Southwark Woods Day

[kiera]

edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edborders Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The Forest Hill Society says that 300,000

> people

> > are interred in COC.

>

> Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

>

> John K

Camberwell New Cemetery opened in 1927 because Camberwell Old Cemetery was full. On Southwark Council's website, it says this about Camberwell Old Cemetery:-

In the 1850s, The Camberwell Burial Board was established to solve the problem of Camberwell's burial shortage in its churchyards. In 1855 the board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell.

The cemetery has fine examples of gothic revival architecture. The lodge and chapels were designed by George Gilbert Scott's architecture firm who also designed St Pancras station and the Albert Memorial.

By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space. The majority of burials now take place in this cemetery.

[dbboy]

Re: maintenance standards of cemeteries, if you go to Hither Green cemetery it is not that well kept, however Grove Park seems better kept.

[Penguin68]

At the moment, in the Old Cemetery, maintenance work on those parts not overgrown is not unreasonable - generally it's in good order, tidy and mowed. In spring, when bulbs all flowered, it was very attractive. It is the 'wilded' bits which have no work going on in them, and that, to clear the trees and shrubs and weeds, will be expensive, particularly as you can't just put machinery through, with the existing monuments, however collapsed.

[nxjen]

Keira -

I think the 300,000 refers to burials in both Old and New Cemeteries, not just the Old Cemetery as stated by edborders above. The following is by Forest Hill Society:

"Lack of burial space is not a new problem for Southwark. In the 1850's, the parish of Camberwell was having difficulty finding space for burials in its churchyards. The Camberwell Burial Board was established to find a solution to the problem, which they did - in 1855. The board bought 30 acres of meadow land and established it as the Burial Ground of St Giles, Camberwell. Camberwell New Cemetery was founded in 1901 in order to provide more space and was opened in 1927. By 1984, 300,000 burials had been carried out at the cemetery. The majority of burials now take place in the New Cemetery." http://www.foresthillsociety.com/2011/02/save-honor-oak-recreeation-park.html

As Jeremy says, there is a huge difference between Nunhead and Camberwell Old Cemeteries. Nunhead was originally privately owned but when it became unprofitable in the 1960s, the owners just abandoned it. Suffering such neglect, it became a total wilderness that attracted dumping and vandalism which was distressing for those who had loved ones buried there. By Act of Parliament, Southwark Council acquired the cemetery for ?1 in 1975. Southwark Council had an action plan for the cemetery but it was the formation of the Friends of Nunhead Cemetery that brought new energy to the renewal process aided by funding from both Southwark Council and the National Lottery. So while the mix of nature and crumbling tombs and gravestones appears haphazard, a lot of work, money and maintenance has gone into creating this apparent random disorder. To paraphrase Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of money to look this natural!

[johnie]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Big difference with Nunhead Cemetery. Nobody has

> been buried at Nunhead in a long long time, it is

> primarily of historical and natural interest.

> Camberwell New Cemetery (and maybe the Old

> Cemetery too?) still have burials.

That isn't true - go in by the Limesford Road entrance and there are plenty of new burials.

[henryb]

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Southwark Council had an action plan for

> the cemetery but it was the formation of the

> Friends of Nunhead Cemetery that brought new

> energy to the renewal process aided by funding

> from both Southwark Council and the National

> Lottery. So while the mix of nature and crumbling

> tombs and gravestones appears haphazard, a lot of

> work, money and maintenance has gone into creating

> this apparent random disorder. To paraphrase

> Dolly Parton, it takes a lot of money to look this

> natural!

I believe the Southwark Plan at the time was to redevelop all of Nunhead cemetery as per the area that is still used for Turkish Muslim burials by the gate. As I understand it, it was resident group action FONC that prevented the entire cemetery being reused in the same way.

Whether we like it or nor Camberwell Old Cemetery is full and has been full for some time. That is why they started to use Camberwell New Cemetery in 1920s. The council tried to start redeveloping COC in 1991 but that it was successfully blocked by residents then. This is just the same thing happening again. This site has great historic importance; it is a Grade 1 Site for Nature Conservation and has a Woodland Level Tree Preservation Order on it ? meaning each tree is supposedly protected.

