Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In response to the claims, Councillor Ian Wingfield, Southwark's cabinet member for environment and public realm, said: ?The council is trying to create new burial space in the borough so that people can rest in peace close to their home and loved ones.


"Without this work we would have run out of space by the end of the year and our plans are largely supported by local people. There is however a small group who are against new burials on this site and will stop at nothing to try and hinder the process.


"Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us.


?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy.


"The council has worked closely with the diocese, wildlife experts and historical and war grave experts in order to preserve and protect areas of the cemetery and we have been sensitive and respectful of those buried here.


?To suggest that our council is riding roughshod over the memories of people buried here, whoever they are, is offensive. Our sole aim is to create the additional burial space local people want and need the best way we can and any suggestions otherwise are simply wrong.?

Burial on top of burial is absolutely common in cities in the UK (other countries operate different norms, for instance disinterment and relocation into ossuraries after a limited time (as little as 25 years) happens in some countries). In some inner London parish graveyards there are bodies 6 deep. Nowadays there are no 'paupers' graves' - so we are talking about re-use, as for 'private' graves, after a minimum of 75 years (in terms of these graves very much longer).


Graveyards are an asset and all charge for burial - parish and municipal. This release by ssw is non-news, but yet another attempt to whip up a frenzy. I might be more prepared to be angry about private graves being re-sold (to no benefit of the original purchaser), but I'm not, because I recognise efficient use of graveyard space (and revenue streams to support their upkeep) is a good use of resources. I want burial sites locally for those who value such things (I don't, but I won't stand in the way of those who do) - it is a valuable amenity for many who (as recent mourners) will be at their lowest ebb. I rarely have much time for councillors, but good-oh to Councillor Wingfield for his succinct response.

Blanche - is SSW the group the Ian Wingfield is referring to, when he says


"Despite repeated attempts over the last 12 months to engage with this group they have consistently blocked any attempts at constructive discussion and drowned out other local groups who do want to have a genuine conversation with us.


?The campaigners have also made increasingly outrageous claims to try and discredit the work the council is doing, most of which are inaccurate or outright fantasy."


I usually assume I know when a local councillor is lying, because their lips are moving, but his description is pretty close to my experience of SSW. Care to comment?

Well said Penguin68 ! I totally support Southwark in enabling more burial spaces. I want to be buried locally as do a lot of other people. The Whole SSW thing is nonsense anyway. There never was or have been anything called 'Southwark woods.' We of course need to preserve and relish our green spaces, but not at the expense of much needed community facilities, In any case we are awash with green space around here, and are blessed with lots of parks, commons etc.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> Burial on top of burial is absolutely common in

> cities in the UK (other countries operate

> different norms, for instance disinterment and

> relocation into ossuraries after a limited time

> (as little as 25 years) happens in some

> countries). In some inner London parish graveyards

> there are bodies 6 deep. Nowadays there are no

> 'paupers' graves' - so we are talking about

> re-use, as for 'private' graves, after a minimum

> of 75 years (in terms of these graves very much

> longer).

>

> Graveyards are an asset and all charge for burial

> - parish and municipal. This release by ssw is

> non-news, but yet another attempt to whip up a

> frenzy. I might be more prepared to be angry about

> private graves being re-sold (to no benefit of the

> original purchaser), but I'm not, because I

> recognise efficient use of graveyard space (and

> revenue streams to support their upkeep) is a good

> use of resources. I want burial sites locally for

> those who value such things (I don't, but I won't

> stand in the way of those who do) - it is a

> valuable amenity for many who (as recent mourners)

> will be at their lowest ebb. I rarely have much

> time for councillors, but good-oh to Councillor

> Wingfield for his succinct response.

Cllr Wingfield said (if he was accurately quoted): ?Our sole aim is to create the additional burial space local people want??


Yes, all Southwark wants to do is create burial space, regardless of the families who are having their loved ones dug up or mounded over, or the local people who love the woods or all the local people who can?t be buried in the new plots. And the local people who don?t want these historic cemeteries irreparably damaged.


