Penguin68

I have off-street parking for 3-4 cars - so my one car length (slightly less, actually, since its only a car width that has to use it) dropped kerb relieves parking of net 2 cars in the street. It also means that tradesmen have somewhere off-street to park. Not every dropped kerb allows only single cars to park - in some roads it is frequently 2 - which gives a net doubling of effective parking. The council would be better employed implementing by-laws which ensured that new off-street parking was delivered via water permeable hard-standing (gravel over membrane, brick paviours over sand) rather than concrete or tarmac, than implementing stupid anti-car double yellows.

Not of people, just of trees, and dreams.

I ask again - where does Lewis think the money will be coming from to maintain his parks? - and if they are not maintained (they wouldn't be, no funding) how quickly does he think they will be sealed off as being unsafe - and then how quickly will fly-tipping start again? I would guess if he had his way they would be sealed off within 5 years (issues to do with gaping graves etc. etc.). Then they would be of 'use' to nobody. Best case scenario would be that the currently maintained areas would be kept open (for a bit) and the currently over-grown areas immediately sealed off. They would not be an amenity but an eye-sore. And he is not going to get support from the Church to stop burials - they are in favour of orderly re-use.

Otta is of course completely right - but: No one is against burials in Southwark but it can't be at the expense of cutting down trees or the loss of parks or allotments.... ...actually there have been specific points made about ceasing burial in Southwark and moving such burials to outer boroughs. And what current cemetery plans, agreed by the council, put in jeopardy any existing allotments or parks? All current agreed plans refer to existing cemetery areas. This again is prophet of doom, 'worst case scenario' stuff and is significantly hypothecated on no or reduced re-use in existing cemeteries. [Allotments all over London are threatened, of course, but not, I believe, by Southwark's agreed cemetery plan currently being implemented]. Oh, and I think cutting down (some) trees, mainly unplanned scrub growth, is acceptable to meet the borough's burial needs, particularly where this sits with a programme of re-planting.

Many local people feel very strongly about this Well 3 who post regularly on this forum do - as regards supporting the woodfolk, and about the same number on this forum oppose them (maybe more). The 'support' gathered through somewhat(!) misleading petitions is certainly additionally there, but whether it can be deemed informed is a different matter. The council has in it's own briefing answered most of the points made - and effectively refuted most of them - the 'argument' now is that the council is lying (evidence?) and that anyway, at some indeterminate time in the future, all will come to pass as foretold by the prophet Lewis. Who has (I suspect) somewhat hidden from those whose support he is seeking (i.e. the Diocese) that he wants no more funerals in Southwark and the wilding of existing cemeteries. This sympathy for the long dead which is frequently evinced, whilst having no sympathy for the wishes of those shortly to die or their relics is curiously hypocritical IMO. I doubt whether the Church would really support those who place trees (of any nature, age or lack of beauty) ahead of people, even in this right-on day and age. As I have said before, if he actually got his way the cemeteries would be sealed off as being unsafe - and, without any income to support their maintenance would soon become the haunts of fly-tippers and vermin. As they were before during their years of neglect.

We have a letter from church to Rebecca Towers of Southwark Council saying they don't have permission to cut any trees in a nature conservation area and only trees under 75mm if not in a conservation area. Letter will be attached when I get home. (1) - Neither of the cemeteries in question are conservation areas. (2) - It is not up to the church to give permission, or not, about tree management in conservation areas (actually, that's up to the council) - neither, in municipal cemeteries, does the church have any authority save for consecrated areas (which will include areas of 'public' burial, and is limited). An earlier post A church representives (sic) said if it was church land and the council was acting without facility they would call the police gives the game away - municipal cemeteries are not church land - they are municipal land over which, in consecrated areas and no others the church has limited authority - as regards 'substantial alteration', which includes the creation of new roads and paths and the movement of bodies or monuments. On church land (i.e. churchyards) the church could set tree management rules and set size limits to guide a vicar or curate or parish council as to what they could so without reference to the Diocese, but this control does not extend to municipal cemeteries. The advice that is being given by, no doubt well meaning church apparatchiks is, I believe, wrong in law, and will, if insisted upon, be, I hope, vigorously defended by the council. I would rather a council I could vote for, and not a bunch of clerics who I can't vote for, interfered with my environment (have just seen Spotlight - excellent film - which has me particularly riled and anti-clerical at the moment).