I fully understand the need for people to have burials for their loved ones however I simply don?t believe redeveloping historic cemeteries is the right way to achieve this. The cost to tax payers alone makes it prohibitive. It looks like the plots in COC will come in at ?1,700 each to develop. As the cemeteries are only breaking even on revenue costs i.e. excluding capital cost for the redevelopment then ?1,700 is the subsidy from the Southwark council tax payer for each plot and will not be recouped. If you throw in the loss of woodland, the historic monuments and the fact that burials can be provided at a much lower cost to both the tax payer and the families further out in far more pleasant suitable settings then I really can?t see the justification for it. That is why so many other London cemeteries are not being redeveloped e.g. West Norwood, Bow Cemetery to name two.

The day is intended to be a low key community event to simply raise awareness of the issue and enjoy the wooded areas which haven?t been used for burials for many years, on what will hopefully will be a lovely summers day. No disrespect was intended.

[dbboy]

I can't argue the figures you quote as I do not know how you arrived at these, however burial in Southwark is not cheap and even more expensive for those who live just the other side of Woodvale in Lewisham (or as you would probably call us the enemy).

Why should people be buried further away from where they lived and died? It is a cemetery that the Council are using/developing to allow more burials (is that not a good thing rather than converting more of Honor Oak Rec into burial space). The primary point of a cemetery is to bury the dead. Nature conservation - yes its nice but it is not the primary reason for a working cemetery. If you want nature conservation you have got the the railway embankment walk from London Road along the back of Woodvale, The Great Woods at Sydenham Hill and One Tree Hill to mention but three, so how much nature conservation do you want? As I said yesterday we are spoilt for geenery around here.

Let cemeteries be used for what there purpose is, to bury our loved ones once they have passed away. Not being a youngster, I would much prefer burial locally here rather then relatives having to visit a grave in all the way over at Hither Green or Grove Park and can think of no where nicer than to be buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery, a stone throw from where I was born, live and hope to be buried in.

So can I end by maybe suggesting having your pick nick in the beautiful Horniman Gardens or Horniman Park which are designed for that type of activity and leave the cemetery so we can visit our dead relatives in the peace, tranquillity and solitude they and we deserve.

[Sue]

Completely agree, dbboy.

Will you "Southwark Wood"ers be out in North Cross Road again tomorrow trying to get people to sign your petition?

Because much as I love woods and green spaces, I shan't be signing it. Again. I didn't get much joy when I asked you what the council's position was, and I don't sign petitions without knowing all the facts.

And can I ask you again, do you have permission for these events you are holding in the cemetery?

[Penguin68]

People who make a fetish of death (lots do) like to think that they can visit their dead, or be visited by relatives if themselves dead, conveniently. Hence those living around here would like to use cemeteries around here for their corpse disposal. Burying too far away for visiting (particularly where the visitors may themselves be old or frail) doesn't cut it. I don't, personally buy into this (I do enjoy walking around old memorials of strangers, so how odd am I?) but I accept that others do, and that many find the ability to visit their dead regularly a real comfort. That means that making best use of the asset (an established cemetery) makes real sense, which turning it into a woodland glade picnic site doesn't. There are many good areas for the living to picnic locally already, give the dead a break.

[nxjen]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I believe the Southwark Plan at the time was to

> redevelop all of Nunhead cemetery as per the area

> that is still used for Turkish Muslim burials by

> the gate. As I understand it, it was resident

> group action FONC that prevented the entire

> cemetery being reused in the same way.

>

When Southwark Council purchased Nunhead Cemetery, their intention was to retain about 8 hectares from a total of around 52 hectares as cemetery and to develop the remainder as public open space and nature reserve http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=SOU063 and worked together with FONC in the restoration and renewal of the cemetery.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

give the dead a break.

Really sorry but that did make me laugh.

[kiera]

dbboy wrote that he "....can think of no where nicer than to

to be buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery...."

