Penguin68

The fact it takes 2 hours to get 5 odd miles 10 Miles according to Google maps

I am entirely happy that local elected councilors should live in a real world, with real demands, rather than being professional politicians. It is the professional political class that has also helped ruin Westminster. But the Southwark apparat does now appear to have lost any real contact with the needs and desires of those living in this southern tip of the borough - not entirely helped by some of those for whom some of us may have misguidedly voted. Media manipulation and spin (be it in the ED forum or of the local press) has become the main toolkit of some of those wishing to see change and alteration - getting down and talking face-to-face with people can be belittled and the people doing it ignored or patronised, whilst secret cabals and their spin doctors rule, OK?. At times we do seem to be suffering a democratic deficit locally.

that an 8-year-old on a bicycle must be able to get through safely I'd like to think that your putative 8 year-old would be able to ride his/ her bike one-handed (either hand) so that he/ she could signal turns properly - as I was required to be able to demonstrate by my parents before they allowed me to cycle on public streets (and that was in the 1950s, when streets were much quieter). But since I find hardly any cyclist being prepared (whether able or not) to signal turning intentions I am sure that this wouldn't be an imposition on your 8 year old either. And yes, confusing a novice cyclist with a train does suggest that Mr Logic is taking his holidays.

Yes eventually. - Within about 20 years, if left alone. I too more frequently visit the Old Cemetery, which is closer to where I live, and certainly do not know cemetery topologies by their grid numbers. If the Old Cemetery were to be ceased as a burial place and turned into a wooded park I am sure that this would enhance my property values - but I am happy for a local cemetery to continue to be used for burials. Where there is a plethora of local natural space amenity, as there is in ED and environs, preserving bits of serendipitous 'wilding' doesn't seem necessary, when other, intended, uses can be made of it. For many people (I'm actually not one of them, but I can sympathise with those who are) being able to bury bodies or ashes of loved ones locally and close, rather than having to trek out to somewhere less easy to visit is a blessing, and allows grieving and remembrance. To selfishly want burials at Kemnal Park - nearly 2 hours away by public transport so that you can enjoy your 'wood' amenity (and no doubt the rise in your property value) sticks somewhat in my craw.

If you want woods locally, real woods try here:- https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=Dulwich+Woods&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:%7Breferrer:source%7D&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CCwQsARqFQoTCNOhu_LGgMgCFcVWGgod8eUAfg&biw=1496&bih=834 These are real (secondary) growth - actually through an old railway line (the tunnels you can see in some of the pictures) - but they are within easy walking distance and trump (by a long way) any aesthetic pleasures to be had from the cemetery growth, in my opinion. They may not be exactly on your door step, as an extended garden for you, but they are no more than 15 minutes slow amble from the old cemetery.

If you don't see the beauty in it, then sorry - I do not understand your value system at all - it is completely alien to me. As, apparently, is logical thought. If you had ever been (clearly you haven't) in real woodland, which isn't growing through open Victorian graves, isn't full of weedy secondary growth - isn't an 'over grown' anything - you might consider what is growing wild (in the sense that, quite scandalously it was neglected by the council) in the cemetery to be really very disappointing. Yes, naturally growing stuff can be seen to be beautiful, as can sculptures, buildings, paintings, music - one 'beauty' doesn't trump all others, and, frankly, in the natural growth scheme of things the cemetery scrubland is pretty poor, as natural beauty goes. I find a well tended cemetery to be aesthetically pleasing - but I wouldn't want a cemetery in Peckham Rye or Dulwich Park to replace what is already there, just as I don't want a cemetery turned over to neglect. Enjoy the real parks and real, intended woods we have a great local abundance of (when you consider we are an inner city borough) - stop trying to impose additional 'woods' on those who see a better (and more traditional) use for a cemetery. And don't pray in aid your own aesthetic sensibilities as some sort of justification to over-ride those of others.

And this isn't the Netherlands, it's London - which is based around a medieval street layout. Or, in Dulwich's case, farm tracks. And, somewhat unlike the Netherlands, is really rather hilly - the fact that almost all our local stations (East, West and North Dulwich don't, of course) have 'Hill' in the name is rather a clue here, I feel.

