Until recently I have never heard of the St Margarets Alliance and I was totally unaware that it represented me. The questionnaire we received last week claims its purpose is to coordinate the Community Action Plan, again something I have never heard of. My initial thoughts were that this is some sort of scam. I endeavoured to find out more so I asked my neighbours incase I had missed any previous mail outs or information about this from the council. None of my neighbours had heard of the Alliance but someone suggested that I look on the community website for more details.Seeing the Alliance advert/feature on here suggests that this is not a scam but I am surprised that it claims to represent the road in which I have lived in for many years, but yet nobody in my road has heard of it.
Does anyone have any more information on the Alliance?
I have also checked the council website but cannot find any information about the community action plan?

Mike at 12 July 2009 11:38 AM

This is a do-it-youself plan proposed by Barry Edwards and his pals; it is not a council initiative. ‘Community action plans’ are explained by Surrey Community Action http://www.surreyca.org.uk/com_actionplans.htm . I think they are mainly useful: [1] for Town & Parish Councils representing a small area and negotiating for grants with District and County Councils; and [2] for setting priorities for the regeneration of a neighbourhood [see: Hainault Community Action Plan http://www.redbridge.gov.uk/cms/environment__planning/planning_and_regeneration/planningpolicy/ldfpage/hainault_com_action_plan-1.aspx]

It remains to be seen what use they can be in a prosperous ward in a unitary authority like Richmond-upon-Thames. It would perhaps have been better to start with one of the borough’s relatively deprived neighbourhoods [which already have priority in the council’s spending plans].

We know already that residents are mainly concerned about parking, parking and parking!

Christopher Squire at 12 July 2009 1:57 PM

Me thinks Christopher Squire is a council mole!!

The St Margaret’s Alliance is certainly not a scam or ‘a do it yourself plan’ it should be celebrated as being a professional body of locals who are bringing our community together to influence and have a greater impact on decisions made by the like of the council.

If you visit the St Margaret’s Alliance website www.stmargaretsalliance.com you will see that this organisation represents the vast majority of this ward. It represents the following residents associations and groups, St margarets Estate Residents Association, North St Margarets Residents Association, Moormead Residents, St Margarets Traders, Friends of Orleans Infant,St Stephens and Orleans Park Schools, Amyand Park Residents and more.

There are so many issues that this council are failing to represent the views of the ordinary council tax payers on. Don’t let this happen. Support this group.

Save the Riverside.

David at 12 July 2009 2:38 PM

I think there may be a question as to whether some of those groups listed above have asked to be represented by the Alliance. But they’ll probably speak for themeselves.

Harry Jacobs at 12 July 2009 6:09 PM

I have no idea what a ‘council mole’ is but I’m certainly not one. The fact that David [who?] thought it appropriate to respond in such terms to what I intended as a fairly positive comment on this scheme is a bit odd. I am, as I have often said here, a long standing resident of Richmond Road and supporter of the St Mag’s councillors, but there is nothing whatsoever moleish about what I do for them. The St Margaret’s, N Twickenham & Riverside Branch of the Lib Dems is a properly constituted membership organisation open to all who hold liberal democratic principles. Can the St Margaret’s Alliance claim as much, I wonder?

I also wonder whether the claims of this new group to represent other properly constituted and democratic organisations will stand up to scrutiny. The council’s claim to represent residents is securely founded on their election in 2006 and will be tested again next year.

The election in St Mag’s ward was particularly hard fought but the result was clear victory, by a large margin, for Cllrs Geoff Acton, Ben Khosa and Philip Morgan. As part of their duties they attend the meetings of and liaise with the officers of the local residents’ associations [indeed Geoff and Philip were, for many years, active in the Cole Park Road and Heatham Park Associations] so it is unlikely that they don’t know what residents think. Cllr Morgan is also a governor of Orleans Infants School. A full description of their work for the community over the past three years is at: http://www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/smnt.html

Christopher Squire at 12 July 2009 8:55 PM

A couple of points:

• Christopher Squire has never pretended to be anything other than who he is on this site. He has continually provided us with valuable news, information, Council news, Lib Deb news and opinion. The site would be poorer without people like him being active.
• The St Margarets Alliance is attempting to create a non-political group who understands what the key issues are for St Margarets and can pull together other local groups to concentrate on these issues. The survey is not political and the results will be published.

Peter @ stmgrts.org at 12 July 2009 9:51 PM

David writes as if he belongs to the inner circle
of the Alliance.
If that is the case he should be aware that the Alliance does NOT represent the St Margarets Estate Residents Association.

