Comments

• Thank You Peter Mahnke for setting up this site. I think this is an honest attempt to bring infront of the residents and analyse all the candidates and as such it deserves honest answers and not just politically correct ones,since after all getting elected is not the be all and end all of life.I welcome any questions and comments.

  Ben khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-04-27 23:35:19 +0000

• This is good but you should have started earlier: around 1/5 of the votes have been cast already as the postal vote forms [10 ] went out last week and their turnout is about twice [say 80 vs.40 %] that of the rest of the electorate.

  This means that 1/5 of the votes will have been cast before the electors heard from the Conservative, Labour, Green , UKIP and Independent candidates.

  Chris Squire on 2006-04-28 00:55:21 +0000

• A second comment, if I may: residents who live in Riverside ward can find out about their Lib Dem candidates at: http://twickenhamlibdems.co.uk/pages/Riverside.html

  There are some other candidates standing but I know nothing about them except that the senior Conservative, Mr Leamey, hales from Hampton where he was rejected by the electors at a by-election in October 2004, on a 15 % swing.

  The former Conservative councillor, whose name escapes me, is not standing again.

  Chris Squire on 2006-04-28 01:22:48 +0000

• Chris Squire may be worrying unnecessarily. Many postal voters are already committed to one party or another. I agree, however, that some users of the site may come from Riverside. The Conservative candidates' details for Riverside can be found at www.richmondandtwickenhamconservatives.co.uk/Home.aspx but sitting councillor Boulton (tha name he can not remember) has jumped to Hampton!

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-04-28 07:13:08 +0000

• Chris,

  Two points:

  1. Regarding timeliness of this and frankly many posts. I recently have taken a new job that is demanding a lot more of my time with frequent overnight travel and have not been as able to proactively work on the site. I agree, we should have done something sooner, but as it was, we barely got this up and online.
  2. Regarding Twickenham Riverside Again, I agree, site should cover that ward more closely as much of it is what we consider St Margarets, and already cover it for events and news; however, we have not had any real contact from the Councillors or candidates from the ward, and as I mentioned in point 1, time is scarce. However, if some reader, Councillor or candidate reads this and would like to help start feeding the site news on the area, we will certainly start covering the ward more comprehensively.

  I am not trying to make excuses, I just hope you understand that we are trying and can use all the community help we can get. Your's and Trevor's posts have been very helpful here and on other issues.

  Peter

  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2006-04-28 08:01:46 +0000

• I also would like to thank Peter for providing the vehicle for democracy in action. I would like to ask the structure of the debate. To aid clarity are questions and answers being organised by questions to candidates, or by subject?

  Let me start off with a question for Simon Lamb. Why did you vote to increase the size of the Tescos loading bay when all the local residents and businesses asked you to say no?

  And one for Annie Hambidge, as you know Annie I am a qualified Environmental Scientist, so I am an expert in Nature Conservation. If you want voters to believe you are "green and want to protect open space", why didn't you oppose the Brunel development. The controlling Tory Council allowed this over-development, so there are at present 173 houses are being built in "Garden Sub-urban Landscape". It was against the Conservation Area Statement and the area should have remained for EDUCATION USE. There are many other current issues regarding planning applications that are being opposed within this Conservation Area by local residents including an application by you. It is not the fact that you have made an application, we are all entitled to do that, it is what has been applied for. The Tories also have not supported residents who are unhappy regarding changes to Kilmorey Rd. These don't seem like either good "green" decisions, or decission in line with the local residents opinion!! Barry Edwards. Independent.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-04-28 11:23:13 +0000

• Annie Hambidge may be in favour of the setting up of cumulative impact zones in Richmond and Twickenham town centres but still voted for a wine bar in St Margarets with capacity for over 300 drinkers.

  Jane Pettersson on 2006-04-28 11:44:35 +0000

• Dear Cllr Annie,

  My name is Aaron Engledew and I have lived in St. Margaret's for 15 years. I was recently given the opportunity to vote as I have just turned 18! My political inclination - as well as that of my friends - has always been Conservative and I took the opportunity to peruse the ward website so as to further my association with the local Tories. Whilst there is little doubt as to who I will vote for, I'd like to ask you a few questions, seeing as though you are by far the most prominent member of the council.

  1. What was the name of the school and college you attended?
  2. What was the exact title of the posts you held within the companies you listed and when?
  3. Do you believe, as I do, that it would be safer to close the walkway along Richmond Lock, so as to prevent youths from crossing late at night?
  4. For how many more terms would you like to continue your position in office?

  Best wishes, Aaron Engledew P.S. Good Luck!

  Aaron Engledew on 2006-04-28 12:14:31 +0000

• Peter, I think some rules are needed here.

  Might I suggest that questions should be phrased such that they can be put to all candidates. Personal questions could easily be addressed through the contact details provided elsewhere.

  Comments, such as Jane's fall into a different category.

