Penguin68

preserving .... and families' history No - it is a legal obligation to preserve the history (who is buried where, when etc. as part of any re-use activity) - and for private graves the lift and deepen rule means that individuals will continue to 'rest' in the same grid reference as before. (For public graves the Church is considering whether its previous requirement to lift and re-bury shouldn't be replaced with lift and deepen as for private graves where the land remains consecrated). What is 'lost' is old memorials in situ - many of which are now badly damaged and virtually unreadable, and which will refer to the comparatively long dead most of whom (war heroes apart) have no current mourners. Family history must be preserved (in records) when re-use is contemplated.

BT has bought EE (the deal is finalised and BT has now reorganised around the new Divisions). BT already has BT Mobile - as it has had, as a Mobile Virtual Network Operator, since it sold-off 02 (that's now on the EE platform). [Curiously, BT Mobile did buy a limited G4 license to support its commercial customers before it bought EE.] EE will continue to operate as a separate entity. I doubt whether Plusnet will lose its identity as a broadband supplier - and it's not clear that it, either, will become the nominal EE broadband supplier.

I have refuted this multiple times as I think this is inaccurate. No, you have disagreed with it multiple times. A refutation would require evidence. Most scrub is made up of seedlings of trees and bushes sourced from any mature trees or bushes local to the scrub - interestingly rose-bay willow herb and buddleia - which were very common on bomb site and railways - don't seem to have appeared noticeably in the cemetery scrub - presumably because it was already too overgrown for them to seed. Neither (which is a blessing) as far as I can see is Japanese Knot-weed. But ivy is ubiquitous. So it's mainly a very few species of (granted mainly indigenous) trees and bushes. Competition will reduce the varieties to those most suited to the area, which will then dominate. Any study of untended scrub (which is what ssw wants) shows a reduction in diversity compared with managed areas. Scrub tends to be successional (one group of plants is replaced by another - eventually becoming true woodland - but again with generally limited ranges of species) Most woodland you will see nowadays, particularly around London, is heavily managed and planted for diversity - the numbers of different species present are by no means 'natural'. Large areas of woodland which are managed for species diversity will also have intentionally varied habitats, including clearings and e.g. adjacent meadowland and hedgerow. All this takes money, skill and time - and I see no clear route for a cash-strapped borough to devote this the the cemeteries - indeed the ssw position, as I understand it, is to abandon these areas to the wild. And this is really a side issue. The argument is really between those who see cemeteries as places to bury people to meet the emotional and psychological needs of those still living - and want this facility to continue locally for the benefit of Londoners, and those who don't care about the needs of these people, but believe that their own needs for places to entertain themselves trump these other needs, even in an area which is well provided for recreational open spaces of multiple types. If we had all been in the City of London I would have been more likely to consider that a balance for need tipped towards those wanting recreational open spaces - but this simply isn't true round here, already, as I have said, well provided for these. The cemeteries do not provide (even locally) unique recreational space or habitat - they do provide the only place to bury people locally.

Plusnet has been owned by the BT Group since the end of January 2007 - but is operated at arms length.

Details on the other war graves in COC are here: There are specific rules about Commonwealth War Graves and War memorials - I cannot think that Southwark has any attention (Renata - you are much more aware than I of agreed plans, can you confirm?) to extend re-use to these. The lone VC grave not with the other war memorial graves is another matter, but, again, I suspect that preservation of this (taking into account the Regiment's interest) would be entirely possible. Many of the graves in the wooded area are badly damaged - by the very trees that are being lauded by ssw - who also talk about preservation of old memorials - these two aims are not actually compatible.

I know that as a local and someone who uses it regularly for recreation. I also use it for recreation (there are only two people memorialised there that I knew well) - but part of my 'recreational' enjoyment is that it's a working cemetery - where there are new burials weekly, flowers, people quietly remembering loved ones (recent deaths, not pre-war or earlier). I am fascinated by what people put on graves, by how they use them as a focus of family ceremony. I walk in other areas for different experiences, but the participation in family feelings is also important to me. Cemeteries which simply become well tended sculpture parks have their place, no doubt, but its a different place to a working facility. It's the raw utility of the space that pleases me, the fact that it's (almost) a working as well as a contemplative space which I enjoy. So - for those who play the 'heritage and value and wild beauty' card (and by the way, cemeteries don't naturally have a wild beauty) there are other beauties - associated with people and what they do, which is of value. I, personally, enjoy the recent memorials more, possibly, than the impenetrable over-grown bits, which I have only viewed from the periphery (and which, to be honest, are pretty dull - once you've seen one overcrowded sapling you've seen them all, whereas every grave is a novelty). Edited to add - and by the way, the mature trees in the managed part of the cemetery, standing uncrowded and able to spread fully, are far more beautiful, to my eyes, both in the winter and when clad in the summer than the 'woodland'. Each tree is able to show its full nature and delight. And a managed cemetery allows for many different species of trees to be planted, tended and enjoyed, rather than a scrub mono-culture.

