54 acres in the New Cemetery. Combined that is 6% of the total area of both cemeteries. There will, of course, over time, be substantial re-use of burial space within the existing properly managed cemetery areas, this being achieved by a combination of re-interment for public burials and what is called ?mounding? (raising the soil levels to allow new burial) as well as lift and deepen for private graves. This work (in existing managed areas) will not, over time, have significant effect on changing habitat. A pressure group (calling itself ?Save Southwark Woods? ? although there has never been an entity or area actually called ?Southwark Woods?) is committed to attempt (a) to stop council works in reclaiming areas of the cemetery not properly maintained (b) to stop all future burials in Southwark and © to allow the whole cemetery areas (Old and New Cemetery) to become wilded and overgrown. They claim this will create a ?nature reserve? ? although who will run it and how it would be funded has never been made clear. There is already a Nature Reserve in part of One Tree Hill (which is adjacent to the New Cemetery); Nunhead cemetery, now ?closed? for burials, is treated as a Nature Reserve ? so we already have two of these locally; and there are many other local areas of woodland and park. Both Old and New cemeteries are already classified (in their entirety, being mainly managed areas) by the Council as Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs). The Council claims (and it is in their gift) that SINC status would be maintained following the proposed developments. Arguments the protesters have used (over and above the ?loss of habitat? ? which is accurate but perhaps has been disproportionate ? as only 6% of the land is involved with that) include biological contamination from burials and flooding ? as well as ?disrespect? towards the existing dead. Their main belief appears to be that if their views prevail the areas will become new parkland for them to enjoy (although the area is already well provided for green spaces of different types). How this parkland would be managed, by whom and at whose cost has not been discussed by them, nor are any proposals made for this. The Council?s responses to the protest so far can be seen here:- http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/2231/the_future_of_southwarks_cemeteries/6 The 2013 Guidance on reuse of cemeteries in London (a .pdf) can be downloaded from here:- https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwiLltON5fnKAhWLWhQKHYAdBMUQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&bvm=bv.114195076,d.d24&cad=rja (NB ? Summary written by someone who, living very close to one of the cemeteries, broadly supports the Council?s policy, on the assumption that it is carried through as promised and sensitively).

And just as soon as people stop dying or stop wanting to bury their dead, or visit the site of their burials without having several hours travel we will follow this advice. And the dead don't think. That's rather the point of being dead.

Your agent is right. Although there is something called 'outline planning permission' this is used only when you wish a general authority to undertake a new build (for instance a second house on your property). This is of value if you want to sell off a plot where such a second build was feasible - in order to demonstrate to a buyer that the 'right sort' of development plans would be acceptable (and thus to price the plot accordingly). However, an extension would require full planning permission, which would then be given only for the design submitted, which a buyer might well not want to proceed with. If there are (recent) examples of permitted development or planning permission granted on your sort of house you can point this out to any buyer - it is up to them then to get their solicitor to check if local planning rules have recently changed which might now disallow such a development. Otherwise you are building unnecessary time and cost into your sale, which you will not be able to recover.

If the fund is registered as a charity then, in theory, it could be challenged. If the fund raiser is just going to donate to a registered charity however then there is no obvious check to be made, unless and if you believe that the fund raising is a scam, in which case it could be reported to the police as such. There is no mechanism whereby the fund raiser could be audited 'on spec'. And if the funds are not destined for a registered charity then no interest would be taken. Caveat emptor. However, such fund raising could be seen as income generating (depending upon the mechanism being used to raise funds, for instance the sale of tickets or other items) in which case, if the enterprise was seen as being a business, then HMRC could be involved, were there to be tax liability issue. If the fund raising was using a lottery that too is regulated. (I am not a lawyer, however, so this is based on a normal 'business' understanding of affairs).

You have to be careful jumping a modern car from another one. Can't remember the technicalities but there is a danger of overload for one of them. Did you offer to pay the garage?

Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries are (in total) 23.82 hectares (Old, 11.62, New 12.2), or 58.86 acres. In order to make a (new) 100 acre nature reserve some readers (and I hope supporters of ssw) are going to have to give up their back gardens for Lewis's aims to be met. Not me, I'm afraid.

