POWER COURT,

Statement of Community Involvement

Prepared by Indigo Public Affairs November 2005

Submitted on behalf of Domaine Development Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ballymore Properties Ltd

Power Court, Luton – Ballymore Properties Ltd

Statement of Community Involvement

Introduction

This report has been compiled by specialist community consultation company, Indigo, on behalf of Domaine Developments Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ballymore Properties Ltd.

The purpose of this report is to set down the Community Engagement Strategy for this development, what people said and how Ballymore Properties Ltd has learnt and responded to their comments and involvement.

Power Court is currently a light industrial area which has been identified as a area for regeneration along with the adjacent Hat Factory area in the David Locke Masterplan.

The consultation was focussed on the changes to the site and all aspects of our proposals including; retail, residential, landscaping, transport, community facilities and design. Our starting point was that it is vital to consult as widely as possible on every aspect of our development. This is essential to ensure that our final proposals effectively meet the aspirations of people living and working in Luton.

Working together with all members of the client team, we have undertaken an extensive local consultation over the last fourteen months with all levels of stakeholders from community leaders, community groups, businesses, and residents through to elected representatives and other interested parties. We have directly contacted over 15,000 households in the LU1, LU2, LU3, LU4 and LU5 postal areas of Luton. Furthermore a three day exhibition was held at Park Square in Luton Town Centre which attracted over 1000 local residents, key stakeholders and councillors.

In line with the Government’s latest guidelines, consultation has been strategically planned and firmly integrated with project development. We have used a process of consultation, underpinned by five principles, which ensure transparency, understanding and participation throughout the process. Those principles, which are present in every round of consultation, are:

Notification of the consultation and development process Information about the plan Analysis of feedback Response to feedback Publication of the amended plans

The submission of the planning application marks the end of this consultation process; however community involvement will continue to be actively encouraged hereafter.

1. How we consulted and who we targeted

During the consultation process, an information leaflet containing a feedback form was sent out to local residents (attached at appendix 1). The leaflet contained a freephone telephone number (free from a landline) for residents to contact the team. The feedback form included a freepost address.

Over 15,000 leaflets were sent out to Luton residents, this included the central area, High Town, Farley Hill, New Town, Park Town and areas of Luton. These leaflets gave details of the plans, invited residents, stakeholders, elected representatives and other interest groups to the local exhibition and provided an opportunity to express comments on all aspects of the proposals via the comprehensive feedback form. We also advertised our proposals and exhibition in Luton News, Luton on Sunday and the LutonLine free paper.

A three day exhibition was held in a exhibition trailer at Park Square in the pedestrianised area of Luton town centre. It took place from Thursday 20 January 2005 – Saturday 22 January 2005 inclusive.

Extra leaflets and a contact number were provided in and at St Mary’s Church.

We have now expanded our consultation by talking to local interest groups and stakeholders about the scheme in more detail, answering key questions and using their views to develop our scheme. Specific groups and individuals consulted include:

¾ St Mary’s Church ¾ Luton Irish Forum ¾ ¾ Luton Chamber Business SAC ¾ Luton University ¾ Margaret Moran MP ¾ Luton Town Centre Forum ¾ High Town Trust ¾ The Prudential ¾ The Art’s Council ¾ South Bedfordshire County Council ¾ Development Trust ¾ Declan Duggan Golf Academy ¾ Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) ¾ English Partnerships

2. What we told people

The leaflet distributed to local residents and interest groups was comprehensive and crucial in raising local awareness of the proposals and consultation.

The leaflet also provided significant information to the local area regarding the detail of the plan and dealt with a wide range of details including:

• An introduction to Ballymore and the development, including the main principles of the scheme • A bullet point summary of the proposals • An overview image of Luton Town Centre with details of how our proposals intend to complement the existing developments and areas • Information on the retail aspect of the development • Information on the landscaping and environmental considerations of our scheme • Details of the housing aspect of the development • A detailed overview of the proposal including a key, highlighting important areas • Three indicative images of the proposals, showing the illustrative design • A panoramic view of the proposals, highlighting how the development could be incorporated to complement the surrounding area, including St Mary’s Church • A feedback questionnaire, with one open and one closed question:

Do you support the proposals for Power Court † Yes † Yes, with reservations † No † Don’t know Please add your comments or suggestions below

• Details of the three day exhibition • A FREEPHONE telephone number for further information • A FREEPOST return address for the questionnaire. • A translation box, offering Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi and Gujarati.

The exhibition included 10 detailed boards (see appendix 2), a model of the proposals incorporating the surrounding town centre area.

3. What people said

We had a wide range of people who responded to the exhibition and sent feedback forms, ranging from school children, local councillors, local businesses, prospective shop owners, council officers and the local media.

At the request of several residents, we translated the leaflet into Bengali and Gujarati.

The team has always actively sought and welcomed feedback and suggestions. At the heart of our approach has been our commitment to analyse that feedback, explore the possibilities raised from comments and examine possible amendments together with the whole development team.

