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

[edhistory]

That's right, there are temporary occupants.

I've never quite got the Lewisham Council connection.

John K

[edhistory]

henryb Wrote:

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

> Not personally but if you write a book about the

> history of railways in SE london I promise to come

> into your shop to buy a signed copy. :o)

I'm afraid you will be waiting a very long time.

The books have been written.

A few crumbs may still emerge.

You could always drop by for a chat about this.

DaveR has a theory about East Dulwich being a Victorian railway suburb. There might be something to be teased out here.

John K

[HopOne]

edhistory Wrote:

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

> That's right, there are temporary occupants.

>

> I've never quite got the Lewisham Council

> connection.

>

> John K

This used to be part Lewisham and Southwark land. I think that the boundary line followed the old parish markers, one of which is still visible on the top of One Tree Hill. Both Southwark and Lewisham locals felt a strong connection with the area, as is evident when you read about the "agitation", and still do evidently. The land that was acquired by Southwark was not about foresight, they were short of burial space then too. Which leads back to the systemic issue here - when do you stop expanding burial space and make better use of the precious green space we all share and enjoy? We need carbon capture in urban London more than ever, this isn't about arbitrarily drawn borough boundaries.

[edhistory]

And I think you made that one up!

Does anyone know the proper Lewisham Council connection?

John K

[nxjen]

HopOne is partially correct. Used to be part Camberwell and part Lewisham land until boundary changed in 190O. See Nisbet p32

[HopOne]

Thanks nxjen. I think it is also worth pointing out that St Augustine church has a parish that is mostly in Lewisham. One Tree Hill is the focal geographic point of Honor Oak which is mostly Lewisham too. Southwark just want to use part of it for a cemetery!

[edhistory]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> HopOne is partially correct. Used to be part

> Camberwell and part Lewisham land until boundary

> changed in 190O. See Nisbet p32

It's good to know that you are one of the few people who has read John Nisbet's book.

Next time someone brings up "Ancient Woodland" you can jump in.

My query is about the 2015 Lewisham Connection.

Essentially this starts with who owns the land.

John K

[HopOne]

edhistory,

I have tried to answer your question. These plans mostly impact Lewisham residents day to day. You can start the discussion with who owns the land but it doesn't end there, in fact this just muddies the waters as it means that Southwark Council are both the applicant and the planning authority. Let's move on and address the 2015 issues.

[DaveR]

"DaveR has a theory about East Dulwich being a Victorian railway suburb. There might be something to be teased out here."

Easy, tiger. I used that description in a thread about blue bins, tbh as a rough characterisation of the essential ordinariness of the ED landscape. Having said that, AFAIK it's pretty uncontroversial that the majority of what we now see in SE22 was built in the late Victorian period, and that the majority of residential expansion during that time was driven by (or at least went hand in hand with) public transport development - buses, trams and suburban trains.

[Penguin68]

Although it must also be remembered that the Dulwich Estate's policy of excluding the railway (as regards stations) from its environs will have contributed to growth outside the Estate's, well, estate. This will have helped stimulate housing growth outside that area. But yes, almost all Victorian urban growth (and later Edwardian) stepped out with the spread of mass transit.

[edhistory]

I'll sit this one out and watch with interest.

BUT, do include what the British Land Company did in East Dulwich.

John K

[edborders]

Reposting legal notice. Southwark Council will be extinguishing the rights of people buried in the Old Cemetery by March 15, 2016.

Please check the names below. The council plans at some point to dig up or mound almost every grave over 75 years old, and remove the headstones in Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries. The Council does not have ask permission to dig up public or pauper's graves.

If you have a loved one on the list below, call or email Avril Kirby at the Cemetery to see what rights you have. Telephone No 020 7525 5600 Email [email protected]

LEGAL ? CAMBERWELL OLD CEMETERY

NEWS DESK (07 October, 2015)

Notice of Extinguishing Exclusive Rights of Burial under the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 CAMBERWELL OLD CEMETERY

Under the GLC (General Powers) Act 1975 the London Borough of Southwark has been granted powers to extinguish the rights of burial in any grave which contains sufficient space for not less than one further interment, where such a right has not been exercised for 75 years from the date of the latest interment in the grave or, if there have been no interments from the date of the grant of the right of interment.