Oh, for goodness sake - please read the very useful attachment made some pages back which sets out the law concerning cemetery re-use in London. The Church is required to consider granting a Faculty where there are plans for 'substantial alteration' on consecrated land within Municipal cemeteries - such alteration would include new pathways and roads. Removal of unplanned scrub growth of trees is not 'substantial alteration' under these terms - it is normal maintenance (as is the tending of land which has been contaminated by fly-tipping - a further result of the Southwark's previous failure to maintain the cemetery). Indeed most of the 'gardening' aspects of Southwark's work in the cemeteries would not be an issue for the Diocese. What would be is the creation of new roads and pathways (but probably not the restoration of existing paths), mounding over existing public burials and any moving of existing public burials. The council is cutting down trees now before birds might start nesting - which is sensible and actually advised. The Council actually probably doesn't need the consent of any body (other than the council) for the removal of unplanned tree growth in the cemetery. I suspect that if the Church were to move to stop them (if they could) that would be ultra vires in and of itself. And - to make things I hope crystal clear - the Church very publicly endorses and supports the continuation of burials in London cemeteries and the re-use of cemetery land as proposed and in an orderly fashion. It will not support the intents of this interest group to halt burial in Southwark. Those writing to the Diocese might wish to male it clear that they support (if they do) burial in Southwark whereas the 'wood' mavens don't and wish it stopped.

'Under-cover cops'? - worryingly paranoid 'Grumpy people on the forum'? - why, like those who started this campaign, on the forum, in the first place. Pot, Kettle?

It is also worth pointing out that there are very specific sets of laws which govern, in London (and peculiarly in Southwark) how cemeteries can be re-used. Burials less than 75 years cannot be interfered with, public burial areas can only be altered (as they are deemed to be on consecrated ground) following a Faculty from the relevant diocese, and this includes 'substantial alterations', (including e.g. new paths and tracks) as well as any dis-and re-interment of bones. Indeed private areas in consecrated ground are similarly impacted. The re-use of burial grounds is standard (with different rules) throughout Europe where there is pressure (as there is in towns) for burial space. Most people consider that proximity (how close your deceased loved-one is) beats permanence. For those who don't, they may chose to inter elsewhere. It is a matter of choice. Most of the language and description of what Lewis believes is planned is either mistaken or is chosen to present in terms of horror what most people accept as reasonable. Burying bones deeper, but in the same position a minimum of 75 years after first interment is very unlikely to directly effect anyone who knew the deceased. Where that isn't true (for instance the death of a child) representations may be made and will, in all likelihood, be listened too. Readers should remember that the original (and underlying) attempt of the pressure group was halt all future burials in the cemeteries and to allow them to become wildernesses (for walks and picnics, or am I mis-remembering that?) He (or one of his supporters) references burials of the Spanish flu victims - my aunt (died 1918 aged 21) was one of those - who died in London (not Southwark). There is no one living who would remember her or would care if her bones were either mounded over or re-buried elsewhere (indeed, that may already have happened). So don't pray-in-aid these 'victims' please.

The really sad thing about all this is that there is a good case to be made that Southwark's plans need oversight and attention to make sure that (1) they do (just) what they have announced they will be doing and that (2) their planned replanting makes sense in terms of ecology and of changing climactic conditions (for whatever cause). Orderly control and oversight of what should be an orderly process is paramount for what are (for those on either side of this debate) important local public spaces. But this has been diverted by hyperbole, spin and half truth such that attention to what the council is actually planning and doing has been lost in contemplation of the very worst things it would be possible for any authority to do; with those who do care about the spaces, as cemeteries, having to fight stupid battles against ill informed supporters of what is (undoubtedly) a very heart felt, but also, frankly a very personal campaign by someone with an entirely different agenda to most of us. I want the best for the cemeteries, he wants no cemeteries.