There has been a steady flow of feedback forms received back from residents before and after the exhibition as well as contact through our telephone hotline.

We have received 739 feedback forms, through the post and at the three day exhibition. The appendix at the back of this report shows where these feedback cards came from.

The broad results are as follows:-

Question Number Yes Yes with Don’t No received reservations know Do you support the proposals for Power Court 739 550 115 41 33 (74%) (16%) (6%) (4%) margin of error of ±3.5% (assuming a random sample).

Don't know No Yes with 6% 4% reservations Pie chart showing response to 16% consultation question “Do you support the proposals for power Court”

Yes 74%

Below is a comprehensive summary of major comments made both at the exhibition and through the FREEPOST feedback forms:

Demand for new shops o The overwhelming majority of people at the exhibition said the proposals were good as there was a real need in Luton for more high quality retail shops in the town centre that were not the same as in the Arndale. o They thought it would improve the image of Luton and the restaurants and shops would bring life into the town centre. o Only a very small proportion (mainly those opposing the scheme) said they did not feel there was a need for more shopping in Luton. o A small, but significant, minority of people asked whether the development would include a supermarket. o A number of people specifically asked for John Lewis to be present in the shopping centre.

The Arndale Centre o A number mentioned that the Arndale needs redeveloping. Although some feared for the future of the Arndale, others said that the Arndale could do with more competition. o The issue about whether there was an option to link the Arndale Centre and the Power Court development to each other via a bridge or some other means was raised often. This came particularly from elderly and disabled people, but also from other members of the public. o Visitors to the exhibition also asked whether the Arndale Centre would be upgraded. o A number of comments were made along the lines of “It better not be another Arndale Centre” referring to the poor state and quality of shops there.

Transport o People were generally very happy with the concept of removing St Mary’s Road, and replacing it with a pedestrian-friendly space. Some were concerned about the safety of pedestrians along Church Street if buses and taxis could still pass down the road. o There was concern about the volume of traffic within Luton generally.

o There was concern about safety for those people who used the new car park late at night. o Several comments were made about the need to enable vehicles to adequately service the Hat Factory area. o Parking for disabled people was mentioned as a requirement. o People were concerned about whether the bus access would be close to the development for disabled shoppers. o A number of concerns from residents close to the new ring road were expressed about the possible adverse effect that this new road would have of them. o Many people asked if the development would also result in an upgrade to the railway station. St Mary’s Church o Residents are, on the whole, supportive of opening up the front Church yard o There is a general feeling that the Churchyards are currently suffering from neglect. o They are keen on the ideas of lighting, but would like to know who will have to pay for the installation and electricity bills. o The key issue of the meeting with the Church was the moving of the community facilities. Whilst the Church did not have a problem with sharing the facilities with other groups, they were concerned about the location of the facilities. o Overall St Mary’s Church is generally supportive of proposals as they stand. Luton o There remains cynicism that some proposals within Luton do not get built. o A number of people highlighted the need for some community space in Luton town centre, particularly for young people.

Housing o A few people mentioned the need for affordable housing in Luton town centre.

Design o Equal (small) numbers expressed an explicit view in favour of the design, as they did against it. o There was a small concern about light pollution emitting from the building. o People were anxious to ensure that measures to tackle crime were built into the design of the scheme. o A small minority of people suggested that

the river should be opened up in front of the new centre.

Specific Stakeholder Meeting comments:

St Mary’s Church – 9 November 2004 • Stressed the need for a positive injection into Luton, including provisions for the local community, including the youth within the area.

High Town Trust – January 2005 • Supportive of the scheme, but would like to see more improvements to High Town in general

St Mary’s Church – 12 January 2005 • Remediation of petrol leakage from former petrol station in Guildford Street.

• Measures for the sustainability of the development including the use of local materials, suppliers, labours and services.

Luton Chamber Business (Southern Area Committee) – 19 April 2005 • Why will there not be a theatre on site?

• What will happen to culvert and River Lea?

• What is the timescale for the development?

• How will Power Court integrate with the Arndale Centre? Is there a risk of the Arndale and Power Court becoming separate shopping areas?

• Liked the look of the design and are supportive of the regeneration and proposed development.

Luton First – August 2005 • Concerned over expansion of new developments in Luton.

• Stressed the importance of developing a regeneration Masterplan, seek to steer a coordinated approach with all developers proposals to attain a coherent urban identity.

Margaret Moran MP – 2 August 2005 • Supportive of the scheme as part of regeneration in Luton as a whole

The Hat Factory District – August 2005 • Concerns over the small gallery provided within the Hat Factory District used by a number of arts and cultural organisations within Luton and across the region.

• Concern that space is at capacity and expansion is proving problematic.

Luton Irish Forum – August 2005 • Supportive of the proposed redevelopment at Power Court

St Mary’s Church 5 September 2005 • Concern was raised over moving the paths in the Church yard as they had historical importance and provided practical, and in some cases, well used routes. It was explained that the design of the Churchyard was not finalised.

• It was explained to the people present that access to the Church and the number of parking spaces would remain the same.

