Southwark Plans for Camberwell Old & New Cemeteries.

[Penguin68]

A lot of local residents DO care and want to have a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees and wildlife.

Well, I'm a local (Southwark) resident, and I also care how the cemeteries are manged for the recently deceased and their mourners. As that is a need which is being ignored by too many here. There are many parks and wild areas very close by, there are only 2 working cemeteries. When the trees and beetles get a vote (and start paying council tax) I'll put their needs on a par with people. (And yes, I do know that people also appreciate wild life and trees, my point is that the cemeteries are not the only place, very locally, they can do that, whereas they are the only places, very locally, where people can be buried and mourned).

[HopOne]

Penguin68, sorry, not helpful.

There are two cemeteries where woodland is threatened - at Camberwell Old Cemetery, it is being cleared now, probably without faculty permission from the church. While it is not inconceivable to reach a compromise, the Council have not been minded to do so and so it is churlish to single out the Save Southwark Woods campaign for not wanting to either.

The council's consultation found only 22% in favour of burial (yet thousands have signed a petition objecting to the council's plans). They have no obligation to provide this within the borough. Am not in the slightest concerned with anyone's performing career, or the relevance of it, and surprised to see you mention this on this thread - there is a lounged thread for this. No one has a monopoly on truth and it is surely the point of this thread to tease it out - what has been said on this thread that is not true?

[dbboy]

Penguin68 Wrote:

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

> A lot of local residents DO care and want to have

> a say in how the cemeteries are managed for trees

> and wildlife.

>

> Well, I'm a local (Southwark) resident, and I also

> care how the cemeteries are manged for the

> recently deceased and their mourners. As that is a

> need which is being ignored by too many here.

> There are many parks and wild areas very close by,

> there are only 2 working cemeteries. When the

> trees and beetles get a vote (and start paying

> council tax) I'll put their needs on a par with

> people. (And yes, I do know that people also

> appreciate wild life and trees, my point is that

> the cemeteries are not the only place, very

> locally, they can do that, whereas they are the

> only places, very locally, where people can be

> buried and mourned).

Penguin58, an excellent post and well made.

[Renata Hamvas]

There were consultation days at Camberwell Old Cemetery, Camberwell New Cemetery and at Tooley Street. The survey was also on the Southwark website and in Southwark life. I do remember that the local consultation events were well attended (I don't know about the Tooley Street one). local people were consulted!

Councillor Mills and I represented residents from Ryedale at the Cabinet meeting that discussed the plans.

We as local Councillors have engaged with the parties involved eg been on site visits with them to Camberwell Old and Camberwell New Cemetery.

It is a situation where we can't make everyone happy. The works at area Z have been reduced in size to protect more trees. There is the issue at this site that we don't know what exactly was dumped in the many truckloads of rubble that were deposited here. This site would have needed to be sorted out anyway (hence why it has been condoned off for years). The sampling trees are growing with their roots in dumped waste and have a limited lifespan. The council is not being mysterious about not giving exact costings for sorting out this site. Until we know what is there (eg how much asbestos etc) the clean up cost can't be determined! Regulars on the ED Forum will know, where residents have raised with me concerns about trees being under threat, I have worked with them and officers to try and preserve them. I do believe the cemeteries can be managed to be functional cemeteries and havens for nature too.

Renata

[dbboy]

Cemeteries remain the place for the burial of our dead and they become a very important place for those left behind to mourn their loved ones. Only when you have experienced a close loss will or can you ever recognise the importance of having a grave to visit as their final resting place.

[taper]

Cemeteries get full and COC is very nearly full, unless it is hugely modified, to the detriment of its visual amenity and ecology. If you live near the cemetery, and use it as a public space, this is a big issue. We need new cemeteries and should avoid butchering old ones.

[nxjen]

Being able to use a cemetery as a public space is a fortunate side effect but its prime function is still that of a cemetery, a final resting place.

[taper]

Well COC won't be very restful for the dead or the living if the current development goes ahead.

[Sue]

Azira Wrote:

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

> Sue, I read HOPone as objecting to you making the

> assumption that anyone doing the "you lot must

> have a vested interest" line was part of the

> "group" i.e. SSW.

How did I make that assumption?

I certainly never used the words "you lot", for a start!!!

[HopOne]

Thank you for posting Renata.