Gerhard Schellberg at 13 July 2009 11:51 AM

Reading the above, the Alliance claim to represent Orleans Infants School or at least the friends of, also Chris speaks of Cllr Morgan also being a governor of the school, so does this mean that this alliance and Cllr Morgan are connected?

I really do not understand what is going on, reading Geralds comment about the alliance not represnting the St Margarets Estate Residents - then why does it say so on the alliance website.

I really do not know what to think.

Pauline at 13 July 2009 1:15 PM

The Alliance and Cllr Morgan are not connected. As his job is to represent everyone in the ward, he will no doubt study its findings carefully.

The Alliance [a group of individuals] includes someone who is a member of the Orleans Infants’ PTA. They do not claim to represent the Head Teacher or the Governors of the School.

The Alliance includes someone who is a member of the St Margarets Estate Residents. David has muddied the waters further by asserting the Alliance ‘represents’ SMER, which [says GS, a member, I presume] is not the case.

Anyone claiming to represent someone else must expect to have their claim challenged and to be asked to show their credentials. In the case of a Councillor, it is the Declaration of Result signed by the Returning Officer which gives them their status. I think the Alliance would do better to drop this claim altogether and to press ahead with the survey as an ad-hoc group of residents.

Christopher Squire at 13 July 2009 4:46 PM

The St Margarets Alliance is a very well known and supported organisation, which organises the St Margarets Events, which recently helped raise over £3,000 for the local charity Lynn’s Bowel Cancer Campaign and the Editor/Peter has clearly stated the aims of this group. Please go to www.stmargaretsalliance.com for pictures of the event.

The Alliance has no interest in party political comments from whatever source. It is conducting independent research to determine the preferences of local residents in an attempt to improve local democracy. The Residents Survey is the first part of this engagement with local residents and has had a very good response to date. We are grateful for the support of the St Margarets Community website for extending the deadline for returns to help with this process. The results will be announced on this website and at a public meeting in September.

The group is only interested in making a positive contribution to the economic, social and environmental well-being of our community and to support the “village feel” of St Margarets and is happy to hear from other like minded groups, or individuals.

The Alliance is part of a National Initiative to implement the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 and is guided by Lawyers, in setting best practise. We have contacted every household in St Margarets, North Twickenham and surrounding street to ensure full representation.

Barry Edwards at 13 July 2009 6:29 PM

“The St Margarets Alliance is a very well known and supported organisation, which organises the St Margarets Events”. Barrie please be a bit more accurate with your words both on this site and your own website. The Alliance does not organise all the St Margarets events. For example, it is certainly in no way connected with organising the St Margarets Fair. Having met you and attended two Alliance meetings I’m sure you mean well, but you really musn’t give the whole of St Margarets the impression that you have global representation and input to all local organisation and events. It’s very naughty, and it is a very ‘political’ action.

Harry Jacobs at 13 July 2009 10:33 PM

And to be accurate myself in the above post for ‘Barrie’ please read ‘Barry’!

Harry Jacobs at 13 July 2009 10:54 PM

Whilst at face value the intent of the St Margarets alliance appears honourable and something I would like to buy into, stating that the organisation represents local residents groups across the board without any form of local communication, consultation, communication or vote is missleading and totally dishonest.

The persuit of the current messages and forms of communication sadly appears only to be upsetting and disenfranchising local residents, which is a real shame.

I am a resident of amyand park road and along with others I have spoken to concur that we have until very recently never heard of the alliance, certainly have never received any communication or invite to participate in any way, and finally we are totally unaware of any amyand park residents association actually ever existing.

Barry and gang - if you seek to pursue your intent for community representation please do so in an honourable and honest manner and actually seek to engage the people that you wish to represent.

I as I suspect with others remain to be convinced of your real motives and integrity.

Will Todd, Amyand Park Road

Will Todd at 14 July 2009 8:34 AM

Just because someone obtains a majority of X’s on a piece of paper once every 4 years, it does not necessarily follow that they actually represent those people, not even the ones who voted for them. Please bear this in mind when reading documents, FAQs comments from our Councillors, Officers, and associated political activists.

Recent experience suggests quite the opposite in fact - the St.Mary’s Astroturf debacle [ http://www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2007/05/st_marys_astroturf_planning_problems.html ] ; CPZ divide-and-conquer strategy [everywhere on this site]; Poor schools capacity planning [ http://www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2007/05/orleans_infants_school_adding_extra_class.html , http://www.stmgrts.org.uk/archives/2009/07/schools_bulging_across_richmond_borough.html ] and of course the Riverside [ http://www.richmond.libdems.org.uk/pages/Riverside2.html ]

In particular some of the “Consultation” and “FAQ” documents put out recently contain some of THE MOST patronising answers that I’ve ever seen and are frankly an insult to the intelligence of most people.

