There are no words. Signed.
also signed. How very sad.
Good response to the petition. Over 10,000 signatures so far.
As stated on a previous topic, the solution is to stop burials, cremate the dead or dissolve them (alkaline hydrolysis). Or make the plots prohibitively expensive.
Cremation could be fun, see Captain Cook, Elizabeth Fry or Robert Browning (credit to the Big Yin)
Is it the same weak argument that this land was always intended to be used for burial plots?
I am clearly going against the grain here. I attended the SSW benefit evening at the Ivy House a while back and came away with no coherent message, and reading this thread and looking at the SSW website just now I am none the wiser.
This campaign appears to want graves preserved in perpetuity yet to retain a ‘wood’ resulting from the entirely understandable neglect of historical graves by generations for whom they held no interest (or the graves would have been tended — and the growth of the trees prevented).
These causes appear to be incompatible, as the second pulls the logical rug from under the first. Why preserve graves indefinitely which will, demonstrably, lose interest for future generations? And why only preserve the existing uncontrolled tree growth? Why not yield the entire cemetery to nature?
As it happens I have no sentimental attachment to the dead human body or memorials to the dead, and I don’t think burial makes any sense, but if it is democratically supported then re-use of grave plots is surely unavoidable. Few care for the graves of their forebears beyond a couple of generations back, and we can hardly classify all graves as heritage sites in need of preservation.
I can’t help feeling that the SSW campaign is a confusing misalliance of two causes somewhat at odds with each other, neither of which I feel able to support.
I am as keen as anyone on urban green space, but surely there are better ways to preserve it and make it enjoyable than burying people in it. And there may be more pressing uses for some of our cemeteries.
I agree about the lack of cohesion of the SSW argument, and some of the conduct I’ve seen on other forums hasn’t helped them.
I got the impression that the primary aim is to save the existing return-to-wild state (which I also support) but the idea that the existing graves should be preserved was a secondary argument raised in the shotgun school of lobbying (shoot every argument you can at it and hopefully something will hit).
I don’t think it’s illogical though to argue just for the preservation of the existing uncontrolled growth rather than arguing for the whole cemetary though. This is about preserving the existing state of affairs with the cemetary rather than applying a principle of “cemetaries should return to nature” more generally (although I also think we need trees more than neatly trimmed gardens for bodies).
Thanks FC. I agree that preservation of the existing overgrowth as a nature reserve could be argued for, but not to the exclusion of other possibilities. Cemeteries, especially neglected ones, are major public assets with a variety of potential better uses, and their disposition should result not from default or fait accompli, but from open debate and the planning process. This is already a very leafy area not short of parks — and overgrown cemeteries!
Quite and these include good examples of how this can be done. The SSW vision is essentially like Nunhead Cemetery but then there is Brockley which is at least managed in a more environmentally friendly way.
The green areas, especially the wooded ones, are one of the key features of the local area. Am not saying there can never be an argument for chopping down woods but to do so for medium term burial requirement isn’t one of them IMO. (Southwark do not have legal recourse to reuse graves in Camberwell or Nunhead cemeteries).
The Camberwell, and other local, cemeteries were sited here by the Victorians so that burial happened outside the urban space. Makes just as much sense now as then I think.
There is ecological damage from this too. A lot of old oaks are involved and these are incredibly species rich. But by reducing the size of the niche woodland habitat, this reduces the number of species which the habitat can support.
There is also a wealth of evidence which suggests that trees help to scrub the air we breathe and act as the city’s lungs. We may well have lots of these spaces but at some point we will come to regret clearing a wood and lose what made the area special.
This is appalling how can this happen?
Essentially because Southwark Council prefer the views of business (Undertakers) over the local opinion (they have consulted and ignored the overwhelming negative response). The planning process is in their favour as they are both applicant and approval body. They make money from burials.
Sorry the real problem is people burying the dead if there was no demand from selfish people who want to inter a dead and rotting body then we could keep the woods and the real life they support.
Currently around 50% of deaths use burial the plot is secure for 99years I believe there are around 90,000 burials in England so I am sure some clever person working on a 700mm 2000mm plot could extrapolate how much acreage that needs. I believe figures estimate that within 20 years all cemeteries will be full!