The council already insist on a residence test for both the deceased and the person arranging the funeral. Isn't this because there are reduced fees for residents? I had thought that non-residents were still allowed to be buried (this was a ssw complaint, that the cemeteries would be full of foreigners) but at a higher cost. I was assuming that HopOne was wanting exclusive burial rights for locals only. In which case someone who had lived all their lives in the borough, but had moved out to die in a Home outside the borough, might be refused burial rights.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12151550/Martin-Clunes-joins-hunt-for-cat-ripper-of-Croydon.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/27/crodyon-cat-killings-mystery-attack-decapitated_n_9087262.html

Apologies HopOne - it is shown as designated, though it is worth noting that (1) the whole area of COC is so designated, not just the area which stimulated the protest, so clearly a maintained and well managed cemetery also fits this bill (and hence a future maintained cemetery would as well), and that (2) the 'wild' area is described as 'scrub' - which is exactly the words I first used to describe it. You should also note that the law (in London) does not allow re-use of cemetery space where burials are less than 75 years old - so that no space with burials which post date 1941 could yet be re-used for new burials - much of the maintained area has burials which post-date that year - it is the un-maintained area which has the earlier burials which could be re-used. And the accusations of 'lying' have been mainly applied (and correctly) to a single poster no longer on this thread. However those too closely allied to his particular strident campaign and its flawed arguments should understand that they are very likely to be tarred with that same brush, guilty by association. I would entirely agree that this whole problem has been precipitated and exacerbated by Southwark's very poor record of care for the cemeteries in the last decade of the last century into the first decade of this. This neglect is unpardonable.

Penguin68, are you accusing me of lying? If so, then provide an example please. No, I am not. However you refer to the trees in the cemeteries as 'Grade 1 SINC woods' - as far as I know this is inaccurate. You suggest that the council should reuse ?the currently used space that they have for local burial? ? I am not sure what this means ? they intend only to reuse space in the existing cemeteries for burials ? I assume that you wish this to be restricted to ?locals? ? whatever that means, presumably you would insist on a residence test both for the deceased and those arranging the funerals? Apart from that, the council is planning to use the designated cemetery areas for funerals. The issue about 'non residents' being buried here as being important is somewhat exploded by the campaign's express desire for all Southwark residents to be buried in future out of borough. You have mitigated this, certainly, but has the campaign? You assert the ?current path is ?unsustainable? ? but reusing existing cemeteries is exactly that, ?bad for the environment? ? again the plan to replant trees and maintain the cemeteries instead of allowing them to slip back into the target for fly tipping that they were, would be good for the environment; and bad for ?public health? which is nonsense originated in the earlier part of the campaign which talked about rotting corpse fluids flowing into Forest Hill Road (hyperbolic rubbish). This issue about flood protection is also not really valid, although of course proper care will be need to be taken with drainage. The Old Cemetery has in the past had parts waterlogged but has never been the cause of floods. Nor is it likely to be in the future. This is all taken from one post of yours on the previous page of this thread. You are not lying, but your assertions are challengeable. This is very different from the clear and admitted inventions of a now banned poster.

Whilst not wanting to pour oil on the flames I do feel that people are allowed to operate more than one persona - personal comments on issues can be separated (by using different ID's and sign-offs) from comments in a corporate capacity. Lewis has decided to combine his public profile with his private one (so he posted as edborders and latterly has also signed his name, when he could, on these threads). However, even where he knows someone's personal identity, where they are not using it in a 'conversation' neither should he. He has also made (what he later admitted were) completely fictitious accusations against posters on this forum (including me) - which if not countered would have suggested we were partial players in this debate. That is not pleasant and I am shocked that he seems to be continuing this trajectory in other media. Other supporters of his campaign are more moderate, and I welcome that. They do, however, I'm afraid, frequently fall into the trap of quoting his more outrageous statements as fact. Or dismissing them as if they are being made up by opponents of ssw. He did, really, originally suggest that the best uses of the cemeteries were for walks and picnics, and that they should be turned over for that use. He has countered any statement made by the council as to what they plan as being either a straight lie, or dissimulation to hide a greater truth. He is of course welcome to hold the view he does, but where he uses un- and half- truths to stimulate support then he should be challenged. And he does appear to be combining his career publicity with this campaign - that's his choice but he shouldn't then attribute to others such intents for themselves. It is no encouragement to 'stand up and be counted' when doing so invites attacks and harassment.