Sorry I really can't see how people can say they are not wild woods. People can say it who have any knowledge of what a wild wood actually is. This is all very recent growth, mainly secondary, mainly scrubby, in an area which was previously pastureland. Any untended area in the UK will, over really very short time frames, start to 'wood up' - that is the function of living in a temperate climate in an area which already has a very large number and range of trees which can readily seed in untended ground. My own garden has 3 'wild' oaks, two cypresses, two clumps of mahonia, a sycamore and a rowan, all self (or squirrel) seeded. Some of the trees are now 25-30 ft. Many more have tried to grow, where I didn't want them, and have been uprooted. Mine is a tended garden, not a 'wild wood' - but the cause, and effects, are the same. Anyone who has lived in London for a decent time will have seen precisely the same effects in bomb sites (including that near St Paul's, the former Chief Telegraph Office and now BT Headquarters, which remained a bombsite till the late 80s) which often remained uncleared for 20-30 years - these were also 'wooded'. But they weren't (and neither is the cemetery) wild woods.

As House Spiders live in houses they will (also, and at this time) be looking for mates - but houses are their habitat. Put them out (however kindly) and they will come straight back in again when they can. Other than putting them in someone else's house (or a garage or shed) I'm afraid that if you can't live with them, execution is your only option. Don't follow the links if you can't take spiders. http://wiki.britishspiders.org.uk/index.php5?title=Tegenaria_gigantea_saeva; http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/national/13760830.Large_house_spiders_predicted_as_males_hunt_for_a_mate/; http://www.arkive.org/house-spider/tegenaria-domestica/

Trap them with a glass and a bit of card then put them out of the door. The very biggest spiders you will find (size of a baby's hand in terms of spread, not overall bulk) are Oxford House Spiders (they came to London up the railway line). As the name suggests, they are house spiders (and hunters, not web spinners) - so if you put them out they will aim to get back. On the other hand, they do keep the house more insect free, and aren't themselves bad things, though when the scuttle across the floor at night they can give one a bit of a turn. Warning, they do jump (often slightly sideways) to avoid capture. However, they are not marked - so you may be finding the False Widow - which is more common in the North, but may be spreading south - news reports suggest a prevalence at the moment http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/warning-over-venomous-false-widow-spiders-after-mild-end-to-summer-1-7465612 http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2015-09-13/homes-could-get-invaded-by-false-widow-spiders/ - you should avoid these as they do bite and carry a little venom.

It is noteworthy to see the incredible speed at which this work is going ahead, compared with say Nx or Townley. Anyone would think the developers had some deadline they were trying to beat? Or perhaps the site owners have simply signed a proper contract, with timing and penalty clauses. Or perhaps the builders are not in some sort of cosy, 'we'll always get the work anyway so we don't really have to bother' call-off contract relationship with their employer, or perhaps the employer has not specified impossible to source materials still on a slow boat from China. Who can tell why and how the commercial world differs from that of local government gravy trains?

I think some of the things I have found have blown in from the street (clearly they shouldn't have been dumped there either, but it's less directly aggressive) - and some things (boxes with chicken wing bones) may have been brought in by foxes to eat discretely - but I agree, it's clear that cans and bottles could only have arrived through human agency, and it's inexcusable.

In fact, I don't believe that there is such a (legal) entity as historic woodland - 'ancient woodland' is a legal concept In the United Kingdom, an ancient woodland is a woodland that has existed continuously since 1600 or before in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (or 1750 in Scotland).[1][2] Before those dates, planting of new woodland was uncommon, so a wood present in 1600 was likely to have developed naturally.[3] The analogous American term is "old-growth forest". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_woodland All the (internet accessed) sources I can find don't suggest that 'natural' woodland is the equivalent of wild growth within a pre-termined area - such as a bomb site or as here a poorly maintained cemetery. Anything (even the detritus in a student fridge) can be seen as 'historic' - but in general something less than 40 years old normally isn't. Nor would growth (really) in only the last century or so - and One Tree Hill was used as an ack-ack site during the last war, I believe, when surrounding trees (if any) would have been felled to give clear lines of fire. Edited to add - one must not confuse the existence of some old trees within a landscape as necessarily meaning that the landscape is wooded, in any real sense of the word. Trees often marked field etc. boundaries - or were planted as decorations in e.g. cemeteries. Many of us have old trees in our gardens, this doesn't mean they are woods.