I don’t know Barry Edwards and I’m not affiliated to any political group, but I think any lobby group which seeks to organise residents opinions, get our voices heard and keep the council on their toes, can only be a good thing, so long as they keep it honest and open. At least they’re not claiming expenses!

Ed at 14 July 2009 8:49 AM

I am somewhat concerned about the Alliance and what it is actually doing. As it was explained to me, it was set up to prepare a Community Action Plan pursuant to the Sustainable Communities Act. That is a worthwhile end. It was also represented as having representatives from various residents association and other groups in the St Margaret’s area.

However, it is clear that from the outset there have been some controversies.

It is not clear that its claim to represent local residents’ associations is a valid one. There is a difference between (1) being a body comprised of representatives from various organisations and (2) representing those organisations.

It is also unclear whether the Alliance does in fact have any representatives from all of the associations it claims to “represent”. It is fairly clear that SMERA is no longer represented, and I am informed that the St Margaret’s Traders have left the Alliance as well. NSMRA does have a representative on the Alliance. I am sure the schools groups are merely supportive of the general idea. The other groups mentioned - do they actually exist?

Furthermore, NSMRA has never been asked by the Alliance for any input into anything, so it’s hard to see how any representing can be going on.

So my first point is about representation. That needs to be got right.

The next is about the formulation of the CAP. A survey on the face of it is a good idea. I was disappointed at the vagueness of the survey, and also the inclusion of matters which are unlikely to be easily fitted into the remit of a CAP. I was also surprised that the Residents’ Associations weren’t asked what they thought might be issues appropriate for a CAP. Of course, Residents’ Associations are just one of many stakeholders and tend to represent the vocal and organised only. The community is much wider than that and so a direct survey may well be an appropriate tool, but I am sure that residents’ association members may have some useful input to offer.

But there are other questions about the CAP - the St Margaret’s Alliance is, or ought to be, about St Margaret’s. We can argue about where it stops and starts, but it surely does include the whole of Crown Road and it surely does not include the area west of Cole Park Road, so why was the area of the consultation the electoral ward? There are also active Residents’ Associations in Cole Park and Heatham who are not involved at all.

At this stage I am not convinced that the CAP is being well served by the Alliance.

My final concern relates to elections. In my view, Residents’ Associations need to be apolitical and independent of Government. We must work with elected councillors and MPs of whatever persuasion happens to be in power. Those of us who take part in associations need to keep any involvement in electoral politics out of those associations. If we don’t, then we can be pretty sure our associations will wither away pretty rapidly.

Now it appears from various places, including this website, that the Chair of the Alliance is proposing to stand in the forthcoming elections as a councillor candidate. That’s fine of course. But what is not fine is the use of the Alliance to promote that candidature or in some way to use the feedback from this survey to that end.

It is quite essential that the CAP is a community initiative separate from local government and for it to be subverted to allow someone to promote their own campaign for election to local government is something which it is clear to me (and obviously for others) is not acceptable.

A lot of damage has already been done to the integrity of the CAP process by all this, and the Alliance now does not really exist except as a name. This is a pity as the CAP if finalised would allow local improvements. St Margaret’s is just the sort of area, with loads of people who are committed to it, where a CAP would work.

It seems to me that urgent steps need to be taken to resolve this situation.

1. The purpose and remit of the Alliance needs restating to ensure that it does not purport to represent anyone and has as its main aim the formulation of the CAP, restricted to the geographical area of St Margaret’s.

2. The Chair of the Alliance should stand down and desist from any attempt to use the Alliance as an electoral tool. I am afraid that he has proved quite adept at winding people up, partly by making claims about the Alliance and the degree to which it has a representative function which are greatly exaggerated, and partly by an unwillingness to separate the community interest from his own.

3. Serious attempts should be made to re-engage with local residents’ associations and other groups to try to develop a practical menu for the CAP. Sadly, I do not believe this will happen until the Alliance demonstrates its complete independence from the electoral process as above.

4. The Minutes, accounts and proceedings of the Alliance should be posted on their website.

I trust that on reflection, Barry Edwards might consider his position and realise that it is in the best interests of the Community of which he is an active member to support the steps set out above.