Maybe someone (hopefully unbiased) could explain what proportion of the substantial (over 150mm diameter) trees now growing in the area to be landscaped are to be removed, and what their replacement policy is to be (what type of tree to be replaced by what (other?) types of trees). How many (if any) of the trees being removed are being removed for safety or other 'practical' reasons (i.e. they now offer some threat because of disease or damage or too close-growing to other trees or are now considered an inappropriate planting for the site?) By the way, the fact that the council does not intend to replace mature trees with mature trees, but to plant saplings (presumably the right saplings in the right places) to grow is a natural part of landscaping and tree management. Indeed it is good management to have staggered ages of trees to allow for succession. If you are dealing with trees, you deal with the long-term. That is normal and good practice. 'Instant gardening' is not, normally, necessarily consistent with 'good gardening' - and mature specimen trees are phenomenally expensive.

I still do not see why the Church has any rights over debating about normal cemetery management (removing unplanned scrub growth). This cannot be seen as a 'substantial alteration' to consecrated ground - you might just as well argue that the removal of fly-tipped debris, or even the mowing of grass, would equally require their authority. And the Church cannot set sizes on what trees are to be cut - the Council can, as part of its tree preservation work, but not the Church. It might require, where memorial trees have been planted, that these be preserved, but in the main this is not the case (and I'm not sure memorial (as opposed to landscaping) trees are planted on public (formerly pauper's) graves. Nor does the Church have a specific remit over private graves, save where these are, inter alia, on consecrated ground. But make one thing absolutely clear, the Church is never going to ally with the desires of the interest group to stop all burials and 'wild' the cemeteries.

Call the police (non emergency number) to check whether such a scheme is operating in your area - if it's not then a heads-up should alert the police to possibly worrying activity. If it is in any way an 'official' position then the individual should be carrying ID.

The irony of this meeting with the Church is that removal of self-seeded trees and shrubs falls absolutely outside the Church's remit, for consecrated ground in Municipal cemeteries, of having to grant (or not) a Faculty for 'substantial alteration'. So even if Lewis managed to execute some stay on the re-use issue (not the Church's general policy), the removal of the trees cannot be stopped by the Church. Nor could any work not in a consecrated area. Since it was the removal of the trees which is the prime mover in all this (with concern about ancient burials somewhat of a side-show) efforts with the Church, while ensuring an orderly approach by Southwark to its plans, cannot 'save the trees'.

You need to distinguish between roosting and nesting. All birds roost at night (owls excepted). The green parakeets roost in COC.

Birds won't be nesting now. There are sufficient trees locally that when they do come to nest, they will find somewhere appropriate.

edborders wrote:- The Council must obtain consent from the Consistory Court of the Diocese in the form of a faculty before any works within the consecrated areas may take place This is not (in London at least) so for local authority graveyards, although it is so for parish churches and churchyards. In fact a Diocesan Faculty (granted by the Diocesan Chancellor via application to the Diocesan Registry) must be granted for 'any substantial alteration to consecrated land within a municipal cemetery including removal of headstones and kerbsets'. In this case the 'consecrated land' is being restored to its original condition by the removal of scrub growth. I do not believe the church can interfere with the cutting down of trees in a muncipal cemetery. Issues of mounding, where this is not removing headstones and kerbsets may not be relevant - it might not be a 'substantial alteration'. However new roadways and paths may be considered a substantial alteration, if in a consecrated area (not all of a municipal cemetery will be consecrated, although areas with public graves will be). I suspect that the restoration of existing paths now overgrown might not be considered a 'substantial alteration'. If your advice is that a full Consistory Court is required I believe that to be in error - it is a far more standard procedure - it should be noted that the Church is generally in favour of re-use (assuming that bodies are treated with respect). The Church is considering (probably favourably) the move to lift and deepen from the previous reburial in (different) consecrated grounds - but this has not yet been approved. Mounding, of course, would not require re-burial. However the law regarding re-use of Private Graves is different in Southwark from the rest of London. Indeed, re-use of private graves may actually be forbidden in Southwark, until legislation is changed. You may also wish to note that Faculties are granted for specific areas, and are not (unless so specified) a blanket approval for all consecrated areas within a specific cemetery. Here is something you could focus on to keep Southwark straight.

