To refer to Michaels point, this isn't open land though, it is
(assuming the Council are right) designated burial space. With time people have forgotten this or perhaps never knew about it in the first place

Whats interesting about this debate for me is that the same arguments applied in converse during the debate on the integration of Louise House into the wider Pools scheme. I argued the point in respect of the demolition of Louise House and instead for its reintegration into the Pools site. ie to preserve that building in the name of a deceased albeit honorable and interesting individual may not have been what they would have wanted, and has wasted a considerable opportunity for generations to come. Currently Louise House lies empty and I understand that viability concerns have been expressed about the much smaller Pools complex as a result.

I don't therefore actually think things should be preserved in aspic to the detriment of young people and future generations but I genuinely don't know what Southwark are meant to do with their deceased. They have to go somewhere and within a rather short timescale. Come up with some decent viable alternatives and I'll think of signing the petition! I did think in some countries graves were actually stacked in buildings hence being more economical about use of space.

Its interesting that in 5 days this issue has attracted more signatories than the local free school campaign could do in several weeks. Perhaps it could be located on the rec in some sort of joint venture with the cemetary?

If being dead has now become so political and people are going to be campaigning against graves I think I'll start looking into my own options tomorrow....