  Second, it would be better if they were not from other candidates or surrogates. They can easily address the issues through their own literature or their own websites.

  On a different tack, the Richmond Lock Footbridge is closed at night due to the PLA taking the decision to close it and the council has no powers over it. Personally, I was against the closure and attended protests at the time with many others of similar mind. After a meeting, the PLA did promise to review the closure periodically. So, perhaps Aaron's question would be better phrased as "Would you like to see the hours of opening of the lock bridge extended?" though the attitude of the PLA did suggest that they are unlikely to consider such a request favourably.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-04-28 14:02:03 +0000

• Trevor,

  Excellent point.

  I recommend the following;

  1. questions should be put to all candidates, if they are not, candidates can assume they were
  2. candidates and surrogates should answer, not post questions
  3. comments (as in 'not questions') are allowed but, as it is far easier to attack the record of the current Councillors than someone who hasn't been elected, I urge you to remove the personal hostility and ask that you attempt to stay balanced
  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2006-04-28 14:42:36 +0000

• I would like to know what all the candidates think about having 30 minutes free parking in St Margarets. In particular I would like the sitting councillors to say what if anything they have done on this issue?

  Thankyou Peter for setting up this opportunity to ask straightforward questions. I hope everybody is able to give straightforward answers!

  Ann Murray on 2006-04-28 15:52:52 +0000

• To all candidates. If elected will you represent the views of residents or the council officers?

  Harry Jacobs on 2006-04-28 16:51:48 +0000

• Dear Candidates, I agree with the need for the suggested rules by Trevor and I wish him every success in his campaign in Hampton Wick, go Trevor. Thank you Ann, St Margarets Traders suggested 30 minutes free parking in St Margarets and I believe this is essential to maintain the excellent diversity of shops and services available, so I made it a key issue in my Manifesto. Further on the issue of parking, I think residents should have the 1^st parking permit free. CPZs are parking restrictions to stop commuter parking, they are not designed to form another TAX. Harry thanks for your question. I am the only INDEPENDENT candidate in St Margarets for that very reason. Without the need to follow a party line, I will be able to represent your views and needs without the threat of being undermined. I will establish close links to Residents Associations, local groups and individual residents to give genuine consultation at last. In my Manifesto I mention Elmbridge Borough Council having its candidates nominated by Residents Associations. Please have a look at their web site. It is the future of local democracy. Barry Edwards. Independent.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-04-28 19:03:06 +0000

• WHO'S CONTROLS ST.MARGARETS TESCO or THE COUNCIL?

  Having followed the councils failure to control Tesco. (The bus stop today had a Tesco lorry parked in it..again) I would like to ask all of the candidates how they would deal with the situation ? Our current councillors have failed to control Tesco, what if other chains come to St.Margarets? Will they allow more lorries to park where ever they want to? It must be 18 months since Tesco arrived - why has the council/councillors not managed the problems caused by Tesco.... I wonder if Tesco is too big for our council?

  d.jones on 2006-04-28 21:41:42 +0000

• I have already supported the 30 minuite free parking for the shoppers and will continue with this. Further if succesful I would look to have the same arrangement introduced in other parts of the ward say in Whitton Rd. The benefits to the shoppers and Traders are obvious convenient parking being one of the essential requirements of the shopper. In answer to Harry Jacob I would like to say that I am told by my Lib Dem party seniors that I would not be required to vote against my conscience and being elected by the residents and not the officers I see no reason why I should represent them. I further agree with Barry on local consultation and what I have said in answer to Peter's questionair as copied below is my view:

  "Wards should be subdivided and key local decisions should be taken in consultation with the representatives of these subdivisions perhaps Chairs of Residents Associations" Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-04-29 08:46:20 +0000

• In answer to D Jones concerns I received this reply recently from the council Dear Khosa

  Thank you for your e-mail.

  Following meetings with Tesco, the problems caused by early deliveries and abuse of the loading bay have been considerably addressed. Tesco has re-scheduled their deliveries so that they do not arrive before 9.30am. Enforcement has been stepped up.

  Due to this progress it is not felt necessary to look at further measures.

  Michael Potter Principal Engineer Transport Planning Service Environment Directorate

  Telephone: 020 8891 7370 Mobile: 07956 473 755 Fax: 020 8487 5010 E-mail m.potter@richmond.gov.uk Quite frankly I think the council is hoping that given enough time people will give up complaining and learn to live with the problem. If Mr Jones is right and Tesco is too big for our council and if elected I too may or may not be able to resolve the problem to the satisfaction of the residents but one thing I can say is I would look at all avenues and fight it the best I can. In my mind the solution would be to force Tesco to use smaller vehicles but this would have been easier done if the loading Bay had not been enlarged. Ben khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-04-29 09:11:17 +0000

• With a plethora of individual planning and traffic issues having a cumulative impact on quality of life here in St Margarets, would the candidates support a community-led Strategic Plan setting clear, value-based guidelines against which all future development proposals could be judged?

