Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[nxjen]

Regarding Blanche's definition of what constitutes a tree, I think this may be the case she is referring to

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2009/feb/2009-02-Week-3/judgementgives

This ruling referred to growth within a whole area covered by a Tree Preservation Order which as far as I'm aware does not apply to the Camberwell Cemeteries.

[Sue]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Regarding Blanche's definition of what constitutes

> a tree, I think this may be the case she is

> referring to

>

> http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stor

> ies/2009/feb/2009-02-Week-3/judgementgives

>

> This ruling referred to growth within a whole area

> covered by a Tree Preservation Order which as far

> as I'm aware does not apply to the Camberwell

> Cemeteries.

Thanks for that.

It's quite clear that that definition is relating solely to cases where there is a TPO.

It also refers to a definition of a tree in woodland (am on my phone and can't double check) made I think by judge Denning, which defines a tree as being greater than a certain diameter and not including whips and saplings.

Hope this is correct, I'll check once I'm on my laptop and its easier to have two things open at once.

However it would appear that the "hundreds" of trees referred to by the CPG is an exaggeration.

[Penguin68]

In fact, laws on trees that relate to Camberwell Old and New Cemeteries include the Church?s Faculty Jurisdiction Rules 2015 which state clearly that all trees over 75mm girth measured at 1.5m above ground level require a Faculty from the Church in order to be felled by anyone, including the Council.

No - these rules (link here http://www.churchcare.co.uk/churches/faculty-rules-2015) specifically cover what can be done in Church Property - that is to say, Churches - and makes no reference to municipal cemeteries.

The ssw crew regularly cite the Diocese as having the right to dictate tree removal policy to the council as regards consecrated areas in municipal cemeteries, as part of the ?Faculty? that they have the right to grant (or not) regarding ?substantial alterations? in such consecrated areas.

The examples given in published policy for such ?substantial alterations? cover the removal or re-siting of bodies, interference with grave furniture and the creation of new paths and roads. All of these are directly consequential on the consecrated status of the land ? buried bodies in consecrated land are meant to stay there unless church authority is given for their removal; grave furniture may (and often does) contain Christian symbols or statements, and can be considered to ?inherit? the consecrated nature of the ground ? as does church architecture and, finally, new paths or roads ? where burials thus cannot take place ? alter the nature and extent of the area consecrated.

However to extend this to something clearly not consecrated ? trees ? is I believe a mistake under law. Trees cannot be consecrated ? indeed that would be tantamount to tree worship ? a pagan rather than a Christian tradition. Trees, as much as grass and flowers, may adorn areas of consecration but do not thus form part of them. I believe that if the ssw people have been advised by Diocesan apparatchiks that the Faculty extends to trees, and of particular dimensions, they are wrong. The confusion may lie in the right (as shown in the above link) that the Diocese would have to set rules for their own lands (i.e. with Church property ? such as Churchyards associated with churches - which the municipal cemeteries aren?t) about tree conservation (just as I would, as a landlord, perhaps give my tenants the right to prune shrubs but not to cut down trees on my property without my consent).

I suspect that any attempts by the church to lay down rules on tree conservation outside their lands, as an attempt to extend the remit of their Faculty granting powers, could (and should) be challenged by the council as being ultra vires. It has nothing to do with the consecrated nature of the land, those buried in it or their memorials ? which is what is covered by the powers of Faculty regarding consecrated land in municipal cemeteries. The rights given to the Church over non-church property are specific and limited to the nature of consecration ? and are not the equivalent of those rights the church has over its own lands (also covered by grants of Faculty - but in this case covering different rights).

It may be that church clerks are advising differently, but I believe that advice, if being given, is fundamentally wrong and is readily challengeable in the courts.

[taper]

Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have been preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and development, and no similar development in the more densely wooded area, I don't think it will detract from the cemetery as a public place.

[Sue]

taper Wrote:

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

> Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at

> Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have been

> preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and

> development, and no similar development in the

> more densely wooded area, I don't think it will

> detract from the cemetery as a public place.

That's good to hear.