In order to comply with the Act the London Borough of Southwark hereby gives notice that it intends to extinguish the interment rights in respect of the following graves and to remove any tombstones which are present on those graves in accordance with s. 21 of the Act:

Square 89 Square 106

Grave No 11272 Family name ? Allison Grave No 28016 Family name ? Haynes

Grave No 13363 Family name ? Bryant Grave No 28055 Family name ? Snell

Grave No 14379 Family name ? White Grave No 28075 Family name ? Webb

Grave No 15772 Family name ? Bradshaw Square 107

Grave No 14934 Family name ? Macdonald Grave No 28274 Family name ? Perry

Grave No 10512 Family name ? Stone Grave No 28285 Family name ? Harris

Grave No 10524 Family name ? Butler Grave No 28290 Family name ? Taylor

Grave No 15786 Family name ? Roe Grave No 28804 Family name ? Poncett

Grave No 16828 Family name ? Bird Grave No 29408 Family name ? Hall

Grave No 16836 Family name ? Scott Grave No 29941 Family name ? Collins

Grave No 16807 Family name ? Greig Grave No 30326 Family name ? Hossack

Square 106 Square 108

Grave No 27893 Family name ? Baker Grave No 30293 Family name ? Minahan

The Council has also served notice upon registered owners of the rights of interment and on the registered owners of any tombstone affected at their registered addresses for these graves

The Council does not intend to extinguish the rights on these graves or remove the tombstones until 15 March 2016. After this date all existing rights will be deemed to be extinguished unless we have been notified of an objection to the extinguishment of the right or to the removal of the tombstone in writing by the registered owner of the grave or a next of kin with a legal claim to the exclusive right of burial in the grave.

Any tombstone(s) removed will remain the property of the owner and available for a further 3 months after 15 March 2016 Compensation is payable in accordance with subsection 21 (7) to any legitimate owner in respect of, and proportionate to the loss of rights of the plots affected provided that a claim is made within 6 months from 15 March 2016 If you are the current owner of one of the above graves or believe know the whereabouts of these families, please contact the Cemeteries and Crematorium Office, Brenchley Gardens, SE23 3RD.

Telephone No 020 7525 5600 Email [email protected]

[Sue]

This has indeed already been posted elsewhere by another forum member, on a thread in the lounge on which you are already discussing the issue.

Why are you confusing things by posting it here, on a thread supposed to be about "a new opportunity to save the woods" thus probably starting off a duplicate discussion about the same thing?

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1619517

[dbboy]

It was the 23rd of some month last year, now well in the past, closed, finished and definitely dead and buried. Unfortunately the tree huggers can't accept defeat gracefully as they love being the centre of public attention and keep resurrecting their old threads to bang on about their dead cause, or in their make belief world they would prefer burnt to a crisp.

[James Barber]

A new post about graves about to be dug up seems reasonable to me.

I've ancestors buried there and will be checking our family tree for those surnames.

I don't think this level of detail has been available before. And I never check the Lounge for news which this is.

[edborders]

Would it be possible to rename this thread "Cemetery Issues". Something general and possibly a less topical and emotive heading. Issues concerning the cemeteries are very important to the area.

[Penguin68]

Can I suggest, edborders that you start a new thread with the headline you have given your recent informative post, and re-post the information you initially posted in this thread. That will get discussion, hopefully, about the council's specific plans about a few grave sites, and not other matters.

[nxjen]

Except it's already been posted twice already in the thread in The Lounge!

[edborders]

Is it true that if I start a new thread called "Cemetery Issues" it will not be deleted or moved to the Lounge?

Are you the person in charge of that.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Can I suggest, edborders that you start a new

> thread with the headline you have given your

> recent informative post, and re-post the

> information you initially posted in this thread.

> That will get discussion, hopefully, about the

> council's specific plans about a few grave sites,

> and not other matters.

Lewis Schaffer

Save Southwark Woods, Nunhead Resident, Age 58

[Administrator]

If it's just another thread on this topic then it will be deleted or Lounged.

[edborders]

"Re-use - its fairly morbid."

Just to clarify, Southwark Council is planning on digging up or mound over with dirt every grave over 75 years old in both Camberwell Cemeteries.

This is what Darren Merrill, Cabinet member for the Environment and Public Realm said on LBC Radio in December.