  Lindsay Cooke on 2006-04-29 18:02:10 +0000

• In answer to D. Jones, the Tescos loading bay has to date been supported by the St Margarets and North Twickenham current Conservative Councillors. After my consultation with the community, it is felt that a 7.5 ton limit on lorry size would be in keeping with the scale of other local businesses. This could be enforced.

  Thank you to Ben Khosa in already supporting, the 30 minutes free parking and his compliment on my suggested local consultation system. It is clear that some party candidates could put local interests first. I feel that the current policy for the Tescos loading bay is not working and it is essential that future Councillors should identify the problems and work for community led solutions.

  Finally to Lindsay. My only reason for standing is to coordinate just such a clear, value based, community strategic plan.

  It is not hard to create the community residents want, if you are able to understand and capable of developing such a plan.

  Barry Edwards. Independent.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-04-29 19:22:27 +0000

• In answer to the questions put to candidates I would like to state:

  I would support a first 30 minute free parking concession to boost local businesses.

  I would represent local residents rather than council officers, of course.

  Tesco needs to be accountable and should be penalised for parking in the bus stop.

  Had I a say in it I would not support locking the gates of Richmond Lock, I've found it to be a useful route home at times and I don't see why an entire community should be penalised because of the irresponsibility of a few (whatever their age).

  I would support all planning permission having a community centred focus which enhances the beauty and development of Saint Margarets.

  William Devine - Labour candidate for St Margarets & North Twickenham on 2006-05-01 19:59:24 +0000

• I want to encourage all Labour supporters to come out and vote on Thursday. Don't be duped in to believing this is just a 2 horse race. Remember the party most needs your support when times are tough. There's a danger that the Tories and Lib Dems believe they have the right to your council seat!

  William Devine - Labour candidate for St Margarets & North Twickenham on 2006-05-01 20:03:50 +0000

• I'll try to respond to the questions in the order they're appearing.

  1. To Ann: re. 30 minutes free parking in St. Margarets. The voucher system is stupid and I'm not sure what it is supposed to achieve apart from raising revenue for the council. Thirty minutes parking is a good idea and if it was what the community wanted I would pursue it on their behalf. That said, my inclination is to encourage pedestrians and cyclists, whilst ensuring St. Margarets maintains a vibrant and safe community for everybody.
  2. Harry Jacobs: No question about it - I would represent the people of St. Margarets and North Twickenham. That is what representative democracy is all about. The Green Party does not have a whip system on any council where we have several councillors, because when the party whip or the civil servants wield power over elected representatives it is the whole principle of democracy that suffers.
  3. D. Jones re. Tesco: Tesco and Superdrug are a blight on the diverse shopping community of St. Margarets. Tesco shouldn't be too big for our councillors, if they really cared for the people of St. Margarets, or knew anything about what we wanted. Like Ben Khosa, I would do everything I can to stop the huge Tesco delivery lorries, and ensure deliveries are made from smaller vehicles at the rear of the building. But we do not want any more multi retail chain stores in the area, and I would work vigorously to help the shops we have at the moment to thrive so there is no opportunity for Starbucks or equivalent to get a toehold in St. Margarets.
  4. Lindsay Cooke (hello!): What a good idea! And your emphasis on "value-based guidelines" would be vital. Of course, the trick would be to ensure the guidelines were adhered to, but I would certainly work to get something like that put together. Would you be part of it?
  Judy Maciejowska on 2006-05-02 00:12:43 +0000

• In answer to Lindsay Cooke any plan would have to comply with the local governament framework. As we have seen with the results or nil results produced by the meeting at Winchester Hall about the acute parking problems in the Moor Mead area, no matter how well intentioned the efforts of local people like Hillary (Chair of Moor Mead) if the local authority does not recognise them thay are to no avail. I agree with and support your general sentiment Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-05-02 00:33:54 +0000

• Dare I ask if the 30 minute free parking will in fact help St Margarets' businesses? Extra wardens to monitor it will undoubtedly stop the casual visitor prepared to take a risk on single yellows for 5 or 10 minutes and if it attracts more cars will make the area congested and less attractive. More regular buses or more cycle racks, such as outside the video store and pharmacy, might be a better aim. Try it as an experiment perhaps. Shorter hours for the CPZ in Broadway Avenue might help.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-05-02 11:56:22 +0000

• May I make two suggestions that might mitigate some of the more dangerous effects of Tesco's presence and ask candidates if they would support them. 1) Tesco should be required to site its ATM inside the store. Its hours are long enough to accommodate customers' needs and there is sufficient space within the store. No prominent signs advertising the ATM should be permitted; this is one of the major factors in attracting people to park hazardously. The ATM was installed without planning permission in the first place(and the Post Office had earlier had its application turned down)and Tesco should not be consistently rewarded for ignoring planning conditions and processes. 2)A CCTV camera should be installed to protect the bus bay from cars/lorries parking or overhanging. The blockage of the bus bay puts in danger not only those trying to get off the bus - particularly dangerous or even impossible for those with push chairs or mobility problems - but also those using the crossing. I would not support CCTV covering the loading bay since that is not a safety issue and I am unconvinced that it should be preserved for commericial use only.

