Penguin68

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?

I am not being disingenuous here, but do we know that any mature oaks are to be removed? And if so, how many out of how many? And of those being removed (if any) how many are in good and healthy condition? It is always sad to see a mature tree removed, but on occasion this is necessary, as may be substantially reducing its crown, for safety purposes. I hate to see it done, but sometimes it has to be. Scrub/ sapling growth of oak is not a natural egg-laying habitat for stag beetles.

The council are claiming otherwise but only by changing the definition of a tree depending on whether it is removed (> 150mm girth) vs planted (any sapling will do). I did say 'over time'. The saplings will grow (and quicker, where they are not competing for light etc. with scrub growth). Other plants (i.e. grass) will also be absorbing water (though not as much as well established trees). Depending on the planting some trees (i.e. silver birch) which are shallow rooted and thirsty will be more effective than some others at taking up water. And, as I have been trying to make clear, in the grand scheme of things flooding is not an issue. If the council uses field drains to overcome issue of impacted clay etc. the surface water issues are entirely manageable.

In fact one insect found here had never before been seen in the UK and the Natural History museum came down to verify the find. This is not, in fact, that unusual - a huge number (comparatively) of never-before-described-by-science invertebrates are discovered in urban back-gardens every year - we see them, but unless we are scientists we don't recognise their novelty. It is as likely that any of our gardens will have a new species as the cemeteries - indeed as our gardens have a far wider range of plants growing than the cemeteries possibly more likely. An area of scrub which is depending on self-seeding is most likely to offer a reduced range of host plants compared with a planted garden - although clearly native species like oak do offer a habitat for a wider range of fauna than exotic species. And the mixed habitat of the managed area (which, as I have said before, included last year a hay meadow) offers opportunities to a far wider range of fauna than an impenetrable scrub (which is what an untended wilded area would quickly become). And as for the 'for future generations' line is concerned - having somewhere local to bury loved ones is also 'for future generations' - there are people about who still rate the needs of fellow people. And yes, the local availability of numbers of areas of different habitat in the parks and public gardens (and nature reserves) that we have does make a pressing need for more somewhat less pressing, as far as local amenity is concerned, particularly when another set of needs (somewhere local to bury and mourn your dead) is (as far as the sws crowd is concerned) not to be met at all, if they have their way. Despite the hand-wringing about respecting the dead is concerned, it appears that only the ancient dead need to be respected, the dead of today can go hang.

Can we get this ?flooding? into perspective please. (1) Does water ?pool? in parts of the cemetery during heavy rain and (particularly) when the ground is already waterlogged ? yes (as it does in many areas ? including Sydenham Woods ? real woodland). It pools where there are dips in the ground, and where there are impermeable areas of grave furniture. It tends to dissipate quickly, save during periods of heavy and consistent rain. Some low lying areas have already been in-filled and raised to avoid this in the future (i.e. along Wood Vale and Langton Rise). (2) Does (during heavy rainfall) water run-off down the hill towards Forest Hill Road over the tarmac?d areas ? yes ? as it does down Underhill Road (and many other roads running down hills). This is rain water flowing down hill over an impermeable base. Additionally a tap (used to provide water for flowers) is frequently left on, which also causes run-off down the hill. (3) Is any of this run-off or pooling the cause of the sorts of floods which have recently hit the North East and North West etc. ? i.e. causing damage to housing, insurable loss etc? No. (4) Is any of this surface pooled water some up-welling from graves ? presumably using a mechanism where water chooses to run uphill? No. (5) Are ground-water levels generally rising in London? ? yes, believed to be caused by a reduction in industry (particularly brewing) drawing out water for use. (6 ) Is water run-off increasing in London? ? again yes, related to reductions in areas where water can be absorbed ? such as paving over front gardens, decking and other non-permeable ground cover. (5) and (6 ) are not cemetery related. As far as the proposals made by Southwark are concerned:- ? Removal of trees ? this will exacerbate the situation temporarily until:- ? Replacement planting of trees ? which will improve the situation ? over time should be no or limited net change. ? Mounding ? by creating more land to absorb the water this will improve the situation, but the changes to the topology could create new low-lying areas. ? New Burials ? will create new areas where water absorption may be reduced (i.e. through new grave furniture) ? Re-use of existing burial sites ? may create temporary changes (i.e. option for pooling where new graves sink, as they do in the first year through re-settling) but over time should be no net change. Clearly I would expect Southwark to be keeping a careful eye on the impact of what they are doing (including compacting land under heavy equipment) and the use of field drains would be sensible - but the concept that, in real terms, there is a flooding risk (as opposed to a risk of very localised flooding) seems unlikely.