Laurence Mann at 14 July 2009 4:49 PM

I will not be draw into any of the overtly party political attempts to discredit this community initiative. The Alliance has had a good response so far and many of the comments have mentioned that party politics is destroying any attempt to be involved within local decision making.

Harry has a point regarding the accuracy of the information on the survey. At the time of printing all the information was correct, but I am aware that there has been a negative campaign to lobby many of the groups which started this process. Like me they have been very disappointment by these approaches and have reassessed their position for the time being. The website has now been updated to reflect this. This will be reviewed shortly.

I compliment Ed’s on his informed and realistic assessment of the position regarding the current state of local consultation. The CAP process the Alliance is conducting is an open discussion with local residents. The Sustainable Communities Act was drafted in open terms so that communities’ could tailor and evolve the legislation. Best practise is in the process of being created and I will be passing all of the comments here and other emails to the Lawyers for their consideration.

Will, I have been helping the members of the Amyand Park Residents Association. They have now reformed and your involvement will be most welcome. Please email me at email@stmagaretsalliance.com and I will put you in touch with the committee members.

I am meeting with Laurence Mann at his convenience to discuss his concerns. I will publish details of the meeting here, soon after.

I have been approached by party politicians interested in this initiative and to date the Conservatives and the Greens party see this process as bring a positive contribution to local democracy. I will let you know the position of the Lib Dems in due course.

Barry Edwards at 14 July 2009 7:17 PM

The reaction from Mr Edwards appears to be suggesting that there is some sort of negative conspiracy aimed at the Alliance. I doubt if this is the case.

I can see no good reason why a body which seeks to carry out an important public function should not be accountable for its actions and should not run itself in a manner consistent with its status.

My comments are nothing to do with political parties, simply an analysis of what appears to be going on, which I find worrying.

I am not sure what “Lawyers” are involved in this matter for! So far, the activities of the Alliance seem fairly basic.

I have not made any arrangements to meet Barry Edwards at all and am not sure what purpose would be served by such a meeting.

It would more useful if he were to consider the points I have made in my last posting and deal with each snd every one of them clearly and without any flim-flam. If he has not done this by the end of the week I will assume that he does not wish to.

Laurence Mann at 15 July 2009 12:35 AM

The St Margarets Alliance is accountable to the aims of its committee and its guide organisation. The St Margarets Alliance committee has offered to meet Laurence, anything else at this time is conjecture on his behalf.

Barry Edwards at 15 July 2009 2:24 AM

I can’t see any good reason why the points I have put forward cannot be answered here. They are of general relevance. Our society has far too many meetings behind closed doors.

The Alliance clearly needs to re-engage with its stakeholders and also those who ought to be its stakeholders. Offering meetings to seek to fob off individuals is not a good way to do this.

Laurence Mann at 15 July 2009 12:21 PM

Dear Editor,
The St Margarets Alliance has a full committee of stakeholders that are attempting to do an objective survey, it is that simple. We will be meeting with Mr Mann as stated to help him understand the factual details of this survey and its moderators. As I said in an earlier post I will report on this website the result of the meeting, I am sure when Laurence has the details of the Lawyers, he will equally voice his support. Frankly, I have found the whole tone of these posts very worrying and unhelpful and I will raise of concerns with Laurence when we meet.
Laurence please don’t post any further comment until we have met, there are lots of things to do and supporters who need replies, Please give some others a chance.

Barry Edwards at 15 July 2009 4:23 PM

I will of course post exactly what I want to, within the rules of this Forum, thank you very much.

And there is as far as I am aware nothing stopping other people posting things.

I have agreed with Valerie Pinnington to meet her and others including Barry Edwards next Wednesday, but unless we start off by dealing with the points I have set out here it is going to be a short and unrewarding session.

Laurence Mann at 15 July 2009 4:51 PM

Laurence,
I don’t understand any of this, what group are you from, or trying to get representation for? I thought you were from NSMRA and in that case, you already have representaion. I don’t understand what you trying to achieve with all these postings? I think that within the postings a lot of information is incorrect, some rude and disrespectful.

I asked Val to organise the meeting to get to the bottom of this. In your postings you seem to be threatening us, “but unless we start off dealing with the points I have set out”, etc, etc. I will assure you this will be an informal meeting to listen to you.

Much of the political rhetoric you have listed has nothing to do with the Alliance, party politics will not be discussed at the meeting, as the Alliance is non-party political.

If you wish to continue along that vein, or be abusive in any way, the meeting will indeed be short.