  Elaine on 2006-05-02 14:30:17 +0000

• I would also like to answer the points raised:

  1) I support the 30 minutes free parking scheme and have done so for a while. The voucher system is very unsatisfactory. 2) Would make Tesco adopt the good neighbour policy they say they have and tell them to use smaller delivery vehicles. 3) I am here to represent local people and being chair of a local residents association have been disappointed with current councillors lack of response and therefore aim to do considerably better. In particular our ward consists of both St Margarets and North Twickenham and the needs of all areas needs to be taken into account. Geoff Acton

  Geoff Acton on 2006-05-02 18:10:55 +0000

• I would just like to thank the organisers of the website for facilitating this forum. I have only lived in St Margarets for the last year and was unsure who I would vote for. This website has certainly provided me with food for thought and I feel much better informed. Thanks again.

  Jonathon.

  Jonathon Lisseman on 2006-05-02 20:26:39 +0000

• Thank you residents for engaging in the local issues, but as you know building a better St Margarets goes beyond the Tescos issue, important as it is. Having started the concentration of the debate on local residents and developing an overall plan for the St Margarets & North Twickenham ward, I would like to make it clear to the political parties that you cannot lead with just words. In the past there has been little respect from all parties regarding local views. What guarentees does the local community have now from the political parties that this will be continued after the election is over? There is only one independent committed to making local opinion the primary source of guidance. I will have to work with two other candidates, how will your "promises" help me represent the local residents and businesses? What are you categorically able to do. A true statement of community involvement? Residents properly represented during planning issues? Reduce school entry appeals? Correctly preserve and enhance open spaces? Work effectly with residents on parking issues? Reduce lorry size? Work with me on the Mogden abatement order? Improve the use of the River Thames? Love St Margarets, enough to put residents above your party? Vote Independent, but who else? Barry Edwards. Independent.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-02 21:40:54 +0000

• Over the weekend, there was a blanket distribution to many homes in the Ward of an unpleasant two page diatribe making a personal attack on one of the candidates, without any reference to that person's professional conduct, political views or record in working for the people of this community. Will the candidates please make clear their views on this sort of campaigning, and whether they have had any hand in the distribution of this literature?

  I have no particular allegiance to any political group, and have lived in the Borough for eight happy years. I am very pleased to be represented by local people of any party who work extremely hard to represent the people of St Margarets and I do not wish to see our local politics degenerate into smear campaigns.

  Stan on 2006-05-02 22:08:38 +0000

• I think the best forum for discussion of the letter circulated by Ms Davies is on Twickenham Online www.twickenham-online.co.uk,, where there is an ongoing discussion.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-05-02 22:44:31 +0000

• For editorial reasons, we have decided not to post information about the Hambidge article on this site.

  As Trevor mentioned, www.twickenham-online.co.uk has an excellent article and forum regarding this letter. If you would like to comment, please do so there.

  Peter @ stmgrts.org.uk on 2006-05-03 00:03:53 +0000

• I have been extremely disappointed by the way both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives oversaw the planning brief/planning application for the Brunel site development. I am very concerned about how difficult it is to get information on the progress of that development: in particular, details of the construction, ownership,management, pricing, and even the timetable for the 'affordable housing' and the children's playground element. I have three questions related to that:

  1. Why did neither Liberal Democrats nor Conservatives press for school provision?

  2) What are all your views on the 'commmunity benefits' that should be ensured with such developments? What are your priorities? 3) How specifically would you promote more effective and efficient community involvement in local planning and development and its oversight, given that very many people are now exceptionally cynical as a result of their efforts on this and other issues? How can you promote more community/cross-communities involvement?

