Save Southwark Woods - link to Objections to Planning Applications

[henryb]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Mr Barber wrote:- So yes, really, I don't believe

> in wasting tax payers money to provide more

> expensive burials that only some can use

>

> I wonder how he is unaware that all proper

> management of amenity spaces costs money - the

> fact that the cost is so high reflects the lack of

> investment and maintenance when the areas were

> allowed to degrade so badly - oh, when his party

> was in power (part of the time, anyway).

>

> Only commercial woodlands (planting and harvesting

> commercial crops of wood, which I am sure would

> upset the nature mavens stimulating this

> 'protest')) are self-financing - parks and other

> amenity areas cost money to maintain - for the

> benefit of all those who use them as spaces, not

> just the dead. I walk daily in the Old Cemetery,

> and enjoy all the local cemeteries as maintained

> areas of tranquility.. The only 'cheap' method of

> handling the space is as was done in the past, to

> neglect and ignore it so it becomes overgrown,

> dangerous and impenetrable. Oh - and the target

> for indiscriminate fly-tipping, as in the past.

The fly tipping was orchestrated by the cemetery manager and happened at CNC as well which was in active use for burials at the time so the argument the fly tipping was the result of neglect doesn't hold up.

Yes, using the spaces as nature reserves/memorial parks wouldn't have zero cost but I very much doubt it would be ?650k per year. Tower Hamlets Cemetery or Nunhead Cemetery would be the two most obviously examples for a funding comparison.

[mynamehere]

Why not be first? Why shouldn't Southwark be the first to turn a cemetery into a breathing green lung for a planet which is in crisis.

We have to stop cutting down mature trees in parkland. 200 year old trees take pause 200 years to regrow

What we are trying to do in Southwark is so cutting edge the world has to be searched for precedence. Here is a tiny sample:

Imagine

http://www.herlandforest.org

http://www.pennforestcemetery.com/tag/spiritual-transition/

http://www.beatree.com/2009/05/sustainable-cemetery-management.html

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/one-day-green-cemeteries-will-use-corpses-help-trees-grow

[edhistory]

> 200 year old trees take pause 200 years to regrow

Where are these 200 year old trees?

John K

[edborders]

John Kennedy of Cherner Books in East Dulwich. I spent many a happy hour in there with my baby son. A very pleasant place!

The council cut down a row of hawthorns in excess of 200 years old on the Woodvale side of Camberwell Old Cemetery and topped over a meadow for a couple of hundred regimented grave spaces

The council is going to give millions away to provide burial for the few dead why cutting services to the living. ?5 million pounds is a very low ball estimate. Do they have the money?

[nxjen]

Meadow? How easily you misuse words.

[Penguin68]

to provide burial for the few dead why cutting services to the living

Actually, all burials, memorials etc. are for the benefit of the living, not the dead (who are not 'there' to benefit from anything). The processes surrounding death and mourning are all about the survivors, not the deceased. To many, formal corpse disposal gives great psychological well-being - and for some a focus for mourning - particularly true when the deceased is relatively young, or, indeed, still a child.

Anyone who doesn't understand the role and importance of obsequies etc. to significant numbers of (living) people - or who thinks cemeteries are about the dead, rather than the living, needs perhaps to review their position.

Perhaps a little bit of empathy is called for here? Or do trees trump people?

[Sue]

Well said.

[edhistory]

edborders Wrote:

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

> The council cut down a row of hawthorns in excess

> of 200 years old on the Woodvale side of

> Camberwell Old Cemetery and topped over a meadow

> for a couple of hundred regimented grave spaces

Wow!

200 year old hawthorns in that location.

I'm amazed.

John K

[edhistory]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> AND FINALLY southwark woods do not exist, never

> have done, never will.

But the Southwark Woodfolk do.

[dbboy]

As the deadline of 23/10 has passed, can I suggest this thread is now closed.

[edborders]

There are still plans, applications and strategies to develop the Cemeteries.

These include the cutting down of trees, digging up the graves so that the plots can be sold, covering over large areas with 1.8 metres of soil to create addition grave sites, roads being rammed up One Tree Hill - with the potential for flooding,water pollution, increased traffic, religious discrimination,and major financial waste.

Might it be good to make one general cemeteries thread for all of these issues?

Lewis Schaffer

American, Nunheader, father to English children, and save Southwark Woods supporter.

See me in Bloomsbury at the Museum of Comedy this Decmeber.

[edhistory]

edborders Wrote:

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

> These include the cutting down of trees, digging

> up the graves so that the plots can be sold,

> covering over large areas with 1.8 metres of soil

> to create addition grave sites, roads being rammed

> up One Tree Hill - with the potential for

> flooding,water pollution, increased traffic,

> religious discrimination,and major financial

> waste.

Oh dear, that would be terrible.

A new road (narrow, metalled, and gentle gradient) to the top of One Tree Hill would be good for the old, the infirm, and the disabled. I hadn't thought of that.

.

[IVAN EDAKE]

Cemeteries were all well and good 3 centuries ago when we had the space and a manageable population but, now, they are simply impractical. All bodies should be cremated full stop. Those whose religions dictate otherwise should be buried in Israel/Mecca or wherever they choose. Such burials should be at the sole and entire cost of the deceased/family and should receive no funding from the taxpayer whatsoever.

[Penguin68]

Those whose religions dictate otherwise should be buried in Israel/Mecca or wherever they choose.

Southwark?

[dbboy]

Ivan - sounds like you run your life on a little red book.

EDB - FACTUALLY INCORRECT

Plots will not be sold, but perhaps re-used, no problem with that, Graves are NEVER sold, you never own the ground where the grave is, the plot is purchased for 50 years. It then reverts to the council unless you extend the grant.

