Save Southwark Woods - link to Objections to Planning Applications

[Jules-and-Boo]

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/object/4590467108

There are three separate applications and you can use this link to object to them.

They have a facebook page too

https://www.facebook.com/Save-Southwark-Woods-700671496717263/timeline/

[nxjen]

I have had a quick scan through the page linked above and notice you assert:

"This application supports unfair burial provision, as none of the burial provision would be accessible to Southwark residents of Orthodox Jewish or Muslim faiths, who also require burial"

Can you advise me where in Southwark's proposals it states this, or how you reach this conclusion?

[edhistory]

There is a degree of disinformation in that document.

Is it known who wrote it?

John K

[Jules-and-Boo]

It's a group that are raising awareness of the issues and coordinating the public awareness etc.

The link to their site is here

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/home/4590478832

[Earl Aelfheah]

Southwark woods doesn't exist. How many threads have you started about this now?

[Siduhe]

nxjen, I believe the reference to lack of burial provision for Orthodox Jewish or Muslim residents is because it's desirable in those faiths to have separate burial areas allocated to just those faiths, which isn't part of the current Southwark plans for COC. I find the comment about fairness a bit strange, given the view of at least certain members of the campaign group that no burials should take place on site at all and "the woods are for the living to enjoy" and that "religious burial is an outmoded concept that has no place in a modern society". My personal view is different and I've said so at every consultation opportunity and meeting.

[James Barber]

I also believe burials on top of other previous burials is also not allowed by some faiths.

The council plans are to spend multi million pounds - circa ?5m in phase 1 to remove trees etc. Effectively the council will be grossly subsidising every burial there. It could use a commercial cemetery a couple of miles away, reduce the costs to families dramatically, and avoid this huge capital outlay.

[Renata Hamvas]

Hi James,

Kemnal Park Cemetery is not local, it's address is Sidcup By-Pass, Chislehurst, Kent BR7 6RR, it's not easy to get there via public transport, if you travel there by train it involves cab journeys from the local train stations

the directions given to get there are:

How to find the park

We are situated directly on the A20 Sidcup Bypass heading towards London. (Off the M25 at Junction 3 follow signs for A20 Lewisham/London bound)The Park is approximately 1 mile from Frognal Corner (Queen Mary?s Hospital), just past the Virgin Active gym, the park is clearly signposted and has a private entrance on the A20.

Also, nxjen and Sidhue there is an active Muslim burial area which is situated on what was the site of former plant nurseries in the centre of Nunhead Cemetery. All the Muslims burial plots appear to be aligned with each other, so I'm assuming that they are aligned to Mecca. Correct me if I'm wrong on the following, I believe that Orthodox Jewish burials traditionally are only in Orthodox Jewish burial sites. Unrelated males and females can't be buried in adjacent plots (only family members).

The Peckham Rye Ward Councillors are working with groups to find the best solutions. My most recent meeting with a member of SSW was last Thursday in Camberwell new Cemetery.

Renata

[nxjen]

Thanks Renata for clarification regarding Muslim and Jewish burials and also for advising where the mythical cemetery is "a couple of miles away"! I agree Siduhe that this particular argument from S"SW" is at odds with the main thrust of their objections and, again, disingenuous.

As for James' point that "Effectively the council will be grossly subsidising every burial there", when so much is paid for through one tax or another,I really don't have a problem with burials being subsidised.

[Penguin68]

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.

[HopOne]

"Burial grounds in London have always been re-used - this is being done in an entirely proper way"

Sadly not true in this instance. If the burial space had been used in a proper way on these sites, then there would have been no need at all to chop down mature trees in order to make space for further burial. This mis-management is something that the Council have admitted and did so at the meeting they held to outline their plans. That they held this meeting at all was largely thanks to the SSW campaign.

"Southwark Woods" is merely a campaign name to represent both old and new cemeteries. Keep the wooded parts and these will be enjoyed by the living and help mitigate pollution levels.

[nxjen]

That Southwark Council have mismanaged the cemetery in the past is no argument that they should not take appropriate, proper action now. No, "Southwark Woods" is not merely a campaign name, it is a rebranding exercise that in a stroke attempts to misleadingly transform a cemetery into a historic area of woodland.

[Sue]

The people running this campaign haven't exactly restricted themselves to factual comment based on - well, facts - in the past ......

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,1533238,page=1

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1544552,1547768#msg-1547768

[HopOne]

Not so. There are 2 cemeteries involved and there is some historic woodland on One Tree Hill that is under threat.

Appropriate, proper action would be to reuse space that is already managed or to use space in a sustainable way. The council's preferred course is neither of these things.

[nxjen]

I'd be interested to learn how old woodland has to be to be defined as historic. Here is a picture of One Tree Hill taken in 1905 - no woodland there.

[HopOne]

We are talking below the line of sight in that picture. There are oaks that are clearly well more than 100 years old (2 arm spans of circumference). The woodland that existed on that hill before it was grazed (as in the picture), was part of the Great North wood. Am not sure if the trees are actually part of that or not, but either way it can be viewed as historic.

[Penguin68]

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.

[taper]

The woods in COC are very beautiful. Would be terrible to see them destroyed.

[henryb]

taper Wrote:

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

> The woods in COC are very beautiful. Would be

> terrible to see them destroyed.

Quite and the area in CNC on One Tree Hill. Regardless of the terminology and history they are beautiful natural wooded areas that have a high amenity for a large number in the community not to mention the wildlife.

Regarding the Muslim burials - it is my understanding that the burials in Nunhead are only suitable for burials for the Turkish community and not traditional Islamic burials. This was confirmed by the Imam of Peckham Mosque who also said that they generally use Kemnal Park.

Regarding the costs: the 5.1m will not be recouped. The sales of plots and interment fees only covers the revenue costs of the burial service and not even that. This is 5.1m that could be spent on other projects.

The terrible state and danger of area z has been exaggerated in my view with some minor landscaping and natural clay capping it could be got into a state where access was possible and at a fraction of the cost.

[edhistory]

Has this imperialism included talking with the Friends of One Tree Hill?

[edhistory]

HopOne Wrote:

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

> Not so. There are 2 cemeteries involved and there

> is some historic woodland on One Tree Hill that is

> under threat.

Is this the "virgin woodland"?

[edhistory]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> I'd be interested to learn how old woodland has to

> be to be defined as historic. Here is a picture

> of One Tree Hill taken in 1905 - no woodland

> there.

I have a slightly earlier picture than the Nisbet. This shows One Tree Hill from Peckham Rye Common. I count three trees.

The Nisbet also has a map of the fields on our side of One Tree Hill.

[henryb]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> HopOne Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Not so. There are 2 cemeteries involved and

> there

> > is some historic woodland on One Tree Hill that

> is

> > under threat.

>

> Is this the "virgin woodland"?

It is described thus in LBS conservation plan:

"a wooded area of virgin ground in the south west of Camberwell New near One Tree Hill"

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/11448/conservation_management_plan_for_camberwell_new_cemetery

It is actually next to One Tree Hill nature reserve. If the hill itself is called "One Tree Hill" then it is on the One Tree Hill.

Here is the area on google maps.

It is not ancient woodland but it has 20/30 year old native oaks. There are some very old oaks near by on the boundary with the allotments.

[edhistory]

You've lost me now.

Are you saying that the northern slope of One Tree Hill is not One Tree Hill?

Can you clarify why the phrase "virgin woodland" has been used?

John K

[henryb]

No I am saying the eastern slope of One Tree Hill in CNC is in fact on One Tree Hill not next to it.

I didn't write it but I suppose "virgin" because it has never been used for graves before and "woodland" because it is covered in trees.