The "little bit of land" is on One Tree Hill - where dozens of trees, including oaks, will be cut down.

DM

"Our Plans are we are working to bring a sustainable burial strategy into place so what we need to do is find a little bit of land to bring us over and then what we will have is a saleable strategy to continue. The area they are talking about will get us over an eight month period but then what that will be able to enhance us to be able to do reuse. We will be coming into a reuse strategy so that our cemeteries will be able to provide burial space for our residents.

Interviewer:

"What does reuse actually mean?"

DM

"Reuse is where - it's fairly morbid - but as you say we are running out of burial space, it's where we can reuse plots after seventy five, a hundred years, and reuse the plot for somebody else to use in the future. So with the amount of burial plots we have got, we are hoping that we will be able to bring a strategy together that means our future generation can bury..."

Interviewer

"So in 8 months it will be over a hundred years, and sorry it to put it this way, but you can bury people on top of other plots?"

DM

"Well it's going to take a little bit longer than that. There is a couple of areas within the cemetery we are looking at to do some burial in, but our long term strategy is around about two thousand and twenty when we will be able to start the reuse strategy."

Lewis Schaffer

Nunhead, Save Southwark Woods, Fat Robert Deniro looker.

[dbboy]

ADMIN - Please accept my apology in advance before I get barred for what I am about to say, I hope you can appreciate why.

edborders - After one day of peace and tranquillity on the threads you have to go and spoil and shatter it, You could not wait to restart or hesitate to start banging on about the same thing again this afternoon.

YOU HAVE MADE YOUR POINT. BUT EVERYONE'S FED UP AND BORED TO THE BACK TEETH WITH YOU AND NOT LISTENING ANY MORE BECAUSE YOU KEEP ON REPEATING THE SAME THING AND DO NOT LISTEN TO REASON OR ARGUMENT. IT SEEMS IT'S YOUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY. WELL YOU ARE WRONG. THE AUTHORITIES HAVE DECIDED TO DO AS THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO. YOU KEEP BANGING ON ABOUT THE SAME THING AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AT INFINITUM, NOW FOR F....s sake JUST GIVE IT A REST.

[Hassie]

Well said dbboy.

[edborders]

Sorry but we are not letting this rest.

Local people might want to know that the Council will be digging up local people's graves to sell plots to people out of the borough. It is massive sell off. And that is not to mention cutting down over 10 acres of woods and the scarring of One Tree Hill.

We have called them out on this and Peter John, OBE (Order of Bulldozers and Excavators in Service to Undertakers) called us "liars" on Friday. 1000s of private graves and untold number of public (pauper's graves) are to be destroyed.

dbboy Wrote:

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

>

> edborders - After one day of peace and

> tranquillity on the threads you have to go and

> spoil and shatter it, You could not wait to

> restart or hesitate to start banging on about the

> same thing again this afternoon.

Lewis Schaffer

Save Southwark Woods tree and old grave lover

[Siduhe]

Local people might want to know that the Council will be digging up local people's graves to sell plots to people out of the borough. It is massive sell off.

My understanding of the plans is that they will create some 4865 plots. Those plots will be available for sale for people in and out of the borough, but there is a pretty hefty non-resident premium. For example the standard 50 year lawn burial fee for 2015/16 is ?2010 and for non-residents the same service costs ?6030. Fees are said to be used to maintain the existing services and cemeteries. I'm not sure how that can be said to be a massive sell off to people out of the borough, but we obviously have different views on that.

As one of those people to whom burial is important for religious/cultural reasons, I find the debate about re-use of graves a bit odd. I have no issue with re-use of graves, it's the fact of the burial in consecrated ground that's important to me - not the headstone or the fact that other people might be buried on top of you 50 years later. I've said that several times on here and at the meetings, and been told that I'm an anachronism and need to move with the times, so I guess there's nothing more to say on that.

However, the idea that the best strategy to stop the Council's plans and to preserve the woods is to create a hue and cry about reuse of graves or the fact there isn't equal provision for all religions is a misnomer to me. Campaign all you want to preserve the woods for recreation - it's a perfectly valid view to take even if I don't agree with it in these circumstances, but don't try make out that this is driven off genuine concern about burial provision for people in the borough of Southwark - it's clearly not.