Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[dbboy]

Joeleg - totally agree, Pandaboy entered into a meaningful, worthwhile and useful discussion, and whilst I disagree with Pandaboy's point of view, he raised solid arguments and was willing to read through detailed documents to substantiate what he was saying without ever using any emotive language.

[precious star]

To all those haters of nature "Buzzzz off" !! .... from miss bumblebee. Xxx

[Penguin68]

To all those haters of nature "Buzzzz off" !! .... from miss bumblebee. Xxx

To clarify, I doubt if any of those who have written to challenge the hard line views of the ssw pressure group, or to (broadly) support Southwark's plans 'hate' nature. Most of us, certainly I, actually quite like it. Which is why we chose to walk, inter alia, in the cemeteries and not the streets. But there is a balance to be drawn between a love of nature and the needs of those who (now,and in the future, not just the past) want to inter and mourn their dead reasonably locally to them (or to where their dead have lived). And I can enjoy nature in the managed part of the cemetery (which is where the parakeets appear to have been roosting) as much, if not more, than gloomy and overgrown scrub. And there is very little 'natural' about trees sprouting through open graves and fly-tipped spoil heaps (particularly where these may, possibly, have been contaminated by building asbestos). I might just as well characterise those who support the ssw campaign as 'people haters'.

[dbboy]

I don't hate nature, but realise it needs to be controlled otherwise it takes over as has happened through the overgrown section of COC, which the Council are now rectifying and bringing back into use.

Someone mentioned earlier a fox looking for its home, how do you know this, no one knows unless you can speak fox, and only Dulwich Fox does that!!!!!!!!!

[Sue]

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Joeleg - totally agree, Pandaboy entered into a

> meaningful, worthwhile and useful discussion, and

> whilst I disagree with Pandaboy's point of view,

> he raised solid arguments and was willing to read

> through detailed documents to substantiate what he

> was saying without ever using any emotive

> language.

I agree too.

[Sue]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

>

> To clarify, I doubt if any of those who have

> written to challenge the hard line views of the

> ssw pressure group, or to (broadly) support

> Southwark's plans 'hate' nature. Most of us,

> certainly I, actually quite like it. Which is why

> we chose to walk, inter alia, in the cemeteries

> and not the streets. But there is a balance to be

> drawn between a love of nature and the needs of

> those who (now,and in the future, not just the

> past) want to inter and mourn their dead

> reasonably locally to them (or to where their dead

> have lived). And I can enjoy nature in the managed

> part of the cemetery (which is where the parakeets

> appear to have been roosting) as much, if not

> more, than gloomy and overgrown scrub. And there

> is very little 'natural' about trees sprouting

> through open graves and fly-tipped spoil heaps

> (particularly where these may, possibly, have been

> contaminated by building asbestos). I might just

> as well characterise those who support the ssw

> campaign as 'people haters'.

Indeed. Well said.

We are lucky that there are many places locally to enjoy nature other than those which are actually cemeteries.

But no, even if we walk in the woods and parks, as I do often, and sometimes the cemeteries too, we must still according to Precious Star "hate nature" if we think cemeteries should be used for their intended purpose of burying the dead.

[JoeLeg]

precious star Wrote:

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

> To all those haters of nature "Buzzzz off" !!

> .... from miss bumblebee. Xxx

Ah, superb debating skills...

So, from you we've had ad hominem attacks, strawman arguments, accusations you refuse to support with evidence you claim to possess and juvenile trolling. It's like you've been researching 90's era BBS flame war techniques.

Anyway, I'm backing away from this one now. I look forward to any more posts from Panda Boy (or even Blanche Cameron, who turned up once then vanished), he made points that have changed some of my thinking, but thus far I find the rest of the protesters to be unconvincing in their arguments, which mostly consist of attacking those who disagree with them.

I certainly don't buy the line that they're all nothing to do with SSW.

[precious star]

Why dont you trust the council ??? Answer please ??? And to sue, yes you really love nature dont you when you wrote you was responsible for the decline of the stag beetle by treading on them! Dont you know the song all creatures great and small. Sounds to me you was not "brought" up to respect nature!

[Sue]

precious star Wrote:

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

> Why dont you trust the council ??? Answer please

> ??? And to sue, yes you really love nature

> dont you when you wrote you was responsible for

> the decline of the stag beetle by treading on

> them! Dont you know the song all creatures great

> and small. Sounds to me you was not "brought" up

> to respect nature!

Get your facts right and re-read my post.

ETA: Oh, and you appear to be doing a good job in causing this thread to go the same way as the other one.

If you want people to support your viewpoint then get your facts right, provide the photographic evidence you say you have, and stop attacking other people instead of putting forward a logical case.

[Blanche Cameron]

This week's update from Save Southwark Woods:

Yesterday 1st March, Save Southwark Woods delivered our objections and became a formal party in the Church proceedings to decide Southwark Council's applications for development at Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries.

Southwark Council needs Church permission for all work on consecrated ground. This includes felling hundreds of trees and mounding over 48,000 graves at Area Z Camberwell Old Cemetery and felling up to 60 trees on One Tree Hill Area D1 at Camberwell New Cemetery.

The Diocese of Southwark received 800+ objections to Southwark's applications so a hearing will be held to decide on the plans later in the spring.

But as you know Southwark did not wait for Church permission.

Two acres of woods have now been felled and cleared to the earth. You can see from attached photos the impact.

