Penguin68

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.

They get paid to work full time but on average... Actually doctors at GPs are not paid by the NHS (if that is what is being implied). The practice receives money from the NHS based on the number of patients on the books and the performance of various procedures (such as inoculations). Salaried GPs (not partners) are then paid based on their contracts with the practice - full or part time or hourly if locums. Partners will share the remainder (once the practice costs are met) on an agreed basis, very probably taking into account (1) what share of the practice they own and possibly (2) based on the amount of work they do (but not necessarily). These are private businesses, owned most frequently by (some of) the doctors who work in them, but sometimes by a doctor who owns many practices, but may no longer work in any of them. In no real sense do they 'get paid to work full time'.

I can say (happily) that (1) I am entirely relaxed about Southwark implementing policies as set-out in (leads to a downloaded .pdf) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjwqPLYyOPKAhWLbD4KHRJ0D7YQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdownload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F11857%2Flednet_report&usg=AFQjCNFAByQf3HUb8islnvImdlc-c_A-JA&cad=rja and that (2) I am sad that Southwark so neglected its graveyards that it needs now to undertake remedial works to clear scrub growth and cope with graves damaged by unplanned tree-growth etc. but accept that this is a necessary step to bringing back land always intended for burials into use. Your use of words (i.e. 'confiscated') is always tendentious. But yes, actually, councils are allowed to re-use burial space, under certain very clear provisos. And I am fed up with you constantly claiming your opponents are partial - don't tell me all this publicity isn't intended to boost your personal career as a stand-up - you use your name because you want to sell your name. This campaign (dishonest as it is) is all about marketing you.

Probably only if you marketed it in Australia.

Yes dbboy, the flooding issue, and ongoing silence from the council alone should ring alarm bells. As i've pointed out to Loz, the landscaped area in COC gets flooded in heavy rains. It appears from this example alone that flooding is not one of the councils priorities. Actually, the flooding was worst around the Langton Rise boundary, until the work was carried out to raise the ground levels there, since when that part hasn't flooded. It has been a very wet winter, and much of the underlying ground is clay, so I was not surprised to see some pooling. However I noted that a couple or more of dry days allowed a lot of water to dissipate - and I never saw any flowing towards Forest Hill Road (except from the tap in the middle of the cemetery which is often not properly turned off by users drawing water for flowers - and that never got very far). It is likely that the proposed mounding, if it goes ahead, will address more of this problem. A case could be made for vegetation being good at taking up water - so the planned tree replanting is important. As I have said, focusing on doing the job properly, rather than on not doing it at all, would have been a far better use of the vigour of the protesters.

The only case that could be made about the rental increase (to the Charities Commission) is that the rents are being increased to a level where traders are being excluded (with no substitutes appearing) such that the underlying value of the estate is being jeopardised (through empty properties etc.) such that the Estate's primary focus (to raise monies for its objects) was being impeded. This is, in effect, a charge of poor management. The Estate has no general duty of care to the neighbourhood (other than standard H&S issues) save where its management is seen to be reducing its capacity to provide long terms incomes for its objectives. Clearly a blighted Dulwich and East Dulwich would do that. So if you can show that its actions are blighting the neighbourhood sufficiently to impact underlying property values - even in a time of generally rising values a slow(er) local rise could evidence that - then a case could be made to the Commission. Other than that, just because you don't approve of their 'charitable' aims (which are legal) or like what they are doing to your favoured traders, this isn't sufficient to leverage any changes to their trajectory.

I don't know anything about the people who are posting in favour of cutting down trees to make grave space. I was making it all up. It may be that Lewis doesn't know that, although almost everyone (Councilors apart) posts anonymously many are in fact known to each other through various social meet-ups etc. So making accusatory statements about 'anonymous' individuals may be, to some readers, making accusations against people they actually know. And the earliest accusations were certainly clear in suggesting bias etc. in those who opposed the SSW crowd. It was only when these were called-out that the 'only joking' riff appeared.

Penguin68 you don't even live in Southwark. You are married to someone who owns the construction equipment to be used in grinding up waste on Area Z I don't know who you think I am, you lying B**** - but I (1) have lived 3 minutes walk from Camberwell Old Cemetery (in College Ward) for the last 28 years and (2) am married to a retired company director who has never worked in construction, construction equipment or anything else related. Your wholly untrue assertions about me are part-and-parcel of your complete disregard for truth or honesty. At this stage, you disgust me. You PM'd me accusing me (wrongly) of partiality - you now make a public assertion impugning my contributions as being partial. If that is the best your campaign can offer...

Loz, for instance, is an undertaker (or is it called a funeral director?). Shewill benefit directly from cutting down trees to make more plots available in the cemeteries. Actually, undertakers prepare and store bodies for burial or cremation (or other disposal) and arrange obsequies as required - they do not need (and many do not have) local burial grounds to use. Most families of deceased persons choose a local (to them, or where their loved one had died) undertaker (for convenience) rather than one local to a burial ground, so I suspect the existence or not of additional burial spaces in ED will have little impact on the work load of local undertakers. It makes their life easier, I suppose, but will not be a specific revenue generator. However, I would expect someone in the funeral business to know about, and be sensitive to, the needs of bereaved families - so being able to offer a site which can be easily visited will be understood to be a boon, to some. As undertakers do not own, or sell, plots in municipal cemeteries - that is the council's purview - I believe your assertion that contribution to this discussion is selfish and 'interested' (rather than informed) is, well, par for the course, I suppose, given your past postings.

This campaign started with a lie - there are not now, never have there been anything called, or identifiable, as Southwark Woods. Had the campaign been started as 'save the wild parts of Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries' this would have both been honest (so that anyone signing a petition would have had a reasonable basis of understanding of what the petition was about) - and might have laid the groundwork for an honest discussion. This didn't happen - instead wild exaggerations (12 acres) - inaccuracies (implying all of One Tree Hill was at risk) - grotesque assertions (corpse juices running down Forest Hill Road) just continue to pour forth. The objective seems to be constantly shifting - although it is clear, I believe, that the intent is to stop all local burial, for ever, and to allow the cemetery areas to become wildernesses - without any thought as to the consequences or impacts of this. And the fact that the leader of the campaign (happy to vilify others for not being disinterested, or just vile and old - 'three are bitter with age and loneliness') has a public persona to maintain and tickets to sell - so publicity, for him, is actually good business is (mainly) carefully glossed over by us all. Until now. I have been prepared to assume that some at least of the voluble SSW crowd are at least honest (if misguided) in what they think - not a courtesy Lewis is prepared to offer his opponents. Well, shame on him. So it goes.

I clicked on the link:- I am Lewis Schaffer [wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk] or google "Lewis Schaffer" and got Sorry, the website wwww.lewisschaffer.co.uk cannot be found.

Do you have evidence of any grave being desecrated (by the council's works)? If you have this should be reported immediately. If you mean that self seeded trees in or over a grave were cut down - this isn't desecration. It's gardening.