When you say:

"There were consultation days at Camberwell Old Cemetery, Camberwell New Cemetery and at Tooley Street. The survey was also on the Southwark website and in Southwark life. I do remember that the local consultation events were well attended (I don't know about the Tooley Street one). local people were consulted!"

this does seem to only recognise Southwark residents as being local. There must be just as many, if not more, Lewisham residents local to these cemeteries (you may not represent these but they are still local). I don't recall being invited to any of these events, however I did get wind of a consultation meeting held at the Honor Oak Baptist church hall. This was well attended too and there seemed to be almost total opposition to the plans presented.

"Councillor Mills and I represented residents from Ryedale at the Cabinet meeting that discussed the plans."

Was this the same meeting that received a petition against the plans but ignored it?

"It is a situation where we can't make everyone happy. The works at area Z have been reduced in size to protect more trees. There is the issue at this site that we don't know what exactly was dumped in the many truckloads of rubble that were deposited here. This site would have needed to be sorted out anyway (hence why it has been condoned off for years). The sampling trees are growing with their roots in dumped waste and have a limited lifespan."

I find this curious as these are only issues if it assumed the land is re-used as burial space.

"The council is not being mysterious about not giving exact costings for sorting out this site. Until we know what is there (eg how much asbestos etc) the clean up cost can't be determined!"

There must still be a budget for the project with cost estimates. That this isn't this being made available is mysterious.

"I do believe the cemeteries can be managed to be functional cemeteries and havens for nature too."

I happen to agree with this. What a shame that there does not seem to have been a consultation on how this could be achieved - I believe that this could have been a game changer with the right stakeholders. The focus would seem to be rather more about burial even though most people do not want this and the council is under no obligation to provide in-borough.

[Azira]

Penguin, I think you're missing the point that, notwithstanding the hyperbole, misinformation, PR stunts, etc., some people may still object to the decision. You seem to see anyone who opposes your view as doing it on unfounded grounds - which whilst not an atypical view doesn't mean it is objective.

[Azira]

Sue Wrote:

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

> Azira Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Sue, I read HOPone as objecting to you making

> the

> > assumption that anyone doing the "you lot must

> > have a vested interest" line was part of the

> > "group" i.e. SSW.

>

>

>

> How did I make that assumption?

>

> I certainly never used the words "you lot", for a

> start!!!

I didn't say you did Sue - hence the use of the workd "line" to indicate a view point/type of argument.

You've very neatly and unintentionally highlighted the fact that its very easy to misinterpret what someone says when they use vernacular or are less than precise - as I was above and you were as well. Surely you can see that when you responded to Laur's comment by talking about "this group", it is pretty easy for someone to interpret that as suggesting that either Laur or that anyone who expressed an opinion is part of SSW?

[Laur]

I am in no way part of SSW. These are my own individual views and I don't speak as part of any group.

I have been a Dulwich resident for 30 plus years, my mother, grandparents & Great grandparents were also Dulwich residents & I have visited Camberwell Old Cemetery for many years because that is where my relatives are laid to "rest".

[precious star]

Yes, and you have also implied that i have no evidence of angels wings and heads being knocked and damaged. I have got evidence of this on my camera and it clearly shows it is new damage by the colour of the stone. Yes we have open spaces and parks around the area, but these are not woodlands or places that are allowed to become a bit overgrown for wildlife like i mentioned before, hedgehogs, butterflies, stag beetles, and a variety of other wildlife creatures. If you read the book "The english way of death" by julian litten, you will know that these beautiful old graves and the skill of the stonemasons is all part of the charm of these old cemeteries and part of our social history! That is sadly slowly, disapearing in london. No im not part of any group or protester, these are just my own thoughts and feeelings. I dont want gleaming white headstones and a lawn withoout a blade of grass out of place. I like big trees that have been here longer than me, and long grass so i hear the grasshoppers and crickets, and to see wild poppies and wild flowers blowing in the wind and being able to re-seed without the lawn mower coming along and cutting them off.

[Me! Me! Me!]

If Southwark is so short of burial space Why! Oh! Why! isn't Southwark utilising the extensive reserved ground for burials located beside Camberwell New Cemetery otherwise named as a 'recreation ground?

[Sue]

precious star Wrote:

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

> Yes, and you have also implied that i have no

> evidence of angels wings and heads being knocked

> and damaged. I have got evidence of this on my

> camera and it clearly shows it is new damage by

> the colour of the stone.

Then please post the evidence up here, with the date and evidence that it was done by council contractors carrying out the recent work.

I have not said you have no evidence. I have said that you have not provided any.