We will be proud to represent so many people who have objected to the Council's destructive plans at the hearing. We believe no local authority should feel they can get away with whatever they want without any fear of challenge.

London is a highly polluted city and these woods are in an Air Quality Management Area. We need the woods and trees for our health, for nature, for climate change adaptation and many other reasons.

And we need the graves with respect for the dead already buried here, their families and their history that helps us understand our own lives and deaths.

More info is here:

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/ssw-joins-church-legal-process

Feel free to contact me on the email below or call, I'm always happy to discuss anything to do with the campaign.

We also have a weekly meeting on Tuesdays 7.30pm at the Herne Tavern in the back bit, everyone welcome.

Blanche Cameron

for Save Southwark Woods

07731 304 966

[email protected]

www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk

@southwarkwoods

Facebook Page Save Southwark Woods

[edhistory]

200+ trees in Area Z?

How does this work?

Are you saying there is now a deviation from the One Tree Hill plan?

John K

[Loz]

Blanche,

The twitter feed yesterday was claiming that SSW was intending to file an application for an injunction. Has that fallen through?

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello John,

There's no deviation from Southwark's actual plan. But what you've posted there is one of Southwark's outline plans for Area D1 on One Tree Hill.

You have to read through hundreds of pages of small detail, tree surveys, design and access statements and plans to realise Southwark Council state they will actually fell up to 60 trees, which is not what their plans show.

Regarding the number of trees now felled at Area Z, it is easily many hundreds. At the Overview & Scrutiny Committee of 17th September, when asked why all the trees were not shown on plans, Tree Officer Gary Meadowcroft said because 'there were too many to count'.

Best wishes,

Blanche

[Blanche Cameron]

Hello Loz,

We are looking at every single option available to stop Southwark felling even more trees, especially when they don't have permission from the relevant authorities.

Blanche

[edhistory]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Hello John,

>

> You have to read through hundreds of pages of

> small detail, tree surveys, design and access

> statements and plans

I have. If you had you would retract all the SSW assertions about drainage and groundwater contamination. You have an opportunity here.

So, how do you calculate 200 or more trees being felled in Area Z?

Have you disowned the comedian yet?

John K

[Sue]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

----------------------------------------,

>

> Regarding the number of trees now felled at Area

> Z, it is easily many hundreds. At the Overview &

> Scrutiny Committee of 17th September, when asked

> why all the trees were not shown on plans, Tree

> Officer Gary Meadowcroft said because 'there were

> too many to count'.

>

How is a tree being defined in this context, please

[dbboy]

This is what penguin68 said in the initial post of this thread

"Some of the land is ?consecrated? (particularly public grave areas) ? the Diocese of Southwark must give a ?Faculty? for consecrated areas to allow what is described as ?substantial alterations? ? which includes the removal of any remains for re-interment in consecrated ground (which is their current policy regarding public graves), the disturbance of grave furniture and the creation of new paths or roadways. Some actions (in practical terms ?gardening? and tree management) do not require such a Faculty, nor would clearance of contamination and fly-tipping residue where this did not disturb graves or grave markers."

Blanche - Can you explain what you mean by "and became a formal party in the Church proceedings". Are you actually saying that the protest group is working in partnership with the Diocese, because I can't see what else you are saying unless I have missed something.

[taper]

What's the likelihood of Southwark taking this approach to the more densely wooded ares of the cemetery? Area Z looks like it's been napalmed!

[dbboy]

Nope, cleared for its intended purpose - burials.

[taper]

Not sure what you mean by "Nope." Does this mean they won't be flattening the wooded area?

Intended purpose isn't a strong argument is it? London is full of graveyards that have become full and are no longer used for burials. The question here is whether there's anything worth preserving in COC as it stands. I say there is.

[nxjen]

Blanche Cameron Wrote:

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

> Hello Loz,

>

>

> We are looking at every single option available to

> stop Southwark felling even more trees, especially

> when they don't have permission from the relevant

> authorities.

>

Isn't it for the "relevant authorities" to take out an injunction which they declined to do earlier?

[nxjen]

dbboy Wrote:

>

> Blanche - Can you explain what you mean by "and

> became a formal party in the Church proceedings".

> Are you actually saying that the protest group is

> working in partnership with the Diocese, because I

> can't see what else you are saying unless I have

> missed something.

I think what Blanche means, and I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that her group will be heard when the matter is before the Consistory Court in the same way that Southwark Council will be heard. Neither group will be acting in partnership with the Diocese who will be taking evidence to help their decision as to whether or not to grant permission for the works to be undertaken by Southwark Council.

[nxjen]

taper Wrote:

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

>

> Intended purpose isn't a strong argument is it?

> London is full of graveyards that have become full

> and are no longer used for burials.

Well yes, intended and current purpose is a very strong argument, especially when there is a need for burial space locally. It's like closing a school arbitrarily and saying right let's turn this into a cinema, or council offices, or a shopping mall.

[taper]

Straw man. Intended purpose is not in doubt, not is current. The issue is about future purpose. So should COC be developed in the way intended? I don't think it should. It's full

[dbboy]

Have the protesters or Church taken out an injunction against Southwark?

Are the Church then only interested in the matter of the consecrated ground?

If that is the case, my understanding of what Penguin68 said in his initial post here, was that the ground clearance does not effect the consecrated ground.