Here is a photo taken Friday in Camberwell Old Cemetery - another area of the woods scheduled for felling for more new plots over thousands of graves.


Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Andrew, redeveloping these cemeteries for new burial plots means destroying family memorials, mounding over graves and digging up the dead and destroying a lovely natural spot.


It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the dead and the woods rest in peace.


Attached is photo in Camberwell Old Cemetery of headstones earmarked for removal and the graves dug up for new burial.


Blanche Cameron

07731 304 966

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Well that's a first, an actual response, now maybe you'll start to engage in debate.


And why the need to use such emotive language?


Destroying family memorials, how will this happen, be done?


What will happen to the memorials you say will be destroyed?


Digging up the dead, so what are the council doing to any remains they find after 75 years?


Are these graves maintained by anyone?


As has been explained umpteen times there are no woods in the cemetery, what does exist is over grown scrubland which the council Neglected and so graves subsequently became overgrown. This work is identifying those graves which I would hope are being recorded and cross checked with the cemetery records.


It is not a natural place, it is an overgrown wilderness that the council are now putting right due to their lack of any maintenance, surely that is a good thing.


The cemetery is not full, would you rather this work proceeded or Honor Oak Rec was used sooner than the council anticipate its use, (and btw Honor Oak rec was purchased always for the purpose of burials).


It gets better, really it does!!!!!!!


FOCC are now calling for an inquiry into, and get this, racial discrimination in Southwark's burial service


and they go on to file a complaint because they were accused of lying by a Councillor.


Oh the irony of all of this, you really couldn't make it up, even if you wanted too.

I wonder how many people on this thread actually have family graves in that area? I do, 2 generations, and would certainly like my relatives to have the dignitary of being able to rest in peace.

Does anyone know how can I make sure that my family graves will 'not' be demolished?




Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Andrew, redeveloping these cemeteries for new

> burial plots means destroying family memorials,

> mounding over graves and digging up the dead and

> destroying a lovely natural spot.

>

> It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic

> one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the

> dead and the woods rest in peace.

>

> Attached is photo in Camberwell Old Cemetery of

> headstones earmarked for removal and the graves

> dug up for new burial.

>

> Blanche Cameron

> 07731 304 966

> www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

Does anyone know how can I make sure that my family graves will 'not' be demolished?


The 'rules' which I believe Southwark is following are that no grave where there has been a burial in the last 75 years will be disturbed. For private graves (where there has been no burial in the last 75 years) then the normal policy is to 'lift and deepen' so that bodies will be disinterred (for a short space of time) and then re-buried in the same spot but deeper, allowing a new burial over it. Other graveyards 'turn' the monument so that the inscription of the original burial is now on the back of the tomb-stone - but I have no idea of Southwark's policy here. Most named graves are 'private' - public burials (once called 'paupers graves') do not carry grave markings.


I think there is an option to argue about whether a grave spot can be re-used (if the final burial there is more than 75 years old) - the authority must advertise any such intentions (again, I think). For most London graveyards - where there is often quite a high population turn-over - continuing family connections in the area after 75 years have lapsed is relatively unusual (save of course for infant deaths).


If your family graves have seen an interment after 1942 they should not be touched (this year at least!) I would anticipate that it will be some time, actually, when final burials as late as 1942 will be called on for re-use. At the moment they are mainly working in much 'older' areas. Some sites in the cemeteries, such as those officially 'Commonwealth War Graves' are even less likely ever to be interfered with.

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> It is indeed a cemetery - a full one, an historic

> one - with 300,000 people buried here. So let the

> dead and the woods rest in peace.


300,000?


Here's a certificate from 1952.

Here's a certificate from 1952.


Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears to support ssw I believe that the grave number (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked public (paupers) graves held a substantial number additionally, by all account. Additionally private graves will include family mausoleums - which again may contain a number of burials. Looking at the gravestones on my walks I would think that private graves may hold on average two burials - so that would make about 60k in private graves in 1952, based on that grave number. However, and in fact, the number of those buried is hardly material. And on the basis that there are still parts of the cemeteries where no interments have taken place, even with 300k burials it is not full (and indeed the plans for re-use will allow many more).

