New opportunity to save the woods!! Deadline Friday 23rd

[nxjen]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Well said Penguin68

I agree. I was thinking exactly the same thing but Penguin has expressed it a lot more articulately than I could!

[Loz]

If you go down to the "woods" today

It won't be a big surprise.

If you go down to the "woods" today

You won't believe your eyes.

A few scrubby trees and maybe a grave

It's not at all something you'd wanna save

Not really somewhere you'd wanna have a pic-nic.

[Sue]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> The campaign have a petition with over 8,500

> signatures. They've confirmed addresses for

> neighbouring ward they have around 1,500

> signatures which means they have around 17% of the

> electorate there.

>

> So I think the poster is quite reasonably stating

> huge anger etc.

Most people told that the council are intending to "destroy woodland" will sign a petition without bothering to investigate further.

The first I heard of all this (I think - it was a while ago now) was when I was asked to sign a petition in North Cross Road during the busy market.

I don't sign things without being quite sure what I'm putting my name to. I said I needed to look into it further.

Most people will just sign, particularly with the emotive language being used by this group.

I even know people who have got involved in a fundraising event for this, who had absolutely no idea that there is another side to the story.

ETA: Sorry just seen Penguin's post above making a similar point.

[DulvilleRes]

Penguin - didn't you ask the administrator to move the discussion of a new Sainsburys in Dulwich Village to the Lounge, on the grounds that it isn't in East Dulwich? So, why aren't you asking for this one to be moved? Or is your choice of topics to get moved selective?

[nxjen]

You may be confused with a post I made seeking clarification from Admin about the area that could be included in the Main section. As for Camberwell Old Cemetery, it may not be within East Dulwich Ward but with an SE22 postcode it is clearly in East Dulwich. Where do you think it is?

[edhistory]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Where do you think it is?

In Southwark Woods?

[edhistory]

James Barber Wrote:

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

> They've confirmed addresses for

> neighbouring ward they have around 1,500

> signatures which means they have around 17% of the

> electorate there.

What does this mean?

How was it done?

Who did it?

[Peckhamrye]

'Like' Penguin68

[clockworkorange]

Penguin68. Yes.

Petitions quite literally not worth the paper they're written on without the checks you suggest.

Not read the docs. Somebody summarise please. Some trees being removed because....?

[henryb]

> Not read the docs. Somebody summarise please. Some

> trees being removed because....?

They are removing the trees (they don't actually know how many) to provide about 4 years worth of burial, they are going to spend about 2 million pounds on this part of the project. This is on top of the on average subsidy to the burial service of 200k a year from the tax payer.

After the 4 years is up they are going to be back to square one and will have to look for somewhere else. My guess is they will be back on the Rec or maybe the allotments but who knows. They won't look further a field because that will involve the private sector and as this is a Labour council - the private sector is BAD. The fact that most of the money is going to private contractors is fine though for some reason.

[edhistory]

That is not a summary.

[Azira]

clockworkorange Wrote:

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

> Penguin68. Yes.

> Petitions quite literally not worth the paper

> they're written on without the checks you suggest.

>

>

> Not read the docs. Somebody summarise please. Some

> trees being removed because....?

I'm agnostic on this issue, but in the interests of balance, how do you anti-the save "Southwark Woods" bridgade know whether the petition represents genuine sentiment? Do you know the checks on the data haven't been made? Do you know that (paraphrasing an earlier poster) people have signed this unconsidered/unresearched/thoughtlessly?

There's a lot of hyperbole on both sides of this debate it would seem.

[edhistory]

Azira Wrote:

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

>

> There's a lot of hyperbole

Very good!

[Penguin68]

Penguin - didn't you ask the administrator to move the discussion of a new Sainsburys in Dulwich Village to the Lounge, on the grounds that it isn't in East Dulwich? So, why aren't you asking for this one to be moved? Or is your choice of topics to get moved selective?

For the record I have never asked for any threads to be moved anywhere (other than reporting SPAM posts) - as I live only 2 minutes walk from the Old Cemetery, and walk there very regularly - as I have done for much of the nearly 30 years I have lived in SE22 - I see this as very much in East Dulwich - and I even believe that parts are contiguous to ED ward itself - which I am not - even if no-one in the cemetery is now an elector.

[mynamehere]

You may all want to go and buy the November National Geographic. It's all about trees and Climate Change. And then we can all have a collective think about priorities for the very last pieces of open space cities have.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/climate-change/special-issue/

I imagine well over half of you have children. As I do. If we don't act our children are ****ed. The choice in this thread is to gaze into the branches of a tree and remember how much you loved someone or to look at a hole in the ground surrounded by cement and think how much it cost and how the clocks ticking on your right to use the space before those bones are chucked out, the plastic geegaws shoveled away and the barren ground sprayed for weeds

[Loz]

Oh for f...

