Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Will we regret destroying the woods of East Dulwich? The Council is to vote on 22nd June are destroy acres of lovely wood in Camberwell Old Cemetery - the size of 3300 graves - a huge area - for ugly ugly graves.


I wrote about it.



http://lewisschaffer.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/cutting-down-the-new-forest/

Thanks for highlighting this edborders.

I live opposite the cemetary and would be horrified if they rip up the woods.

I can't quite understand how, despite living opposite, i've recieved no official word of this.

Does anyone have any experience of how to deal with the council on this kind of thing?

I personally, and the wide variety of wildlife that lives there, would be devastated if this went ahead.

Heard of the DDD rule when it comes to felling trees? If a tree is:


Dead


Diseased


Damaged


and in a public place then by law it needs to come down.


If this rule doesn't apply here then this is tragic news :(


The negative impact that this will have on the ecology and conservation of the area will be mammoth. So sad.

Hi All, two different parts of the cemetery have been muddled up in this report. The elevation of the burial area is near Wood Vale. Gravestones are not going to be disturbed. A tree survey has been carried out and the majority of larger trees (healthy ones are to remain) and some smaller ones are to have burials around them in that portion of Camberwell Old Cemetery. There will be extensive planting of new trees too, so there will be more trees than at the outset with the majority of mature ones remaining (a few were found to have structural/heath problems when the survey was done). I have visited the site, it is certainly not a wood! It is the strip of land on the Wood Vale side of the Cemetery. It has been used for burial in the past, but there are no gravestones, the land is being elevated around the trees so that burials can be carried out without disturbing the deeper communal graves. There is another area of the Cemetery being discussed at the moment, after this area, towards Wood Vale is full, that is towards the north of the cemetery. There the ground level had already been raised over previous graves for doing burials in some time ago. This is why the land there is higher than surrounding areas (It was prepared for burials and then forgotten). I haven't heard anything about tree felling in this area, the area I saw, was elevated and grass rather than a woodland and within the cemetery, I will be attending a meeting this week when I should find out more. This area is not to be used imminently. With the reuse of these previously used sites there is sufficient burial space for around the next 30 years if the rate of burial v cremation remains then same. If southwark residents decide to no longer bury their deceased loved ones and all opt for cremation,this second area will never be used. The current rate of burial v cremation is around 30% burial to 70% cremation, this rate has remained stable for the last couple of years, but this could change.

Renata

Is this true? The space Renata mentions is only for about 300 burials - a drop in the Southwark bucket. Aren't there proposals afoot to find burial room for 5000? Where will the room for 5000 (!) burials come from? From our open and wooded areas of the Cemeteries.


Will our cemeteries be completely destroyed? Did I read they want to expand burials in Nunhead Cemetery?


We need to completely reconsider inner-London burials. Land is too scarce to waste it on the dead.


Also -


It is shocking that Southwark Council even considered (and I believe still considers) using Southwark sports fields for burials. I know Renata doesn't condone that. To destroy our children's future for the soon-to-be-ignored dead is completely amoral and must be rejected forever. I posted about this today:


http://lewisschaffer.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/how-camberwell-old-cemetery-wood-was-lost/


With affection to Renata and other our councillors. x Lewis Schaffer

Hi Lewis,

There are two areas in Camberwell Old Cemetery, one grassy area with ground raised years ago, and the area towards Wood Vale. Also some patches of filling in elsewhere. Some space also in Camberwell New Cemetery (not the REC!) and a bit of space in Nunhead Cemetery in the Muslim Area. Southwark is not and has not been considering a Southwark Sports Field For Burials. The Rec is within the grounds of Camberwell New Cemetery and the land was originally purchased for burials. I think Lewis that you are aware that a consultation was carried out, and as a consequence (and with support from me, Victoria Mills and Gavin Edwards) the Rec was designated as option of last resort.


I think that many residents may not agree with your statement "soon-to-be-ignored dead" about their deceased loved ones.


Renata


edited for typos

1. The Rec is open area where children (and adults) play sports. How could the council even CONSIDER using this area? It doesn't matter what the land was bought for 100 years ago - needs and priorities change. That option should not be an 'option'. Do you agree that to remove the playfield would be an abomination and should not be mentioned EVER AGAIN?


2. Right now the Council is felling 24 trees but the plan is to make 5000 spaces available. Is that not true? Where is that land coming from? To cut down living trees to bury the dead is wrong.


3. What is the Council doing to reduce burials? Is there any plan? We are the custodians of the lungs of London.


Thank you for responding. You are an incredible councillor, Renata. I think that any area would be proud to have someone as committed and knowledgeable as you representing it.


my blog: http://lewisschaffer.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/cutting-down-the-new-forest/#comment-427

Instead of burying people under stone slabs... why not plant a tree and have their name on the tree. You could bury them under the tree or not as you liked. By definition the dead would be a living forest of memory.


and / or


Take up the grave stones and make walls of memory out of them. The idea muted to bury grave stones under a metre of earth ... !

Hi edborders,

I think it extremely unfortunate and wasteful that a rec site in Lewisham was not only bought but maintained by Southwark rate payers for 100+ years.

Southwark should sell the site to Lewisham Council with a covenant about it remaining a sports grounds into perpetuity.


With the planned growth in London's population of over 1 million residents its even more of an imperative to ensure we keep all the open space we have such as this recreatino ground.


Talking to funeral undertakers they're clear that the councils crematorium could be run significantly cheaper with better experiences for grieving families. This opportunity should be used to lower charges and for those that can use this making it more attractive.

They also suggested that the grave spacing has been appallingly inefficient meaning much more land has and is being used for each grave.


Burial costs are exlcusively used to cover current operational costs. The council needs to create a fund that each burial contributes into to cover the maintenance costs into perpertuity. Otherwise we get cemeteries uncared for or cost tax payers in the future large sums to fix.


The council also plan to only sell burial plots for 25 years. I'd counter that if grave reuse has to occur then we have lots over 100 years of age.


For the first time ever I've also had case work this year from people with religious beliefs who must have quick burials but being given dates weeks away. OVerall the service doesn't sem responsive to residents needs.

It is right to kill a tree to bury a dead body?


The Council let the graves go to seed and now we have the most wonderful Camberwell Old Cemetery Wood.


Will we regret cutting down a wood because it was once used for burials?


What can we do save our wood? More details below.


[lewisschaffer.wordpress.com]

I am disgusted by some of the comments posted by the offending 'edborders'... My parents are buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery and are neither ignored nor forgotten. It affords me considerable comfort to be able to visit their last resting place when I wish to. I agree with the considerate councillor, Renata, who states that many do not agree with 'edborders' sentiments. I am a lifelong ED resident and intend to stay so - how long has he turned up for? I may even soon book my own burial plot in the cemetery as it is not up to others to declare how my body should be disposed of. Very angry indeed...

Surely we can find a way to minimize the number of burials in our cemeteries so that we can save our beautiful wooded and open spaces?


Lewis Schaffer, resident of Southwark for 12 years.


My post on the subject: Will we regret cutting down the new forests of Southwark?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...