How about spending it on some traffic surveys?

As burial in the plots is paid for, and is not cheap, the council will get its money back, or at least get back the running costs of keeping the cemetery viable as a cemetery. The bits which are now overgrown are dangerous - with burials unstable and graves opened by tree roots. There are old trees in amongst the new growth certainly, these were almost certainly the trees originally planted in the cemetery (or later, as those parts were still in regular use for burial) - as you can see still in the tended bits now. These are not now nor have they ever been 'Southwark Woods' - this is a complete and fictitious spin, as is much in the tendentious petitions, now being supported by a councilor in whose ward the cemetery does not, I believe, fall. Burial grounds in London have always been re-used - this is being done in an entirely proper way. Certain groups chose not to have themselves interred with other groups - to say that they have been excluded is again spin, and rather nasty spin at that. If you look round the cemetery you will see a multiplicity of ethnicities and religions there - as you expect in a municipal cemetery, generally reflecting the mix of peoples who live 'locally'. And that is the point of having local cemeteries - so that those who wish to mourn a resting place have one that is convenient for them to visit. What makes me really angry is that there are, locally to us, vast areas of parkland, genuine woodland etc. etc. - we are absolutely not starved for green areas in this bit of SE London. And yet you would think from the outcries that this was the last green area in an urban wasteland. I do not want to preserve a dangerous area of un-cared for scrubland - used in the past for fly-tipping (and how much more of that can we expect now that large item collections are to be charged for?) If the council cannot use this for burials (which are income generating) - don't expect them to spend a penny on upkeep (I wouldn't). It's a cemetery - for burying people - it's not and never has been woodland - (not since the Conquest anyway, and probably before) - the 20-40 years scrubland growth there now reflects a dereliction in duty of proper care by the council, not an opportunity. Considering the genuine dangers that the area actually presents - if the petitions work then, as a council, I would surround the scrubland element with a 10ft high chain link fence (to keep children and fly-tippers out) and leave it to rot. That would be a reasonable investment. And if further burial is to be banned on all the site, then seal it all off, or sell it for housing development. There is no way I would want the council spending money on what clearly is being thought of as someone's private playground. We have ample parks and green spaces meant for that purpose already.

we need someone who understands the process and who can be trusted to represent the majority- think of yourself as our unofficial councillor elect. Unfortunately, despite perhaps in this instance representing a larger slice of those prepared to express an opinion - and doing a great deal more legwork on this case, Robin can only 'represent' at the margin, our real elected representatives (I am not in ED but an adjacent ward) actually have chosen a different (if apparently numerically smaller) camp to join - and it is they who can actually make (as opposed to plead the case for) decisions. Sometimes democracy isn't, well, that democratic.

I think the anger may be being directed at those who use 'common' facilities without considering the impact of their behaviours on others. Which has spilled over onto those who match the primary characteristics of the first group but are, in fact, cognisant of the needs of others. There are mums who allow their children to disturb others without even attempting to do anything to rein them back. There are home workers who occupy cafe spaces (often tables for e.g. 4) for a much longer time than 'normal' cafe turn-overs would anticipate. Not every mum, or every homeworker (or even a majority) - but enough to make those who are neither wary of being with them. Or indeed angry that their pleasure has been diminished because of them and angry 'in advance' should it happen again. Or avoidant of the enterprises which encourage or allow them. Of course this type of classification means that mums who monitor their children's behaviour, home workers who are sensitive to occupying space without 'paying' for it get blamed for something they are not doing, but we are animals that have succeeded by our ability to model situations and make rules - and this is just an example of that.

A neighbour did the latter, paid the architect in full for it (stupid) and has now found that the builders have left the site, with work remaining unfinished (mainly finishing-off stuff, but new rooms not really usable till it's done). With no direct relationship (or leverage) on the builder things aren't too happy. Generally you need to stay on the plot, so if you use a builder you make sure that they are following the plans - (with the proviso that however good the plans appear to be, it is often a good builder who will note that something in the plan isn't actually feasible). But builders do follow plans (excluding those implementing local road schemes, apparently) - so they won't try to impose their ideas, unless the architect gets it wrong (or unless the plans don't match local building regs). Having someone local and experienced can be helpful, they will know the council building inspectors and what they look out for. That's also true regarding the type of house you have - if it's 'typical' for the area a local builder will (very probably) know the necessary tricks for installing internal stairways to best effect. Depending on the work you (or the builder) may well have to involve a structural engineer as well as an architect - particularly where a loft is concerned regarding loadings etc.)