London is a city constantly under pressure and constantly changing. Attempts to set things in aspic (that's the way we were, we don't want change) is both understandable and clearly wrong-headed. Where environs don't change, they cease to be fit for purpose and sooner or later 'die'. London is (in many places) a 24/7 city - that's generally a good thing, I think. London is heavily populated (and getting more so) - that's actually a good thing, as well, as long as there is sufficient housing. If (slightly) higher rise gets there that may be an acceptable price to pay, if we wish our children to be able to live close to us rather than being forced out into the sticks and long commutes. [The dystopian view in the film shortly to be released, High Rise - which is a great film - is also not the way ED is going, by the way.] Perhaps the (Labour) Southwark councilors actually have a better vision of the necessary future of the borough than those local to (and too wedded to the past) of our wards. Reading these pages you'd think a Centre Point was being planned for Lordship lane, not a shop which many people have been crying out for (not all, of course) and a handful of additional flats to add to the local housing stock. Yes, it's change, yes it's being hard fought for by the shop and developer, no, it may turn out not be such a disaster as all that. Of course individuals who live very locally are worried about the change and what the impact will be on them, that's completely understandable - and sometimes the greater good prevails. And if the extended licencing hours, if granted, lead to violent excesses etc. - then there are remedies to be had. And if they don't - well maybe we'll be pleased we can buy stuff when we want to (and if we don't want to over extended hours, no shop as clever as M&S is going to be staying open late with no customers).

Your new strap line "we feel it is wrong to cut down a living tree to bury a dead person" is a more honest argument. Although, in fact, in so far as living trees are being cut down and not replaced, the 'benefit' is going not to a 'dead person' but to the relatives and friends who mourn that person, and for whom burial may form an important part of their world-view - just because you (ssw people) don't share it (actually I don't either) doesn't invalidate its importance, or the psychological benefit such obsequies and a focus of mourning and grief can give. The deal is a living tree plays other living entities, with whom you have a greater share of DNA and heritage than otherwise.

I thought it would be obvious that forcing Orthodox Muslims and Jews to bury outside the borough while subsidising Christian and Atheist burials inside the borough is discriminatory. There is a facility for 'devout' Muslim burial in Nunhead cemetery - see many posts passim. There have been devout Jewish burials in the cemeteries. Any Muslim or Jew can be buried in any of the cemeteries - but if they choose only to be buried in areas where there are only Jews or Muslims (i.e. chose to self-segregate) then a municipal cemetery may not be for them - where all are welcome. Many consider that a select area within a wider cemetery is acceptable (as do some Christians wanting to be buried in consecrated plots). They key issue as regards devout Muslim burial is that it should be undertaken within 24 hours of death - this may be a problem for a particular cemetery in terms of completing arrangements - for instance where a Sunday burial may be required. Southwark does discriminate against devout Hindus wishing to be cremated on an open-air pile and devout Parsees wishing to be exposed and predated on by the birds of the air. Thank goodness. And as for any practicing Aztecs - well, don't get me started.

Affordable housing = less housing No, as 'affordable' housing tends to have a smaller footprint and be less expensively built then, for any given investment and land size it would be possible to put up more 'affordable' housing units. Your syllogism only works if you assume that developers intend to build affordable housing units but then price them as un-affordable. Or perhaps you are confusing 'affordable' with uneconomic or 'at a loss'. Which it isn't/ needn't be. There are, of course, local market rates; what is deemed 'affordable' in London may not be in Birkenhead. There are (sadly) marketing issues where what is seen as 'social' housing appears in the same development as premium/ luxury build, but that says more about the people who might buy the premium housing than it does the economics of building it.