Blanche, your co-organiser - and apparently the owner of SSW's domain name - is still tweeting to the Goose's Twitter page and commenting on posts I have made on this thread in a personal capacity.

I do not think it is irrelevant to ask you, as the apparent representative of SSW on this thread, whether this bizarre method of promoting your campaign is SSW official policy.

I would appreciate an answer before this question too gets "lost in the backlog".

Thanks.

[fruityloops]

taper Wrote:

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

> Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at

> Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have been

> preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and

> development, and no similar development in the

> more densely wooded area, I don't think it will

> detract from the cemetery as a public place.

I live next to it... And there's hundreds that they haven't.

Penguin. I stubbed my toe on my bed yesterday, do you think the council will be interested in taking it away for me so it doesn't happen again?

[Sue]

fruityloops Wrote:

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

> taper Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Just walked up Underhill, so had a good look at

> > Area Z. There are quite a few trees that have

> been

> > preserved. Subject to sensitive re-planting and

> > development, and no similar development in the

> > more densely wooded area, I don't think it will

> > detract from the cemetery as a public place.

>

> I live next to it... And there's hundreds that

> they haven't.

>

> Penguin. I stubbed my toe on my bed yesterday, do

> you think the council will be interested in taking

> it away for me so it doesn't happen again?

The council don't have a responsibility for public health and safety in your bedroom.

They do have a responsibility for public health and safety in places which they manage, and rightly so.

Or perhaps you think they should let everyone roam freely over the contaminated area of land, for example?

I wonder if you'd be so anti health and safety considerations in a public place if you or a member of your family became sick, injured or worse as a result of the council failing in their duty in this respect?

[fruityloops]

I bet Christmas at your house is fun

No candles for fear of fire

Don't light the pudding to ensure no carcinogens taken in.

Don't bother opening those presents for fear of a paper-cut.

[geneie]

fruityloops Wrote:

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

> I bet Christmas at your house is fun

>

> No candles for fear of fire

> Don't light the pudding to ensure no carcinogens

> taken in.

> Don't bother opening those presents for fear of a

> paper-cut.

It didn't take long to descend precipitously did it?! :-(

[fruityloops]

geneie Wrote:

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

> fruityloops Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I bet Christmas at your house is fun

> >

> > No candles for fear of fire

> > Don't light the pudding to ensure no

> carcinogens

> > taken in.

> > Don't bother opening those presents for fear of

> a

> > paper-cut.

> It didn't take long to descend precipitously did

> it?! :-(

you're right. Apologies. But the sentiment remains - the scaremongering claiming that the area is unsafe is just plain ridiculous. I was trying to highlight just how ridiculous.

[Penguin68]

the scaremongering claiming that the area is unsafe is just plain ridiculous. I was trying to highlight just how ridiculous.

The council already warns of unsafe areas off the paths in the un-managed parts of COC - and has sealed off the dumped waste. My point has always been not that individuals might not be prepared to take risks, but that the council, with a general duty of care (and not wishing to be sued) will err on the side of extreme caution - which, if the cemeteries were allowed to become wilded would eventually mean (in my view) that the council might seal the cemeteries on the grounds of health and safety (and actually, probably, using that as an excuse so they would no longer have to spend any money on their upkeep as 'wild' areas). Yes, of course, that could well be an over-reaction - but it is one which only someone who has not noticed the trajectory of H&S decisions could ignore.

Oh, and if you were hosting (and thus liable) for a young children's Christmas party, would you decide not to use fireguards, or put easily toppled candles on low surfaces, or leave knives and scissors on the floor (to help cut open the parcels)?

[fruityloops]

Leaving knives on the floor at a children's party is a little different to possibly 'turning your ankle' whilst walking through a wood.

[Penguin68]

Leaving knives on the floor at a children's party is a little different to possibly 'turning your ankle' whilst walking through a wood.

But maybe, and Southwark's warning notices suggest they think this is so, leaving gaping and unstable graves and grave furniture partly obscured by undergrowth and scrub is quite similar to leaving knives on the floor - if, for instance, young people (say teenagers) were to go chasing through 'the woods' unaware such hazards were there. If the cemeteries are to become simply leisure areas (as wanted by ssw), such actions would not be unlikely.