Even where there was a conservation area (cemeteries may be included in these) it is likely that the order would be to preserve their nature as cemeteries (as conservation areas protect specific urban architectures). So the council would not decide to preserve what has been a fly-tipped waste land. Indeed parts of the cemeteries could be conserved - those areas which are War Graves and War Memorials, for instance. However it must be remembered that, for a municipal cemetery in particular, the 'custodian' of conservation is the council, who may of course (indeed would) authorise whatever alterations they chose to make (outwith other issues such as those on consecrated ground requiring a Diocese Faculty, or other legislation surrounding re-use of private graves). This would not be true of National SSIs and Listed Buildings. I think the ssw crowd are a little over precious when it comes to the issue of conservation areas - firstly these are not specifically about nature conservation - indeed they started initially as being about architectural and historical conservation, and secondly powers to alter them normally sit with the council itself, whose cemetery plans these are. Once again I implore people who do care about the local environment not to tilt at windmills but to focus on ensuring that the council undertakes its plans sensitively, plants the right sorts of trees as replacements and quickly, and brings the neglected areas of the cemeteries back into use without unnecessary delay. That is the best way of ensuring that the areas are still pleasant to be in and use for those not wanting them for their primary purpose. The originally adumbrated desire that they become picnic areas was never going to be a runner. They still have a chance to remain (in extended forms) valuable and interesting local cemeteries without no-go areas. And we are not short, locally, of real picnic areas to use and enjoy.

I can certainly recall routine suction drain clearance/ maintenance in Underhill last year (and in previous years). I had though the 2004 flood was the consequence of a water main burst overwhelming 'normal' drainage - as might have been expected. I don't think poor maintenance (which might additionally have been contributory) was the significant cause of the flooding, but simply an overwhelming volume of water which, once away from the drainage system (i.e. in people's basements) was 'unreachable'. Surface water drainage is only engineered for a maximum of 'heavy downpours' - worse than that and it will never cope, however well maintained.

Penguin68, that is very interesting but nevertheless it seems that the council felt that they needed faculty consent and the diocese responded with a list of preparatory works that they consented to: [www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk] Which didn't include felling of trees of any size in a conservation area. So is your contention that the council was seeking permission, that they didn't need, and are now working without that permission? I have been asserting all along that permission, or not, for felling of trees is not the Diocese's remit as regards consecrated land in municipal cemeteries - hence I would not expect them to offer a permission which is not their's to give - and by the way the area is not a 'conservation area' - it is a cemetery. In fact the Council itself could place preservation orders on trees in the borough, including ones in your or my property. The Church cannot.

As I have said before, the Faculty granted by the Diocese (not planning permission, though it has some similar effects) in regards to consecrated land in municipal cemeteries is in respect of 'substantial alteration' which includes the moving or disturbing of bodies, the moving or disturbing of grave markers and grave furniture and the introduction of new paths and roads (as they will be on ground consecrated for burial but now no longer available for burial use). Gardening, which would include removal of trees, is not 'substantial alteration' and should not require any Faculty. I am sure that the council will have (or will be) submitting its full plans to the Diocese so that it makes its decision in context, but parts of those plans (regarding the removal of scrub growth and other trees, and probably the removal of contaminated soil and fly-tippings, where this does not involve grave furniture as well as its replanting plans) does not in and of itself require the granting of a Faculty. I should also note that in general Dioceses do grant such Faculties, where the plans are orderly and the reburial of moved bodies etc. is properly arranged as they would wish to encourage, not block, Christian burial (which, as it is consecrated ground, is their interest).

it appears Overhill Road will be split between the new Dulwich Hill Ward and the shortened College Ward which becomes Dulwich Wood Ward. I suspect this must be a population issue, as the 'obvious' shared interest boundary of Dulwich Hill ward would be to follow the A216/A205 to the Lewisham border - thus putting everything North of the Lordship lane/ South circular/ London Road route into the two 'ED' wards. This is an obvious community of interest.