I am not speaking for 'Save Southwark Woods'

As it stands, Camberwell Old Cemetery is very attractive. It has a mixture of areas - historically interesting Victorian graves, open grassy areas, meadowland and woodland paths. The most unattractive part is the new burial area of lawn graves.This has been designed with the priority of ease of maintenance. Hence, it consists of back to back headstones on gravel strips, with no space for memorabilia and no planting allowed.

As the council plans to cut down woodland to create more lawn graves, I am alarmed. I believe it should be possible to meet the council's requirement for an average 200 new burials a year, without further damaging the character of the cemetery. I would like to see the woodland retained - there have been no burials in it since a few in the 1940s and the council have not maintained this area as a cemetery since that time. I would like to see burials continued in a more attractive and considerate environment than the current stark lawn grave style.And, yes, there are definitely over 300,000 people already buried in Camberwell Old Cemetery - new burials are on top of people already buried.

[henryb]

nxjen,

Thanks for that. I stand corrected.

Sue,

We didn't feel this event or the previous events were of significant scale to warrant permission being given under Southwark's open spaces policy. However we have publisized them in such a way that the relevent councillors and officers should have been aware and indeed invited them along. We have been in contact with the council specifically about this event and have assured them that we certainly will treat the cemeteries with respect they deserve.

Also the councils take on the matter is available on their website which is linked to from the petition's web page.

[Loz]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edborders Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > The council want to rebury the bones of poor people and sell plots to rich people from out of the borough

> > without a monument to them, without a ceremony, without any respect at all for those people and

> > their descendants.

>

> Is there any evidence for this, or is this just Occupy-style hyperbole?

Then, edborders Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As for the council selling off the graves spaces to rich people, the council themselves say about

> 10% of sales are to out of borough people and the council is charging three times as much as residents.

So, it was complete and utter hyperbole then.

Was your argument so weak you had to resort to what was essentially a bare-faced lie?

[nxjen]

>

> So, it was complete and utter hyperbole then.

>

> Was your argument so weak you had to resort to

> what was essentially a bare-faced lie?

What I find the most disingenuous is the unilateral renaming of this area of shrubland as "Southwark Woods" which implies there is a heritage that goes back many centuries and tries to present the current condition of the area as a permanent state founded on tradition and history. Spin!

[edhistory]

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We

[Penguin68]

Sue wrote:-

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

give the dead a break.

Really sorry but that did make me laugh.

No need to apologise - my aim is to please

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue wrote:-

>

> Penguin68 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> give the dead a break.

>

>

> Really sorry but that did make me laugh.

>

> No need to apologise - my aim is to please

:)

[edborders]

I'm from New York and I thought they were woods but if you call the 10 acres "scrub" then I'll call them scrub, too.

And if only 10% of the plots are being sold off to people out of the borough (for ?6000 (or more?) that's only one acre of scrubland used so no big deal. And it'll keep the place "neat and trimmed".

And I didn't know that in England it's disrespectful to the dead and their families to have a picnic for children in a cemetery but it is okay to for the council to strip gravestones and jcb the bones to bury in a pit with no markers or ceremony.

I'm sorry. I'm learning.

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead Radio every Monday.

Failed comic.

What is your name and what do you do?

[Siduhe]

Reusing very old grave sites is apparently quite common in the UK - you can't 'own' a grave plot in perpetuity so it does happen when sites run out of space. Was news to me too.

I'm very local to COC and like some others on here, I'd like use of the site to be weighted towards its primary use as a cemetery. I posted this on the other thread a while back, but after receiving a couple of PMs from people who felt very strongly, I backed out of the discussion. I get that not everyone is religious, but whatever your personal belief system I think it's important to have places where we have a chance to remember our loved ones. That's at the heart of what Southwark is trying to do - that's very clear to me from all the Phase 1, 1a and 2 meetings that I've been to. You may not agree with what they're doing in COC but I personally don't understand how anyone can question the need for burial space in the borough for those who it's important to.