So now the argument is climate change? OK, as long as Southwark plant a tree (hey, make it two!) for every one removed, you will be OK with that?

Good, that's settled then.

[edhistory]

This is getting too silly.

Are the names of the petition instigators known?

John K

[henryb]

Urban Green infrastructure is an important aspect of global warming both as a preventative measure and in terms of minimising the consequences. That is well known and understood by most government agencies and political parties.

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure.pdf/$FILE/urgp_benefits_of_green_infrastructure.pdf

If it was the case that LBS were doing a like for like habitat remediation then I might see that the urban greening argument was countered but there is no evidence that is actually the case. They don't know how many trees are actually coming down - they have changed the definition of "a tree" from being 7.5cm to 15cm dim simply for the sake of the plans and you just have to go around the sites with the plans to see most of the tree locations are made up and some significant trees are missing - and these are big 80 cm girth oaks that it will take 40 years to re-grow totally missing. Plus there is no point - we can save the scrubby wild bit of the cemetery, we can provide some in-borough burials and we can save millions of pounds.

Regarding the point about the Groundwater Protection Zones. Both sites are the Ground Water Protection zone for the reservoir.

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=531500.0&y=181500.0&topic=groundwater&ep=map&scale=5&location=London,%20City%20of%20London&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&distance=&textonly=off#x=535317&y=174491&lg=1,10,&scale=9

The environment agency has specific guidelines about cemeteries in SPZs. It is a reasonable question to ask whether the Environment Agencies guidelines have been met for the new burial areas.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/290462/scho0404bgla-e-e.pdf

It is true that the deep clay means that the risk of ground water contamination is low but that just means the risk of surface water contamination is higher. Plus the artificials, incidents of groundwater flooding and potential for elevated groundwater in the surrounding area identified in LBS 2011 GWF assessment was not addressed by the planning officer.

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/12398/appendix_c2_-_swmp_-_groundwater_assessment

Regarding whether it is a wood or not - just go and look for yourself. Although it is interesting that it is always the people trying to protect it that say that.

[edhistory]

> Regarding whether it is a wood or not - just go and look for yourself. Although it is interesting that it is always the people trying to protect it that say that.

It's in the eyes of the believers.

[edhistory]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> It's on their web-site suggesting cut-and-paste

> comments to use.

>

> It's very funny.

>

> "This site is within the 400 day catchment area of

> the River Peck Basin and is

> an SPX1 site for groundwater collection for

> drinking water. Southwark council

> has carried out no detailed work with Environment

> Agency officers to assess the

> negative environmental impacts of new burials from

> this development on water

> pollution"

This is the allegation about groundwater pollution.

[Penguin68]

Just to get the environmental cat out of the bag, one cremation (the chosen alternative of the mavens here):- uses as much energy in the form of gas and electricity as a 500 mile car trip, and releases a staggering 400 kilos of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, not to mention mercury vapour and other pollutants.

In the UK in 2013, over three quarters of funerals end in a cremation. With a death rate of around half a million people every year, this means around 375,000 cremations are taking place annually, potentially releasing some 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the air above us. These figures look at the actual carbon cost of burning bodies, and ignore the costs of heating and maintaining crematoria premises.

And when you consider the areas to be cleared in the cemeteries, it is worth remembering that some of the trees there were part of the initial cemetery planting (as trees were planted and are being planted in the areas now reclaimed and being re-used for burials) - it is likely that these trees - where they are in good condition - will be retained or replaced. So the claims that there are big trees amongst the 15 years old scrub growth is both true, and to some extent irrelevant.

[henryb]

Yes woodland burials would be the most environmental friendly but unfortunately that isn't being proposed for either area.

[Penguin68]

Yes woodland burials would be the most environmental friendly but unfortunately that isn't being proposed for either area.

Probably because they are both (traditional) cemeteries. For people who wish traditional burials and memorials.

[henryb]

No the traditional curb ones and monuments are not allowed any more. You can only have the new lawn burials style like in the new area by Woodvale - plus plantings flowers is banned. It makes it easier for the mowers apparently.

[edhistory]

For those interested in the allegation that the dead of East Dulwich will poison East Dulwich drinking water.

Here are the references for the adjacent borehole reports.

If you read the reports you can see the groundwater depth.

John K