As I have said on Mr Barber's thread, it is the two new wards together (Goose Green and Dulwich Hill) which constitute now the vast majority of what most people posting here would recognise as East Dulwich. Calling just one of them East Dulwich might reasonably exasperate the other. We already have confusion when Mr Barber says he has made something available for those in East Dulwich when he actually means in the ward by that name which he represents. As ED is a concept, rather than a geophysical reality I find it helpful that there might in future not be an electoral ward with that name, laying claim to the metaphysical fame which the belongs to the wider ED concept. 'Dulwich Hill' is of course an invention out of whole cloth (which Goose Green isn't) but it is, at least, a little hilly in parts, and more so than the remainder of (metaphysical) East Dulwich.

Not clear why East Dulwich name is such a problem. Possibly because the two proposed new wards (Goose Green and Dulwich Hill) actually describe what most people consider to be 'core' ED together. I would guess that most people living in either ward would describe themselves as living in East Dulwich. So, if ED is spread over two wards, calling just one of them ED might be seen as too particular.

Actually, it's a very good idea if it's taken up by those who otherwise wouldn't exercise. The net benefit to 'society' by offering inducements to stay healthy is based on the conversion rate to healthy activity by members of that society. To pay Fusion to open the facilities free for 2 days (Friday and half Saturday and Sunday) pays back only when the societal health improves through take-up and the costs of coping with unhealthy people drops. I hope that some monitoring of usage will be made, to check at least how many users, over time, have increased their levels of usage (and not just changed the days when they exercise) and how many new users (and not just those transferring from other, paid-for, gyms) there are. I believe that the 'silver' (over 60s) usage has increased - will that translate down to the younger cohort? It is a good idea, but monitoring its success is vital. And (probably) to be successful that means additional expense on (effective) publicity. 'Build them a field and they will come' maybe, but only if they know about it!

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). I believe the Diocese may have been giving misleading information (possibly based on the questions it was asked). For real 'church land' - that is in the curtilage of an Anglican Church - the Church can set out quite stringent requirements of the incumbent and parish council regarding its use and alteration - but on consecrated municipal grounds its powers are diminished. If it was assumed (wrongly) that municipal cemeteries were church land then the Church could indeed set out limits e.g. on what size of tree could removed. I do not believe such powers exist for consecrated land on municipal cemeteries. That does not mean that the work proposed by the council on consecrated land does not require a Faculty (because they plan to alter grave furniture, inter alia and put in new roads and paths), but that Faculty would not additionally tie the hands of the council in the ways being suggested on this thread.

Indeed, although i'm not sure why the ground cleaning can not be done without removing trees? 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). 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.

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. 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 (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. Clearly there will be drainage problems, but these can be addressed, and addressed effectively. Water management is one of man's oldest technical skills. 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.

concerning the potential flooding issue, I am not sure what is meant here - parts of the graveyard are, at times of heavy and constant rain, waterlogged. This appears substantially to be surface water (i.e. precipitation not draining away) and is fairly typical of heavy clay soils. Before the downpour yesterday (Sunday 7th Feb) most of the surface water had dissipated - there was some standing water (very little) on the tarmac road. Undoubtedly work on the graveyard - and particularly mounding - will alter the nature of the surface water problem, very possibly (if the right soils for mounding are used) helping to encourage quick soak-away - ground-up bricks and concrete might, in this instance, improve drainage rather than being the 'horror' implied in some posts. Sand and particulate material is often used in gardening to improve drainage on clay soils. The problem might of course actually worsen during the work itself, (as a consequence of a part finished job) before being alleviated. It does make sense to ensure that, as far as drainage etc. is concerned, that a study is made to ascertain what the expected 'after' impact will be, if this hadn't already been done, as well as considering what intermediate stages might look like.

I think you'll find that, of the doctors listed as serving the practice (1) a number are, in fact, part-time (2) at least one doctor each day will be nominated as 'duty doctor' and hence not available for booked appointments (3) some doctors undertake clinics and offer (booked) minor surgery - these 'slots' will not be available for pre-booked appointments, (4) some slots are set aside for telephone consultations (5) bookable slots are not released all at once, to stop people booking up large numbers of slots 'against the chance' that they might need them. So the listing of availability on the web-site does not match, in fact, the normal doctor patient facing work-load.

Some posts have been excised. Including one naming councilors and making accusations against them.