  Elaine on 2006-05-03 09:04:31 +0000

• Thanks to Stan, I also have no allegiance to any political group, and have lived in the Borough for many years. I will work hard to represent local people the people of St Margarets and I do not wish to see our local politics degenerate into smear campaigns. I will say however even when you take an objective stance the political parties still try to drag you in! Twickenham online has a debate where I have asked all parties to stick to the issues last night. I hope this is respected as I am only interested in the improved representation of local people. To answer Elaine. On the Brunel University issue, I campaigned at large meetings in the Northcott Rd Church and at the St Margarets Estate Residents Association AGM and the Planning Committee meeting itself. I spoke to St Marys University in Strawberry Hill, they were willing to take half of the site and the other half could have been used for additional Infact and Junior provision as well as a recreation function. THIS WAS IGNORED BY ALL PARTIES. The main benefit once this was lost to housing could have been a public pleasure garden much in line with those of the private trust grounds. I suggested this 2 years before the Planning meeting which decided the fate to the site, to Councillors and officers. When I again suggested this at the planning committee, Counillors said quote "why didn't you mention this earier". I am also disappointed by the results of my efforts as an individual in these issues. Thats why I decided to stand. Finally as an Environmental Scientist I trained to research environmental factors the social needs of society and I therefore have the skills and the interest in local people to develop the management of our local community. I think this knowledge, my respect for local people and my love for St Margarets will meet these future needs. I have already been successful on diverse single issues, eg great success Mogdon, some success on Brunel issue, huge involvement with the River Thames and my analysis and suggested solutions of local issues in my Manifesto. I am independent, so nothing can get in the way of my honest representation of the community. Vote for yourselves, Love St Margarets, Vote Independent. Barry Edwards. Independent. St Margarets & North Twickenham.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-03 09:50:27 +0000

• In response to Elaine's points:

  Tesco is clearly a thorn in our sides and I would like to bring together all the associations and individual suggestions to come up with a community consensus on how we deal with the problem. Geoff Acton's "good neighbour" policy would be a start but the policy would need to be dictated by local residents and businesses, not by Tesco, and enforced by the council.

  Your points about community benefits in local development are very important. I'm still spitting feathers over the lack of interest from the council in primary school provision on the Brunel site. I'd encourage all local residents' associations to produce their own plan for such developments, which, if elected I would promote within the council. Of course I would advocate a green perspective on any such plan but I doubt that would be a problem.

  Cross-communities involvement could be achieved by a Lindsay Cooke's suggestion (29 April, 6.02 pm) of a community led strategic plan - a preliminary to the Local Development Framework.

  Judy Maciejowska on 2006-05-03 10:58:12 +0000

• I am more than happy for information about the Hambidge article to be kept well away from here. However, I understand that one of the major political parties had more than one hand in its distribution and I would like to ask the candidates whether they approve of such negative campaigning.

  Stan on 2006-05-03 11:04:43 +0000

• Stan,

  Your understanding is not correct. No political party is involved in the creation or distribution of this pamhlet.Please see my letter on the aforementioned website.

  Jack Hazan on 2006-05-03 11:37:29 +0000

• Stan, Lets confirm the position completely, no candidate standing had any connection with the letter. Apart from the letter, there has been other types of negetive campaigning. Some Councillors actually think this is OK, they are still involved in party politicing and this behaviour is still going on. I think it is wrong, I would like to stick to the issues and use this opportunity as the first consultation forum of many to collect local peoples views. I have mentioned before that party politics is damaging local democracy. An article from Evening Standard Lite states:

  "Residents set to run council". A London borough could be run by residents after this week's elections. Havering already has 17 residents' association councillors and five independents after a mass defection from the Conservative group, which runs the hung council. Now 50 residents are standing. People's Alliance leader Jeffrey Tucker said "Lots of shopkeepers are standing as councillors this time because of big stores taking our business. We have a real chance of taking control."

  I am the local residents and shopkeepers choice because I am Independent. Vote Independent this time I will work to prove that the Elmbridge and potentially Havering Boroughs can work here and Richmond Brough could be under the control of residents in 4 years time.

  Barry Edwards. Independent. St Margarets & North Twickenham.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-03 12:41:51 +0000

• Elaine,

  My colleagues and I have talked with previous LibDem councillors Trevor Whittall and Laurence Mann about the history of the Brunel site and Barry Edwards' account is simplistic to say the least (which one regrets is a feature of his campaign in general).

  To answer your question, once a planning brief had been drawn up by officers in the last days of the previous LibDem administration, both Trevor and Laurence asked the Education Department to look again at the question of primary school provision. Judy Maciejowska will no doubt remind us that she had been making the same point for some time, so we may as well as acknowledge this here.

  Prior to this document appearing, they had made the point that places were needed and they carried on making the point to Councillor Samuel and others after the 2002 election, but the draft was not changed as Councillor Samuel was convinced (wrongly we believe) that the school would end up with too many Hounslow children. Laurence then made representations to the Environment Overview & Scrutiny Committee with the Chair of SMERA to try to persuade them to amend the planning brief to allow for more investigations. With, at this stage, opposition from Cllr Hambidge this option was rejected. Belatedly the education department is now looking at the viability of reconfiguring St Stephens and Orleans Infants to provide additional places. We support this study, but a school on the Brunel site would have been a better solution. It is fortunate, however, that education use was retained for the Violet Needham chapel and the house opposite, as they will soon house the Rambert Dance School.

  With respect to Barry's assertion that the site could have been retained for other education uses, there were various discussions between councillors, officers and various bodies about the requirement for secondary school places. It was suggested that a Catholic secondary school could be sited there, but this was rejected as the site was considered to be too close to the Hounslow border. There were also talks with the further education colleges and universities over whether they could use the site. St Mary's did express an interest, but this faded. Consequently, there was no case for retaining the designation of education use.