Depending on the cubic footage of your proposed extension, relative to the existing house, and assuming no previous extensions were undertaken post 1949 (about) it may fall under 'permitted development'. Such work would not require planning permission per se but it would need to meet the borough's current planning rules and building regulations - and the planning department would need to confirm that it did. A council issued certificate confirming this would be required by any future buyer to demonstrate the works were lawful. As long as you meet planning rules then a 'permitted development' does not require planning permission - but it still must meet planning rules. The planning department are the best people to confirm this - when they see the plans. The rules about permitted development have changed http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1343825/new-permitted-development-rights-will-affect-applicants-local-planning-authorities - three key paragraphs here are:- Single-storey domestic rear extensions up to eight metres deep for detached houses and six metres for all other houses were exempted from the need for planning permission for three years up to 2016 by a permitted development right introduced in 2013. This replaced the respective limits of four metres and three metres under the previous system. Pickles' written ministerial statement extended this exemption until 2019, but with more restrictions than originally proposed, as well as limiting the life of the measures to three years rather than making them permanent. and Planning departments also have to prioritise applications for prior approval - even though they do not receive a fee for them, said Stephen Weeks, head of planning at the London Borough of Brent. "If they are not considered within six weeks, they are deemed to have been approved," he noted. According to the DCLG's figures, the borough received 163 applications for prior approval in the last quarter of 2014, the largest number for any English planning authority in that time. with Under the rules for the householder extension permitted development right, local authorities must notify neighbours of applications for prior approval. Where objections are made, councils must decide whether the impact on the amenity of all adjoining properties is acceptable. What I think all this means is that you can do more than you think, but you need prior approval (based on submitted plans) from the council to do it. But a planning committee may not have to consider it, only officials, unless there are objections. Amended to add:- http://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/when-is-permission-required/what-are-permitted-development-rights/ is also very helpful.

You are right, but if (all) these cemeteries really weren't suitable it seems strange to list any of them them - I agree that all are without italics. There are certainly (based on names and inscriptions) people of Turkish origin buried in COC, who are most likely to be of Muslim origin, even if not (given the past secular nature of Turkey and the fact that the graves are marked out in any way) devout Muslims. There is a requirement of Islam that devout Muslims be buried only with other devout Muslims - so I suspect a specific section of any municipal graveyard would need to be so dedicated - these types of restrictions have led e.g. to specific graveyards for observant people of the Jewish faith. There is an argument that those who wish to exclude themselves from the company (even in death) of certain others are not then being discriminated against by a secular society happy to offer them a facility (which is offered to all others equally) which they are not prepared to accept. There are significant areas in the cemeteries which are not the cynosure of any faith (the unconsecrated areas). I suppose it is a matter of interpretation whether devout Muslims are being excluded, or are excluding themselves, if they require a cemetery (rather than e.g. a part of a cemetery) where only devout Muslims are buried. There are limits to the levels to which municipal cemeteries should be required to offer religious compatible facilities - we do not allow open air cremation (for instance) - a Hindu tradition - nor do we have Towers of Silence where bodies can be laid out for vultures to dispose of (a Parsee (Parsi) - Zoroastrian tradition). Not offering these I do not think would trigger Human Rights complaints. But we do have a tradition of burial, and an understanding that this should be 'conveniently' located, where possible for mourners/ families. Across Europe re-use of local cemeteries (often combined with ossuaries where disinterred bones can latterly be stored) is very common.

Whilst COC may not be suitable for Muslim burials The Muslim Funeral Service lists both Camberwell Old and Camberwell New as well as Nunhead as suitable for Muslim Burial. http://www.mfs.org.uk/default.asp?ID=62 - although it notes that spaces may not always be available. I assume that if there were problems (other than availability) with these cemeteries they would not be listed. Other than having land not consecrated for Christian Burial available, grave orientation is a key issue for devout Muslim burial - as would any requirement for e.g. embalming. Also key for devout Muslims is immediate availability, Islamic traditions require very quick burial following death.

What you are paying for is peace of mind (and a pretty quick service) delivered by engineers who are backed by a pretty big concern (so, if they don't do the job right, not that I've had that problem) you've got a big company to get back to. If you are sure you can get service within 24 hours (24/7) at no additional cost and from an assured service company, fine. But I would guess I've had my money's worth, in terms of actual service and peace of mind. I wouldn't use them for some other types of work (domestic appliances other than heat and hot water) as the money spent would go (probably more than all the way) towards buying a new one of whatever - but for 'proper' engineering work it's worth it to me. An engineering call-out is going to be ?60 - and then there's the cost of parts and almost certainly another ?60 as the time to fit trickles magically over an hour. With the 'insurance' there's no benefit in extending the job to ramp the price. But everyone makes their choice about what is 'value' to them. For me British Gas Homecare is.

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.