Barry Edwards at 15 July 2009 5:50 PM

I am a resident of St Margaret’s and will be affected by the CAP if it arrives.

I am also a member of the NSMRA which has a representative on the Alliance, but I don’t claim to represent it or anyone or anything else.

What I am trying to achieve with these postings is very simple. Like most people who have given the Sustainable Communities Act some thought (and as someone who has read it) I would like it to succeed here in St Margaret’s.

I see the matters concerned with the points previously raised by me as a barrier to this.

I therefore have a legitimate interest in this matter.

You have asked for a meeting with me, which I have acceded to on the basis that these points are discussed.

I am not threatening anyone with anything except continuing to pursue this matter until I am satisfied with the outcome. That will come when the Alliance is electorally neutral, embraces a proper range of stakeholders, and is in a position to help them bring together a Community Action Plan to serve and benefit the locality I am proud to live in.

No element of my concerns is related to party politics, as you well know.

I am not of the view that I have been rude, but this is somewhat subjective. As far as disrespect is concerned, I don’t really believe in it.

If you have changed your mind about a meeting, I shall be obliged if you will let me know directly.

Laurence Mann at 15 July 2009 10:22 PM

Laurence,
I am very happy to meet, as agreed, but yours is not the only level of satisfaction to which I am concerned. I am very conscious of the position of the Council which is far from satisfactory.

Any involvement with party politics, or any discussion on elections, is not part of the CAP process. It is in fact very unhelpful and raises concerns regarding the motives of the individuals who raise such matters.

You can be assured that the St Margarets Alliance has the highest principles and cannot be bias, or rocked from the objectivity it holds dear. You can also be assured that I am taking advice from our Lawyers friends today and I will give you their legal opinion and they guidance on this matter later.

I am looking forward to solving your concerns and meeting you next week.

Barry Edwards at 16 July 2009 7:47 AM

At last, we agree….

“Any involvement with party politics, or any discussion on elections, is not part of the CAP process. It is in fact very unhelpful and raises concerns regarding the motives of the individuals who raise such matters.”

“Chair Barry Edwards, Guy Medd (25 years St Margarets resident) and Glen Cardno (a local St Margarets Trader) are considering standing as Independent candidates at the Local Authority elections scheduled for 10th May 2010, to follow what the St Margarets Alliance as a representative body wants for local residents.”

Can you not see at all that this means that the Alliance is seen as a platform for an election campaign and that this impacts on those who participate in it?

And can you not see that the claim that the Alliance is a representative body is also not acceptable to its participants?

Could you at least think about the answers to these questions?

Laurence Mann at 16 July 2009 11:59 AM

I have for the past two weeks been trying to find anybody in my street that is aware of this Alliance. The Alliance claims to represent Amyand Park Road but we are not aware of anybody who has agreed to this. Could we ask that the person(s) who have agreed to this representation to confirm their involvement on here? Reading through the messages on this site it seems that the Alliance is just a means of Chair Barry Edwards, Guy Medd (25 years St Margarets resident) and Glen Cardno (a local St Margarets Trader getting elected. The tatics of this Alliance seem to be a kin with a pyramid selling scam or perhaps the Alliance will be selling time share properties in the near future?

So please tell us who represents Amyand Park Road.

Mandie at 21 July 2009 11:18 AM

I too have some concerns regarding this initiative.

To date, like Will stated in his posting of 14/7, I have never received a survey through the door and therefore only became aware of the alliance via reading the website. No one I have spoken to on the road and two nearby roads have received a survey. While most will have access to a computer there will be some who do not and they are effectively being excluded from the survey.

Like Laurence I have an issue with any group claiming to represent the community or that part of St Margarets where I live. Close neighbours (Mormead residents) are as mystified as me regarding the notion of this alliance acting as a representative group. Indeed I note that all the officials live in a particular part of St. Margarets and while I do not have a problem with that itself, other groupings may well have different and diverse interests. I do not know whether there are specific concerns relating to that part of St. Margarets where the officials reside.

At least with local councillors, if I do not feel that they have represented me sufficiently well, I can vote in a particular way to demonstrate that. With unelected groups, the claim to represent has to be more carefully weighted and demonstrated. If as it seems clear, some of the group may stand as an independent candidate in the elections on May 6th next year then their vision for St. Maragerts (and North Twickenham) can be tested. Until then I remain somewhat sceptical of the motives and aims of such a grouping.