  The site was sold whilst the planning brief was in draft form. Various developers put in bids. Laing, we believe would have tried to build over 400 units on the site, but we suspect their bid was subject to obtaining planning permission and was rejected. Brunel took a responsible view and sold to developers likely to be more sympathetic to the site, namely Octagon who planned only 180 units which is the very least it could have got away without the Mayor of London intervening.

  Once the property had been sold, the council has to view whether the plans produced by the owners meet their planning brief for the site. This specified some public open space, public access, 40% affordable housing and a development in keeping in character with the conservation area. Laurence and Trevor, as local residents, made representaions at some length to obtain some improvements from the original plan. They spoke at the planning meeting about the fact that the public space was too small; that there should be pepper-potting of affordable housing rather than putting it all in one place and about privacy as well as trying to obtain a North-South cycle route across the site rather than allowing (contrary to council policy) gated developments. To be fair they were supported by Cllr Simon Lamb for the Conservatives on most of these issues and belatedly by Cllr Annie Hambidge who continued to argue the case for a school even though this battle had already been lost. Officers and Councillors on the planning committee decided that the application adequately met the planning brief. It is worth bearing in mind that for a development of relatively modest impact, Brunel were able to engage in a £100 million pound programme of investment in Uxbridge, only partly funded by the sale of this site. It may have been possible to obtain a little more public benefit from development of the site, but let us be frank Barry's suggestions are totally unrealistic.

  As to the timescale of the development. Phase two, overall, is due to be completed by 2008. The affordable housing and the doctor's surgery will probably be completed much earlier, perhaps by the end of this year. The playground near the river is likely to one of the last items completed, since the land will need to be landscaped once building work is complete. We will continue to monitor the site to ensure that the plans as approved are adhered to and that the building work involves the least possible disturbance.

  As local residents we are constantly involved in meeting the challenge of large and small scale developments. We were active in opposing excessive development of the River Crane corridor, the Stoop, and Twickenham Rugby ground. The nature of the public benefits from any such development varies. For example at Twickenham Rugby Ground one of the benefits is the 400 seat performance space suitable for community use and professional orchestras. Our priorities are open public space, affordable housing and limiting over-development, hence we opposed the Tory-sponsored development plans for the Stoop and the River Crane corridor. This would remain our position

  For the future we are looking to development of area committees to advise on and in some cases to decide various local issues including planning, traffic and parking. Geoff Acton

  Geoff Acton on 2006-05-03 18:38:52 +0000

• Sorry folks - I know at least one candidate was contacted for their advice by Deborah Davies prior to the circulation of her unpleasant letter, and believe the timing of this vendetta to be calculated to cause maximum damage with minimum opportunity for a proper right of reply. Worst of all, it has deflected all of us from discussing the issues that really MATTER to us all! I am affronted by this cynical attack on local democracy and will use one of my votes for Annie who - it seems to me - is a responsive politician and independent thinker who has spoken out and worked hard on important issues for our community, such as education. It will be the first time I have voted Conservative in 26 years and will not come easy to me. I urge others to do the same and spend their other two votes according to their own party allegiances.

  Stan on 2006-05-03 18:52:46 +0000

• Re Stans comments if you know which candidate it was perhaps you could name him.I am one Lib Dem candidate and in very close contact with Geoff Acton and Philip Morgan the other 2 candidates. I can catagorically say none of us 3 has anything to do with it. We were as surprised as an anyone else and Stan now ows it to every one to name the said candidate or retract his statement Ben Khosa

  Ben Khosa on 2006-05-03 19:45:17 +0000

• It is totally untrue that Deborah Davies has approached anyone for advice and these wild allegations should stop now. More telling is the fact that nothing has been heard from Cllr Hambidge in 5 days on both available sites though her supporters seem to have had time enough to support her on these with unsubstantiated comment.

  May the best candidates win tomorrow!

  Jack Hazan on 2006-05-03 20:24:13 +0000

• Re Stan's odd fancy:

  Deborah Davies has stated unequivocally on Twickenham Online:

  '3. How many more times - no one from any political party has been involved in any way in the leaflet .' http://www.say-it-all.co.uk/voxpoprut/index.php?act=thread&thread_id=4588&message_id=4641

  She is a well-respected TV journalist in no need of advice or assistance from any of the parties in getting her message across. The timing of the leaflet is her decision: the effect must have exceeded her expectations, as it has gone all round the borough and beyond.

  I have been mentoring the 3 Lib Dem candidates these past 6 months, as have former councillor Mike Rowlands and our 2 Riverside councillors, David Trigg and Denise Carr. We knew nothing of Ms Davies' and Mrs Hambidge's private quarrel.