[dbboy]

There are signs up saying areas have knotwood and do not enter. Anyone ignoring these signs is then potentially spreading knotweed to not just other areas within the cemetery but also into areas OUTSIDE of the cemetery.

The only people who should be in these areas are contractors working for the Council.

And I suggest the cemetery protest clearly explain the difference between public and private graves.

[precious star]

It seems very strange, that now after all these years, they have discovered theres knotweed! Did they not know this a few years ago and treat it then. Very suspicious that the council are now putting signs up after many people walk threw with dogs etc. Very convenient time to now start saying about this problem!...

[Abe_froeman]

The problem with knotweed is that a very small offcut can grow into a full size plant. Undisturbed knotweed is less easily transported than knotweed that has been chopped into small pieces whilst clearing land.

"Digging or other disturbance is known to increase stem density. If soil contaminated with rhizome is moved to another part of the site or to another site it will regrow and cause spread. Rhizome is particularly resistant to dehydration and freezing. As little as 10 mm or 0.7 gm of rhizome can regenerate into a new plant." - See more at: http://www.devon.gov.uk/control_of_knotweed#sthash.zBU1RIuQ.dpuf

To ignore these warnings would be extremely selfish and utterly irresponsbile.

[Blanche Cameron]

Happy Easter everyone. No hurricane or biblical flood predicted anymore for tomorrow. Free Tours of the threatened Camberwell Cemeteries, the graves and the woods. Nature, history and beauty being destroyed by Southwark Council in central London.

http://www.savesouthwarkwoods.org.uk/easter-tours/4592035728

11AM Old Cemetery Gates on Forest Hill Road, SE22 0RR

1PM New Cemetery Gates on Brenchley Gardens, SE23 3RD

Also, watch this video of last summer, A Walk Through Victorian Camberwell Old Cemetery:

The petition to save th woods and graves of the Camberwell Cemeteries is here:

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-southwark-woods

Hope you can join us tomorrow, have a lovely Easter.

Best wishes,

Blanche

for Save Southwark Woods

[Abe_froeman]

The plant in the foreground of the picture on that petition page actually looks a lot like knotweed.

[edhistory]

That's very, very, funny.

It took me some time to get the joke.

John K

[Penguin68]

The plant in the foreground of the picture on that petition page actually looks a lot like knotweed.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it is knotweed - one must hope the photographer didn't then accidently spread it further. Unfortunately the clearance is going on whilst the shrub is dormant - so it's not clear that it will all be removed. As a gardener I really don't want a reservoir of that pest sitting a few hundred yards away from my garden.

[Renata Hamvas]

The Japanese Knotweed issue is definitely not a new problem here. There have been infestations a few times in the cemeteries in recent years. It is very invasive and small pieces can grow into new plants as mentioned by Abe above. Hi Penguin, they tend to do a treatment and then return and follow up a couple of months later. The stems look a bit like rhubarb (reddish) and it has large heartish shaped leaves.

Renata

[Charles Notice]

I have been trying for most of the morning to get the direct number for the arboreal department and the name of the person.

I recall reading it on the forum but cannot find it.

I have been shunted around to all department including children's services.

As this is important I would appreciate hearing if anyone has the number

Many thanks

[Jennys]

If you try "Southwark Council trees" you will come up with a number. I hope it will be what you are looking for.

[Penguin68]

Along Underhill the workforce are beginning to replace the rather ratty wooden fencing (close to or past its sell-by date) with what seems quite elegant iron railings (not the security fencing put into place when the stretch of wooden fence was first removed) - I am not sure how far these are to run, but, once the ground cover has recovered it will give a better and more open vista to those walking etc. past the cemetery. No doubt these are contributing to the costs of the work, but they seem a reasonable investment, and should have a reasonable life; longer certainly than the wooden fence they are replacing. It should also make any attempted dumping more immediately visible (the wooden fence could hide quite a multitude of sins, especially when over-grown as it was).

[dbboy]

Totally agree, a vast improvement, however I fear those living opposite and the tree anti burial mob are likely to complain.

I was hoping this thread had finally passed over, but its been resurrected.