[edborders]

"I think it's important to have places where we have a chance to remember our loved ones. That's at the heart of what Southwark is trying to do"

Perhaps Southwark cares which is why they will be bulldozing clear whole swathes of the cemetery of headstones and bones of your loved ones, leaving a denuded environment for new bodies and bones, which Southwark will soon clear out again.

"Reusing graves" sounds good, like the old mill building being filled with silicon valley types.

Unfortunately, with re-using graves it either involves keeping the headstone and putting a new person under it (which isn't in favour among those who want to pay the ?8k plus (?) to be buried)or wiping away the monuments of your loved ones. This doesn't take into account the pesky bees and birds that live in the untidy mess of scrub that has grown up above those graves.

I am off to "Southwark Scrub" now in COC. Be there at Noon to maybe 2. Let's talk.

Lewis Schaffer

PS have no financial motive for expressing views here.

07886504221

Editing for clearness and to add my signature.

[Siduhe]

Perhaps Southwark cares which is why they will be bulldozing clear whole swathes of the cemetery of headstones and bones of your loved ones, leaving a denuded environment for new bodies and bones, which Southwark will soon clear out again.

Eloquently put, except that's not quite what is being planned. What's planned is the reuse of common grave sites (unmarked) and a tree overgrown area that is all but inaccessible at the moment. I do understand that headstones are in there and will be destroyed and I wonder if there's a way to resolve this.

In fact I wonder what you think the solution is? If there's a way to preserve the areas for all the reasons you mention and still provide burial space in the borough, what does everyone think it is? If there is but it's a matter of cost then I'd be the first out there fundraising. When I asked this at one of the public meetings the response from one of the group campaigning against this was that it's more important to preserve the wooded area for the living than to provide for burials for the dead and that burial was a outdated religious concept. That's what I personally disagree with.

I don't think anyone on here has a financial stake in this. We are just are coming at this from a different perspective as to what has primary importance to us.

[Penguin68]

Many graves are no longer visited or cared for, meaning that the residents no longer have relatives or friends still alive to do this. When you are no longer 'in memory' it doesn't seem unreasonable to make use of the space that your body (thanks to decay) no longer really occupies. Destroying memorials (which have historical and genealogical interest) is less necessary, but these can be placed around graveyard boundaries.

Many European graveyards only allow occupancy for a relatively short period before bones are recovered to an ossuary. Unless you have family graves where there are several generations of burials most graves are unvisited after (at most) I would guess 70 years or so - this is particularly true in areas where there is a high turn-over of population (moving away from the area, not dying) so that the grave ceases to be 'local' to you. So recycle/ re-use of grave space seems logical and fair.

If this space was a real oasis of wild-life in a desert of urbanisation I might be more sympathetic to your doesn't take into account the pesky bees and birds that live in the untidy mess of scrub plea, but around here, with relatively large gardens and a lot of parks and wooded spaces this simple isn't true.

Many of these species will do better where the graveyard is better tended, perhaps with more flowering plants and trees to memorialise the dead. Arguing for areas to be treated as meadow - and only mown in August - would have a greater impact than dark and not very productive scub land that now exists in the untended parts.

[nxjen]

edborders Wrote:

>

> Perhaps Southwark cares which is why they will be

> bulldozing clear whole swathes of the cemetery of

> headstones and bones of your loved ones, leaving a

> denuded environment for new bodies and bones,

> which Southwark will soon clear out again.

>

...

>

> Unfortunately, with re-using graves it either

> involves keeping the headstone and putting a new

> person under it (which isn't in favour among those

> who want to pay the ?8k plus (?) to be buried)or

> wiping away the monuments of your loved ones. This

> doesn't take into account the pesky bees and

> birds that live in the untidy mess of scrub that

> has grown up above those graves.

>

I understand the graves in the area where reuse is proposed are at least over 75 years old and more likely over 95 years old so there will be very few, if any, who have personal memories of the deceased and wish to remember those buried in this area. This is unlike the rest of the cemetery where burials are more recent and where there are many who still wish to visit and remember their loved ones.

[edborders]

video of the scrubby bit. https://youtu.be/b76wj7BO8yI

Lewis

Nunhead