Dave at 21 July 2009 12:40 PM

To: The St Margaret’s Alliance (Barry Edwards)

We write of behalf of the St Margaret’s traders association we would like to thank you for your help and efforts in organising the Christmas Fair 2008 and for you help in co-organising the recent community event. We are an independent organisation who do not wish to be associated with the St Margaret’s Alliance. We will continue to organise events in the area and will work with residents to maintain the sense of community that St Margaret’s has. We already have plans in place for this years Christmas event.

On behalf of the traders association

Zoran Jokic. Simon Chapman, Martin Herdman, Neil Birkett, Jag Pankhania

St Margaret's Traders Association at 21 July 2009 3:51 PM

I thought that I would update this thread concerning the meeting with Alliance reprsentatives which I went to this evening..

The various questions which I asked were all answered fully.

I was also given a number of assurances and reassurances by Barry Edwards and other members of the Alliance which lead me to the conclusion that it is in the best interests of our community as a whole to support it.

Let me explain further.

My initial concern was that the Alliance was being subverted for political ends and that I had not received any response to my request for clarification of this. I did set out my concerns above so I shall not repeat them.

I am pleased to say that I was assured by Barry Edwards and the rest of the Alliance that the Alliance will not be used for electoral ends, and that if any of the people involved in it stand for election then they will not use the Alliance to promote themselves. I was also assured that the press release above was not drafted with a view of promoting any candidacy. I accept these assurances.

My second concern was about the question of representation. The Alliance participants present all made it clear that they do not hold themselves out as collectively representing anyone and would take care to ensure that this impression was not given to others. One way of doing this is to avoid giving a long list of those participating, as some of the groups have a variable degree of commitment or even existence.

We also discussed the need, if the Alliance was to be effective, of engaging and re-engaging with the community. It appears that various groups have blown somewhat hot and cold about the Alliance. Participation in anything is completely voluntary, and it was accepted that greater clarity would assist the Alliance in promoting its message and securing participation.

Some of the ideas which they have agreed to take on board are:

1. Having a constitution with the objects and limitations of the Alliance clearly set out and its geographical extent settled. There is also a need to ensure that established groups and concerned local people can participate; and to establish a framework whereby the vocal minority, of which of course I am a member, does not drown out the 95% of the population who it appears don’t belong to representative groups in our community - an astonishing and rather frightening figure.

2. Setting out the process which will, if successful, lead to a Community Action Plan and its further development clearly on the Alliance website.

3. Publishing updates and news setting out where the process has got to.

There are opportunities ahead which is taken will lead to greater community cohesion, but also risks which need to be managed carefully.

In any process, as we all know, each twist and turn, each necessity of seeking agreement both unites and alienates. The nature of our society is that we all have different priorities, needs and desires. The antidotes to the risk of factionalism are openness and goodwill. I am sure one leads to the other.

There is also a risk that this process will be seen as a battle against the bureaucracy of central and local government. If it is, then I am sure it will fail although it is always convenient to have someone to blame for things. Indeed it will fail at the first hurdle as the council needs to engage with it as soon as possible.

The Alliance are planning on holding a public meeting in September to report back the results of the Survey which they have done and also to relaunch themselves and take forward the work which they are doing.

Although I have been sceptical about the efficacy and viability of the Alliance, I am presently of the view that providing that people and groups will participate, having regard to the Alliance’s commitment to clarity and impartiality, and the assurances that the Alliance will not purport to represent them but simply to be guided by them, it could make a considerable and positive difference to St Margaret’s.

Laurence Mann at 23 July 2009 12:22 AM

As promised I am reporting back on the meeting with Laurence Mann on the 22nd July.

Laurence Mann had a large number of question related to the rather premature posting that he had made here. The Alliance, as we would with any individual or group, was happy to explain the true nature of work we are doing to help our community.

I am sure that it is clear from Laurence’s post that he is now in a better position and has in fact asked to work with the Alliance to further our aims. His offer to be part of the group has been gratefully accepted. It has always been clear to the Alliance the importance of the community work on which we have embarked. The Residents’ Survey has been received by residents with great enthusiasm and we have had a huge response.

The Alliance are happy to discuss any confusion or misinterpretation of our activities at any time, though I will confirm that we will be taking more time in future to publicize our current work in future on this and our own website.

I hope this has now put to bed any misconceptions and we can get on with the real task of protecting and enhancing our wonderful village.

In response to the posting by Simon Chapman, the Alliance is equally hoping for a full meeting of the Traders in the near future to discuss any similar confusions Simon may have.

Barry Edwards
Chair
St Margarets Alliance

Barry Edwards at 24 July 2009 5:18 PM