  The Lib Dem campaign throughout has striven to emphasise a positive message: we offer three long-standing residents of the ward, two of them leading members of residents' associations and the third a well-established local trader.

  They know the area, they know the issues and they have shown by their campaigning that they are ready to work hard to represent you. What more could you wish for?

  Chris Squire on 2006-05-03 20:31:07 +0000

• Has anybody noticed the lack of comment from the conservatives ? Do they not wish to communicate with the readers of this site?

  Martin on 2006-05-03 22:16:52 +0000

• Martin,

  Who has the most to lose?

  Mary on 2006-05-03 22:34:24 +0000

• I am very happy with the mostly positive comment on this site and the way some of the candidates have engaged with this new process of online hustings. I think the idea of a local development plan for St Margarets is very innovative and I would urge all of us to be part of making that happen which ever candidates get elected tomorrow. The debate can be facilitated through the website and we can all take an interest and contribute. Let's not wait four years to have the same conversation.

  Ann Murray on 2006-05-03 22:53:39 +0000

• Recently I spoke to Trevor and complimented him on a gentlemanly campaign by the Lib Dems. Sorry Geoff you have lost the plot mate. It was simple, I requested a resolution by the St Margarets Estate Residents Association to defend the Conservation Area at all cost. This was passed unanimously, you should have been there. This meant the actions of it's then chairman of SMERA at the Planning Committee meeting were unconstitutional. So get your facts right. Far from being unrealistic I have always represented the choice of residents and you should understand history before you cast doubt. I have been attacked by the Conservatives, how much do you think you have to lose Geoff, to also attack me this way. I live, work and have been involved with the issues that affect SMERA, Mogdon, the River Thames and many other local issues for years and years. My committment to the local community and my qualifications are impeccable, save your spin for the Conservatives. In answer to Chris, I have known Mike Rowlands for years also. I respect him, he would be disappointed by Geoff's comments. Thankyou Ann, I believe the important point is to develop a local plan for St Margarets and this type of party bickering is just what I wanted to avoid. I have noticed the lack of comment from the conservatives on this site. This site has been an inspiration to a civilised debate, not the Conservatives natural habitat. Stan, I stood because the local people, I know, are disappointed with the representation of the last 23 years. If you wish more of the same vote for a party. If you want your voice translated into action, for the future of local democracy vote independent. I have had an interesting insight into the politics of the local community by standing. I should not have been, but I was shocked by the standard of the debate. I believe more than ever that the final say should be with the residents. Good luck to all the candidates tomorrow. Barry Edwards. Independent. St Margarets & North Twickenham.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-04 00:52:38 +0000

• Barry,

  I helped Geoff prepare his response. There is no malice in his posting. It is fair comment to say that your expectations are unrealistic. Furthermore, people have different ideas of what defending the conservation area at all costs means and Geoff is hardly likely to have been at a SMERA meeting. The actions Geoff describes in relation to Richard Lebus were at the Overview and Scrutiny meeting, not the planning meeting.

  Nice sunny day for voting. Best wishes to all.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-05-04 07:05:47 +0000

• Oh dear. Reading the activist-dominated postings on both this site and Twickenham Online, whether party political or single issue, has only served to reinforce my view that until we can find a way to re-engage the majority of people with the democratic process we are in deep trouble, both locally and nationally.

  Thank you to those candidates who answered my question - I appreciate you taking the time. And thank you to the organisers of this site.

  I hope the majority of people eligible to vote will do so today.

  Lindsay Cooke on 2006-05-04 08:50:06 +0000

• Geoff and Trevor. If you want to make a malicious comment, don't say afterwards that you didn't. This comment was very clear "Barry Edwards' account is simplistic to say the least (which one regrets is a feature of his campaign in general)." Yes, my campaign is simple, it is truthful and acturate. The Lib Dems were in office before the Conservatives. They lost control of the Council because they lost sight of the issues important to local people, over complicated things and made a mess. The community is still lamenting the stupid loss of our Ice Rink. The Conservative have not proved that they can do any better. When I described the events regarding the Brunel site. The Conservatives "sold out" the whole St Margarets community with this over-development in a Conservation Area. They have no idea what "preserve and enhance" means. No Conservation Area is therefore safe in Richmond Borough. Is this a simple enough thing to understand. Residents were and still are angry. The heart of the matter is that due to the disillusionment of local residents you obviously find my truthful representation of these people views more of an electoral danger than the threat of the Conservatives. All parties have to realise that you have blown it. Poeple don't trust you any more. I am offering a real alternative of local representation. Where the residents views come first. Trevor, I thought you were complimenting me when you were guessing that 300 to 400 had said they will vote Independent. When I told you it could be as high as 1200, I did not expect such comments, trying to undermine my integrity. Wishing to improve the local community, even a little, to some, may seem unrealistic because the are resigned to limited aspirations. But I have vision, hope, believe in local people and the energy to make a vast improvement. There is no grey area, if you are a qualified scientist. You should measure and test and then conclude. I happen to be an Environmental Scientist, I have study the world at global, national and in this case local scale. I have studied the facts and understand more than most, the nature of Conservation Area Statement 19. This is the guiding policy here. This is what describes what should be protected at "protect at all cost" should include. Brunel University site was a landscape, 174 house don't make a landscape more like a landscape. Please have a read. I agree with Lindsay, the democratic process is in deep trouble. But you have to either give up, or try and change it. I have expland that the people of London are already getting involved with the democratic process because they are not prepare to give up on their communities. I am one of a huge Independent movement to help local people out of these party political games. Please vote Independent, it will make for a better Borough. Barry Edwards. Indepedent. St Margarets & North Twickenham.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-04 10:03:12 +0000