They said that it doesn't need permission from the Church of England to cut down the trees and mound over the graves in Camberwell Old Cemetery. They don't. Church permission is only required when bodies are to be disturbed - and then ONLY for public burials. Which stands to reason. The Church believes that bodies once buried should not then be disturbed, unless clearly necessary. Cutting down trees and mounding over burials doesn't disturb the bodies buried there. Southwark needs permission from nobody (other than its own councilors) to manage its own cemeteries where this doesn't involve disturbing public burials.

If you were doing a new build or refurb for your business I suspect that M&S will have no financial stake in this until it comes to final shopfitting - when presumably they will also start to pay rent. In current circumstances not rushing into a financial commitment might well be the right thing here, so it may well be that they in fact don't have any urgency to set-up. This is a very different circumstance than faced by a business where this might be their only, or main, or most significant trading site.

It is your history and and your beauty that will be lost. Join us. And yet he specifically wants us to lose the option of future history by wanting to ban future burials. After 75 years, the needs of the present trump the memories (almost certainly no longer with living people) of the past. And the overgrown scrubland, with shattered graves and the residues of fly-tipping, is not everyone's idea of beauty (granted there are those that think than anything living and growing, apart from people, is beautiful).

the sorts of people that account for in excess of 2000 deaths annually in the UK. Actually, the last year (to June 2105) that is being reported shows 1700 road accident deaths (any are bad, but not 'in excess of 2000') - excess speed is seen as a contributory factor in about a quarter, as I read the figures, although these do come from RoSPA. Most of these deaths are not, as implied, of course in South London, nor are (many) linked to misuse of mobile phones, at speed. Hyperbole, in general, does not make good cases.

That's a really helpful clarification. Thanks

If you are driving from the North West come down via the M6 to Birmingham and then the M40 through Oxford and onto the M25 either to the M4 and to ED via Earls Court and cross the river at Battersea Bridge or divert to cross the river at Kew and thus to ED on the South Circular or stay on the M25 and come up via the A23 and Croydon, longer but completely avoids the centre.

The church hasn't told us that. And neither has the Council up until now. We have called the Church to for confirmation. It might be true. I might not be true. The Church is involved only when public burials are dug-up. It does not have to give permission for normal maintenance and ground works. If public graves are disturbed (i.e. bodies disinterred) that is an offence without church permission. Where Private burials are concerned, this is covered by Section 74 of the 2007 London Local Authorities Act, and assumes that private rights have been cancelled under section 9 of the Greater London (General Powers) Act of 1976. No burial disturbed may be less than 75 years old, the act requires 'lift and deepen', where bodies already interred will then be buried under new interments. What you are describing as happening would not in fact be covered by constraints as described for either Public or Private burials. It is normal (if much neglected) cemetery maintenance. It would be better to ensure contractors were meeting those requirements than failing to understand the actual legal position.

Lewis Schaffer has chosen to PM me as follows:- Do you work for the council or one of the contractors? I think you should state that you are not a disinterested party if that is the case. Do you have an interested in keep burial going in the cemeteries? Lewis Schaffer Nunhead, Save Southwark Woods For clarity - I have never worked for any council or building contractor. I have no interest (in the sense of partiality) for cemetery burial - indeed my personal preference would to chose not to be buried - I would prefer cost free corpse disposal, for me, as part of the normal refuse collection service. I do have an interest in the truth, in open dealing, in an absence of unnecessary hyperbole. I have lived very close to COC for close to 30 years and greatly enjoy its amenity, as a working cemetery, and wish it to continue as such. I find it offensive if, even privately, it is assumed that the only opposition to this pressure group is from those taking benefit from the council's policy. I do not normally disclose PMs (for obvious reasons) but this PM has insulted me.