Just to note - as foxes also appear to be being targeted I would suggest that these are killings of opportunity based around a capture method (lured with meat), which means that loose dogs (now pretty unusual, I grant you) would also be at risk. Cats may be being killed (as are foxes) because they are out there and available. Not (just) because they are cats.

The figures I have used are based on the hectares declared by Southwark as the sizes of the two cemeteries (referenced to the SINC status). wikipedia is not an authoritative source. Edited to add - Figures are on pages 23 and 24 of the linked .pdf https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwiHoLyr4IvLAhXJhpAKHXK8AIwQFggpMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F10241%2Fcdi17_southwark_biodiversity_action_plan_2012_%25E2%2580%2593_2018&usg=AFQjCNE9jys4UkeUsOaV_2NBDkumrY3EaA&sig2=-GmK55NnACBDVafbGiacAQ&bvm=bv.114733917,d.d2s&cad=rja

Can we just differentiate between challengeable statements of fact (that the two cemeteries together offer an opportunity for 100 acres of parks - when they are together just over half that size?) and personal assertions. The latter are well consigned to the lounged thread - the former are relevant to this discussion, as they help form a 'bedrock' of what I might see as arguments in fact built on sand. The initiating discussion (a long time back, now) talked about the wooded areas being 'ancient woodland' for instance, which they aren't and never could have been. In COC all the areas now being worked on were once part of a managed graveyard, and most of the growth being removed is no more than 20-30 years old (much is less than that). There are some older trees (part of the original graveyard planting) which are also, I believe, being removed - there may well be good arboricultural reasons for this. It would be good to know if my original summary - that the pressure group wants to stop all future burials in the two cemeteries and to let the current managed areas 'go wild' is still their position.

the Council has no permission from the Church for works to Area Z at Camberwell Old Cemetery. That would be permission required as a Faculty from the Diocese for 'substantial alterations' - which would include disturbance or removal of remains or grave furniture, creation of new paths or roadways - all referring to work on consecrated land in a municipal cemetery (NB these are NOT church lands in any way). Types of work not counted as 'substantial alterations' as described do not require such a Faculty. As I understand it the work now underway is not considered by the council to fall under the description of 'substantial alterations' which would require a Faculty from the Diocese, and I would assume, unless clear evidence can be provided, that they would not undertake work which would require such a Faculty without gaining one. Can I also point out that the Diocese (as is the Church of England) looks and is likely to continue to look kindly at proposals to re-use cemeteries for Christian burial (other faith burials or no faith burials are not their remit) - which they consider an appropriate use of land set-aside for that use, on the assurance that work is carried out sensitively and under appropriate Faculties.

The sad truth is that (regarding the pubs) it is probably in the long term fiscal interests of the Charity for the pubs no longer to be run as large rangy old fashioned South London pubs - it's not a good use of their real estate/ footprint - housing is much more lucrative and holds its value better. The management of the pubs que pubs was never an issue for the Estate - but for their tenants. The Half Moon was clearly finally brought low by the flood, but the writing had long been on the wall for the revenue generation potential on that site. The Dog will operate far more successfully in its new incarnation - assuming the work is finished. I am not sure what revenues the Estate gets from the empty premises - but I suspect it costs the current tenants less to pay a rental and not do anything with the site than otherwise.

EE is now owned by BT. Even before it was the underlying broadband infrastructure would be provided by BT Openworld. I suspect its TV offering will be based on BT Vision.

Can I point out (again) that the 'wooded' areas being addressed by Southwark Council at the moment account for 6% of the cemeteries' area. The vast majority of the area is already managed graveyard - including, as I have said, hay meadow in the summer - which is a varied and interesting habitat already. HopOne has said The areas that are currently in use as cemetery could continue that way as far as I am concerned. - this is not the position of the ssw pressure group - which wants the whole area of both cemeteries wilded. I think such a minimalist approach would have got far more traction. There are issues of tumbling monuments and gaping graves which need addressing in this area (otherwise it will be even more unsafe than it is) and the land contamination, but a better and more supportable case could have been made if the demands had been as modest as this.