I'd like to see the 300k calculation.


Attached is a three year internment return.


Last time the number of bodies was discussed here I checked the survival of internment records with the Local Studies Library.


I was told they have a complete set. If anyone fancies a wet day in the library.

Southwark's own records say this:-


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. http://www.2.southwark.gov.uk/info/200032/deaths_funerals_and_cremations/185/cemeteries/2



ssw is not unreasonable therefore in quoting this number. But as I have said, with their re-use plans how many were buried (since 1855) is really not that relevant. The more the merrier, I say.

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

> Whilst I am loathe to say anything which appears

> to support ssw I believe that the grave number

> (31007) may refer to private graves - the unmarked

> public (paupers) graves held a substantial number

> additionally, by all account.


Indeed, common / public graves were used for multiple burials. Many of these were paid for by the poor who were unable to afford private graves and some were paid for by the parish and would be classed as pauper's burials. So ssw emotive complaint that new burials will be taking place over already interred remains is established practice and can account for the figure of 300,000. I came across an interesting discussion on the types of graves http://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/forum/common-graves-t5325.html See in particular the third post down.

I don't understand how you arrive at that figure, the numbers given for burials in common graves are much higher in both consecrated and unconsecrated land. There are numbers given under the heading of 'Re-openings' which are much lower and I would suggest these are the numbers of burials within private graves of additional family members.


ETA. Those buried within a single common grave were buried within the course of a few days of each other, there would be no need for these graves to be 're-opened'.

Hello Iloveeastdulwich


We?re organising a families and friends meeting on Sunday 25th June 2pm at Brenchley Gardens Camberwell New Cemetery for people with relatives and loved ones in the cemeteries. Please come if you can, the relatives have never been asked about Southwark?s plans.


The Council have said they want to excavate the private graves, dig up the remains, digging deeper, putting the remains back then burying other people in the graves, called it ?lift and deepen?.


Tens of thousands of public graves are already being mounded over, including 48 Commonwealth War Graves in one area of Camberwell Old Cemetery.


The Council has said they would store the headstones for a while and offer them to new families to use. If no-one wants them they might get rid of them - I am so sorry, I know this may be hard to hear. But this is why we are fighting.


Some people obviously feel the cemeteries should continue to have new burials. But this treatment of the graves of people who were promised to rest in peace and not even asking their relatives and the cutting down of acres of woods - the cost is too great.


My email is below for any questions at all.


Blanche Cameron

Friends of Camberwell Cemeteries

07731 304 966

[email protected]

Tens of thousands of public graves are already being mounded over, including 48 Commonwealth War Graves in one area of Camberwell Old Cemetery.


I do not believe that any Commonwealth War Graves are being mounded over - this term has a very specific meaning. There may be 48 interments of the military who died of their wounds in the UK before 1917 - in marked or unmarked graves - and there will certainly be (probably quite large) numbers of those who served in both World Wars who later died - not as an effect of war - and are now buried in the cemeteries, but the War Graves Commission has been clear that there are no plans for the Commonwealth War Graves in COC. They are entirely happy with Southwark's proposals.


And the graves being mounded are in the main currently invisible (there are no markers) - so their 'loss' is practically only theoretical.


The Council has said they would store the headstones for a while and offer them to new families to use. If no-one wants them they might get rid of them - I am so sorry, I know this may be hard to hear. But this is why we are fighting.


This is standard practice (which I have already referred to). The records of where burials have taken place are still retained. Many of the older headstones are now sadly unreadable. Their preservation would be for (rather pointless) sentiment only. Anything recordable off them will also be retained. For most the deceased will be remembered by no one living - even as family history - so probably not that hard to bear. And no - your are not fighting for this, but for the closure of the cemeteries as working cemeteries, and their conversion to recreation centres.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...