• Stating that your campaign was simplistic is not malicious. It was good for democracy locally that you stood and it was a reasonable campaign but I feel you suggested you could achieve more than is realistic. I am sorry if you were offended.

  Three or four hundred votes would be a very good result for an independent without canvassing.

  Trevor Whittall on 2006-05-04 10:11:12 +0000

• Trevor, Thank you, I am pleased that you can recognise the value of my participation. We will however have to disagree with you on what should be considered realistic. You know about my successes in the Mogden court case and against all odds, my developing an Environmental Information centre on the River Thames in Richmond, 5 years in Planning!!!(soon to open). But you don't know I fought the Council at Appeal to get my son into Orleans Infants 8 years ago and won. I have fought phoney parking tickets and won, I have gain a consultative position within the Greater London Assembly advicing the Mayor's office as a London Waterways Commisioner etc etc. I like gettng things done and I am more tenacious than you could imagine. Just because a thing may seem hard to one, doesn't mean to say it is hard for all. I know there are Parlimentary Laws and Local Policy and Regulation to hold things back, but the use of Independence to achieve the communities' aims in Elmbridge is realistic, it is happening. Better representation of the local residents and businesses is the future of democracy. You can only do that, if you only represent the community you are elected by. What is realistic is down to how good you are at making your dreams real. Good luck today. Barry Edwards. Independent. St Margarets & North Twickenham.

  Barry Edwards on 2006-05-04 10:39:16 +0000

• 'Elmbridge NOC No change Ind 1, C 11, LD 2, R 6 Ind gain 1, R lose 6, C gain 5 New council: Ind 2, R 24, C 26, LD 8'

  Chris Squire on 2006-05-05 01:03:39 +0000

• It is reported that the turnout was 51 %, a very high result, which reflects the interest that this election has aroused, not just in St Mags. The new clutch of councillors, whoever they may be, will have their work cut out to live up to the expectations that have been aroused. This forum has played a useful part and I thank you for it.

  Chris Squire on 2006-05-05 01:14:53 +0000

• 'The local elections saw a big swing to the Lib Dems. The council now has 36 Lib Dems and 18 Conservative members.'

  'St MARGARETS AND NORTH TWICKENHAM Geoffrey Bernard Acton 2019 William Anthony Devine 262 Peter Jan Dul 125 Barry Victor Edwards 474 Annie Evelyn Hambidge 1045 Harbrinder Singh Khosa 1811 Simon Lamb 1249 Judy Sara Maciejowska 707 Philip Ivor James Morgan 1886 Catherine Lister Searle 1225 spoilt papers:

  4'

  'TWICKENHAM RIVERSIDE Joe James Broughton 992 Mary Denise Catherine Carr 1838 Andrew James Constantine 106 Henry Boscawen Leveson Gower 321 John Wanklyn Herring Grant 159 Stuart Nigel Leamy 950 Sheila Doris Nixon 141 James Richard Page 392 Anatole Weinberger Pang 855 Gillian Clara Thomas 440 David Stanley Francis Trigg 1728 Michael Robert Wilson 1600 spoilt papers:4'

  Thanks to: http://www.twickenham-online.co.uk/ which has the full borough list.

  Chris Squire on 2006-05-05 08:12:12 +0000

• I'd like first to congratulate Geoff, Ben and Philip on a resounding victory. It was a long night at the count, but there was little doubt who was going through for St. Margarets and N. Twickenham.

  But second, (and I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this), I'd like to suggest we "sieze the day" and consider making progress on a St. Margarets strategic plan that was discussed here during the campaign.

  We could bring in all the residents' associations, the St. Margarets traders, PTAs and any other groups that would have an interest in creating a local community plan. We could address, for example, the Tesco problem, public v. private transport, cycle lanes, parking in Crown Road and surrounding area, home zones in our residential streets, planning preferences, trees other plantings in our streets, etc. etc.

  If there was interest in taking this forward I'd be happy to pull together an initial meeting.

  Peter, could we start the debate here?

  Judy Maciejowska on 2006-05-05 19:07:04 +0000

Add a comment