ETA: I hear your passion for nature. I share it. Have you actually read the reasons why Southwark Council are carrying out this work in the cemeteries? Sometimes one has to strike a balance.

[Sue]

Laur Wrote:

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

> I am in no way part of SSW. These are my own

> individual views and I don't speak as part of any

> group.

> I have been a Dulwich resident for 30 plus years,

> my mother, grandparents & Great grandparents were

> also Dulwich residents & I have visited Camberwell

> Old Cemetery for many years because that is where

> my relatives are laid to "rest".

I hear that.

So where will the present and future generations of your family be laid to rest, if land presently designated for burials continues to be neglected, with all the implications for future maintenance which that entails, and if there are no more burials there?

[precious star]

I dont need to post any photos of my evidence, i have seen enough of the damage they have caused already by the many pictures and youtube links that already have been posted on here. Have you not seen these!! If you want to see evidence for yourself, you only have to take a slow walk and inspect the old stonework and you too will see that its new damage!

[JoeLeg]

precious star Wrote:

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

> I dont need to post any photos of my evidence,

Actually if you come on here claiming to have evidence and people ask to see it then...yes, I rather think you do. Otherwise I could say I have evidence of you doing the damage yourself and framing the council; you'd know it wasn't true, but I'd just say 'yes yes yes it is! I saw it!'.

If you can prove the council are being negligent/criminal then why wouldn't you provide proof? Surely it only helps your case?

[JoeLeg]

precious star Wrote:

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

> these are just my own thoughts and feeelings. I

> dont want gleaming white headstones and a lawn

> withoout a blade of grass out of place. I like big

> trees that have been here longer than me, and long

> grass so i hear the grasshoppers and crickets, and

> to see wild poppies and wild flowers blowing in

> the wind and being able to re-seed without the

> lawn mower coming along and cutting them off.

This is a serious question - have you considered that the future you want for these spaces, which sounds wonderful to me if it can be done - might not actually be viable? That what worked 50 or even 10 years ago simply isn't going to work now?

I trust local councils as far as I can throw them - but the one thing I'm not seeing from SSW or anyone else (actually Panda Boy seems pretty on the ball) is concrete suggestions over what should actually be done. There seems to be a lot of anger over the destruction of habitats and graves (valid points of view) but not a lot of suggestions over how that space actually needs to be managed, balancing burials and wildlife.

[precious star]

You say you dont trust local council ? May i ask why not?? And providing proof would not alter your opinion as so many people have provided proof as i mentioned before, via links, and youtube clips but you like sue and a few others turn a blind eye and dont respond? Why is this?? The truth is the fact that the council are getting away with it and people who have no power are left to fight for what they believe to get their voices heard. Councils have other land what others have suggested on here.

[dbboy]

precious star Wrote:

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

> I dont need to post any photos of my evidence, i

> have seen enough of the damage they have caused

> already by the many pictures and youtube links

> that already have been posted on here. Have you

> not seen these!! If you want to see evidence for

> yourself, you only have to take a slow walk and

> inspect the old stonework and you too will see

> that its new damage!

If you say the current work undertaken by Council has been negligent and resulted in memorials being damaged/broken then please post pictures to support what you say. I have looked through this and the lounged thread and NO current pictures or video evidence has been posted.

[JoeLeg]

precious star Wrote:

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

> You say you dont trust local council ? May i ask

> why not?? And providing proof would not alter your

> opinion as so many people have provided proof as i

> mentioned before, via links, and youtube clips but

> you like sue and a few others turn a blind eye and

> dont respond? Why is this?? The truth is the fact

> that the council are getting away with it and

> people who have no power are left to fight for

> what they believe to get their voices heard.

> Councils have other land what others have

> suggested on here.

Fine, be like that. I made a valid point about backing up your evidence, which you still dodged.

You made assumptions about my opinions which you have no basis for, which is frankly just rude.

This is why people find the anti-lobby difficult to deal with. Go back and read the posts from Panda Boy - he's done much more to open my mind towards both sides of this issue than folk like you.

Enjoy your opinions, I have no intention of engaging further with someone like you.

[Loz]

precious star Wrote:

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

> I dont need to post any photos of my evidence, i have seen enough of the damage they have caused

> already by the many pictures and youtube links that already have been posted on here. Have you

> not seen these!!

No, so a link to either the posts or to the YouTube videos would be an easy thing to do.

[precious star]

Im still waiting on your answer as to why you dont trust the council???? And untill you reply i wont be replying to your question. Goodbye. Xxx