One Tree Hill will nor be affected, do you mean the old nurseries site, as next door to One Tree Hill is Honor Oak Allotments. I fear you use emotive language and present information that is factually incorrect. where will there be flooding? how will there be increased traffic? What religious discrimination? And finally how can you state financial waste?

[IVAN EDAKE]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Those whose religions dictate otherwise should be

> buried in Israel/Mecca or wherever they choose.

>

> Southwark?

No, not in Southwark. Not anywhere in the UK. Cremation should be compulsory in the UK in my opinion. Our population is increasing by over 360,000 pa from immigration alone. Burial is a luxury we can no longer afford and cremation is a perfectly acceptable and only real alternative. Like I say, if the deceased practices some faith that requires otherwise, then he/she should go to the place that dictates this. Alternatively, I have no objection to people like you handing over your gardens to them if you feel so strongly about it.

[Penguin68]

No, not in Southwark. - So, not, in fact, 'anywhere they choose', then, despite your earlier protestation.

And your ignorance suggests you know very little about the subject. There are many 'green' alternatives to cremation - not the least freezing and fracture (using liquid nitrogen) - then using the resultant granules as mulch. You are clearly not aware that people (survivors) who do chose cremation often wish still to memorialise and visit the 'graves' of their loved ones - even where ashes and not bodies are interred. Burials (all obsequies) are for the living, not the dead. What I see from you is a rather nasty streak of prejudice (your references to Israel and Mecca) of which, frankly, you should be ashamed. Islam and Judaism are by no means the only religions or sects who choose burial. Very many Christians (particularly Catholics) also are unhappy about cremation. [Parsis (alternatively Parsees) chose neither, preferring exposure to vultures in their Towers of Silence.]

[IVAN EDAKE]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> No, not in Southwark. - So, not, in fact,

> 'anywhere they choose', then, despite your earlier

> protestation.

>

> And your ignorance suggests you know very little

> about the subject. There are many 'green'

> alternatives to cremation - not the least freezing

> and fracture (using liquid nitrogen) - then using

> the resultant granules as mulch. You are clearly

> not aware that people (survivors) who do chose

> cremation often wish still to memorialise and

> visit the 'graves' of their loved ones - even

> where ashes and not bodies are interred. Burials

> (all obsequies) are for the living, not the dead.

> What I see from you is a rather nasty streak of

> prejudice (your references to Israel and Mecca) of

> which, frankly, you should be ashamed. Islam and

> Judaism are by no means the only religions or

> sects who choose burial. Very many Christians

> (particularly Catholics) also are unhappy about

> cremation.

How is that prejudice pray tell? Jews and muslims were mentioned as examples by an earlier poster and that is why I mentioned those two places. The same comment applies to all religions be they catholic, CoE, hindu, sihk whatever. Jesus Christ, don't be so precious. In my opinion, there is no place for cemeteries in modern Britain - we simply do not have the room. I am mixed race by the way and my mother came to this country as an immigrant in the 50's so don't make yourself look even sillier with all your usual 'racist' rubbish. I respect all religions and faiths and the rights of all those who choose to follow them but your post is simply absurd. Hypothetically, if someone's faith dictates that they should be buried within 1 square metre of their birthplace then that is clearly very, very, very wrong and has no place in our society. In such circumstances, we would have to close down every SINGLE hospital in the country on a MONTHLY basis and turn the site into a cemetery and build brand new hospitals on brand new sites every MONTH just to accommodate that insane religious belief. Is that what you are advocating? What an idiotic, imbecilic and downright disgraceful viewpoint you hold. Next you will be telling us that if, hypothetically, a particular religion deems that it's menfolk should be allowed to take 10 YEAR OLD CHILDREN as their BRIDES and commit legalised peadophillia, we should abandon the rights of those CHILDREN and change our laws to fit in with their disgusting filthy depraved practices JUST BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION SAYS IT IS OK when everyone else on this planet knows that it ISN'T. Of course that is just a hypothetical situation and there is no religion on earth that promotes such vile and filthy practices... oh, hold on a minute. Take a good look at yourself in the mirror you ill-informed, pretentious disgrace to mankind before you start slinging horse manure in my direction.

[edhistory]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> James Barber Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > The plans Southwark are embarking on will cost

> > millions of pounds and effectively subsidise

> > future burials in Southwark. They have no plans

> > for a sinking fund or endowment so still we

> > maintain these cemeteries on in year revenue.

>

> Which plans are these?

>

> I'd like to read them and see the budget

> projections.

>

> John K

Mr Barber is busy.

[edhistory]

edborders Wrote:

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

> Burial in Southwark is waste of money when it is

> going to cost twice the amount (or more) to

> provide a gravespace in Southwark than providing a

> gravespace on land outside the borough. That that

> land outside won't have trees or your

> great-grannies grave on it.

>

> The Cemetery Plans, as far as I can tell, is

> mainly a vote-getting scheme by Southwark Labour

> and a giveaway to Conway and the local morticians.

> Is your tax money is being wasted? Yes.

I was going to unpick this density too.

There's lots of assertions there with no evidence adduced.

Perhaps they need to be dealt with one at a time.

> "a giveaway to [...] the local morticians."

It is unclear to me what extra advantage our local undertakers [sic] will gain.

Can someone explain?

John K

[edhistory]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> There is a degree of disinformation in that

> document.

>

> Is it known who wrote it?

>

> John K

[dbboy]

Southwark woods do not nor have they ever existed. The sooner the council clear the over growth that thet neglected to control and start to re-use the land for what it was intended for, burials the better.