Well loads of credit to Mr Balfour on this.

Dear wulfhound - the points I was making were specifically in response to Mr Barber's assertion/ implication that the London Cycle Network's point was to fight anthopogenic global warming. I must admit I see it as more important to allow the safe® use of bicycles and to encourage people thus to use bicycles - the greatest impact I believe being on their own health - with, I suspect, virtually no measurable impact on either CO2 or world temperatures. Most of those I know who cycle regularly (children apart) do so instead of using public transport, which itself continues to run whether very very full or just very full in rush hours. [some may cycle rather than drive to stations, in which case their saved car journeys are relatively moderate].

James Barber wrote: - The amenity of cleaner air for example can be damaged by the presumption of peoples right to drive along any and all streets. Amusingly, it was the drive for diesel - promoted by the anti-carbon brigade and supported by the coalition government - which brought us the poor air quality associated with the diesel engine - modern petrol engines are, in fact, much less polluting (carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant - it is the necessary gas for the growth of plants, and is exhaled by all mammals). The major source of carbon dioxide (accounting for well over 70-80% in the atmosphere) is water vapour - but I suppose Mr Barber would like to see the back of that. And the ability to travel freely and easily and quickly IS an amenity. And yes, I do I do 'presume' to drive along all and any street not otherwise forbidden - and indeed if Mr Barber is suggesting that there should be some form of ghetto for car drivers (of which he is one, as I recall) then I am quite worried for him.

It is worth considering that if (following the full operation of schools and medical centres) the traffic levels rise, that may evidence actual need. The road is not some cul-de-sac or back-water, it links two A roads (as I have written too many times before). Living on roads which are link-routes as well as being residential (I live on Underhill, so I do know what I am talking about) can be irksome, but to deny their utility is frankly foolish. We live in an inner suburb - it's a really nice and leafy inner suburb, but it's not an isolated village or peripheral urban area. Of course traffic should proceed carefully and at a suitable speed, and of course there may be some roads which are too narrow for some types of traffic (heavy lorries and artics) - but as soon as we start making roads impassible or exclusive we start to detract from the general amenity of living in ED.

if we're to collectively try to stem global warming There are two issues - those of cyclists' safety and impact on climate - I suspect that the carbon cost of all the work that has gone on to create cycle roads in town (including the traffic hold-ups etc. etc.) will require a huge amount of cycling replacing motorised transport to even reach neutrality. You need to look at the whole carbon cost (if you care about these things) not just the headlines. BT, in a study done a number of years ago, determined that teleconferencing was carbon positive compared with travelling to meetings, but not nearly as much as you would initially have thought, once you costed in the carbon costs of the technology needed to support teleconferencing - from power to terminal equipment to transmission and switching equipment etc. etc. Cycling (the process) may be more carbon friendly than motor powered transport - but do not think that cycles, cycle clothing and (very specifically) cycle specific infrastructure does not have a carbon cost. Where this infrastructure causes motor vehicles to drive inefficiently, including lengthening driving or waiting times these are additional carbon costs which can be attributed to cycles.

James Barber wrote (inter alia), about 'free collections of bulky items - withdrawal' - decision suggested more good (sic) would be donated to charity with no evidence for this assertion. To add to this - charities will not, generally, accept goods which have material/ stuffing etc. where these are not confirmed as being fire retardant treated. Many older items of furniture either have not been treated, or the labels confirming this are now missing. These are precisely the sorts of items (together with mattresses) which can be dumped to the general detriment of the environment. Where they can be of course, donations to charity are good (or re-use via Freecycle etc.) - but this is often not possible, whatever the wishes of the owners.

The petrol station in Underhill was a car dealer, a petrol station and an auto-repairer. When I was a young driver (nearly 50 years ago) this combination was very common - I'm not sure I can think of anywhere now locally where you could buy a car, get it repaired and fill it up.