• A number of comments were made about the design of the roof, however it was noted that this was down to personal preference.

• The key issue of the meeting was the moving of the community facilities. Whilst the Church did not have a problem with sharing the facilities with other groups (depending on how this would work), they were concerned that they were being moved.

• It was agreed that a copy of the Tree Survey would be sent to the Church and the Church would let us know which trees have been donated and are therefore protected.

• There was concern over having entertainment venues in front of the Church, because of anti social behaviour and noise.

• The Church asked if they could have some information on the sound assessment and whether if measures the level of sound effecting adjacent buildings. They were concerned over possible noise when the Church was being used.

4. The applicant’s response to people’s comments

a) Retail Critical to many local people is the requirement that Power Court is not seen as separate from either the town centre shops or the Arndale and that there are great links between each. The Borough Council has guided us constructively and discussions are ongoing to improve the design to produce an integrated solution for the town centre.

Discussions are currently in progress with a number of retailers with regard to occupying the retail space.

The Council has commissioned its own, independent assessment of retail needs in Luton, based on a brief agreed by our clients and The Prudential, as owners of the Arndale Centre. The overall conclusion from this exercise is that both our one and the independent study undertaken by Luton Borough Council and South Beds Council identify more than sufficient comparison floorspace capacity to accommodate the Power Court proposals.

b) Transport Fine tuning the transport arrangements that alleviates congestion, maintains access to all parts of the town, and takes cars off the road into car parks as quickly as possible has been a big task over the past few months. We have been helped by the council, the bus companies and transport groups and our masterplan has improved as a result. Our transport consultants have worked to ensure that access to the Arndale and Hat Factory will not be detrimentally affected. With regard to upgrading the railway station, this has never been within our remit. c) Public Realm The design team are developing ideas that will enable the new public square to provide a quality space that will allow for a variety of uses from public events to sitting down to pass the time of day. d) Public Art The need to include public art in the development has proved popular, and we have recently been talking to the Arts Council and other relevant groups. An integral component of our team is the appointment of a cultural consultant to ensure that we provide a public art and cultural strategy for the site that is wanted and appropriate for Luton. e) Safety & Crime To make sure people are safe outside of daylight hours our proposals include CCTV and lighting for the car parking and other areas. As standard our development will be designed with crime reduction and safety as a priority. f) River Lea – Culvert To a number of people in Luton, the River Lea is important and we recognise that some would like to open up the River Lea culvert. However, opening up the culvert would have major disadvantages, including, introducing a new physical barrier hindering access from our site to the wider town centre area. Discussions are ongoing with the Environment Agency to find a suitable solution. We think water in public areas is important and it will play a major role in the look of these places. g) Community Space A number of people and groups would like the development to include space for community use. We have had discussions with a number of Luton

groups to take this issue forward and have allocated a space in the outline application for this use.

h) St Mary’s Church We have confirmed through discussion with the representative of the Church that their access and parking arrangements will remain the same. We are also in continued discussions with the Church about how they would like the Churchyard to look and they are now satisfied that any activity in the vicinity of the Church would be managed accordingly so it would not infringe on the work of the Church.

i) Housing The applicant’s design includes an element of affordable housing, in line with Luton Borough Council targets.

j) Access for the elderly and disabled Less able members of the public will be able to use our facilities with ease. Disabled parking will be provided in the car parks and convenient drop off areas will be set aside. All aspects of the development will be user friendly for less able users, including the elderly and those with young children

5. How we intend to inform and consult with people further

We have circulated an update leaflet with the results (see appendix 3) to residents, elected representatives and other interested groups. This shall be followed up by keeping all groups informed of the effect that the consultation exercise has had on the overall plans.

Domaine is also launching a new website at www.lutonpowercourt.com to keep people informed of the changes to the design, and updated on the proposal. Here is a screen shot of the website.

We will also keep all groups informed of the ongoing progress of the plans so we can continue to receive comments from all groups as the plans progress.

Appendix: Where the feedback cards came from

Street Name Number of Replies Ashburnham Road 24 Ashton Road 25 Tavistock Road 22 Harcourt Street 18 London Road 3 Cowper Street 17 Stanley Road 5 Essex Close 3 Hillborough Close 1 Arter Street 6 St Monicas Avenue 6 Castle Street 5 Arthur Street 21 Newcombe Road 24 Cosgrove Way 4 Combs Street 1 Road 19 Newark Road 5 Baker Street 12 Holly Court 3 Belmont Road 9 Cromer Wall 2 Baley Lane 2 Brantwood Road 3 Dumfries Street 3 Russell Street 9 Stockwell Cross 1 Arndale Centre 1 Waterside Green 1 Elgar Path 5 Cambridge Street 4 Surrey Street 1 Mossdale 1 St Peters Road 4 Maseby Road 2 Downs Road 2 Havelock Road 2 Vernon Road 1 Cooper Street 1 Hibbert Street 6 Princess Street 1 Baldock Close 1 Humberstone Road 1

Malvern Road 11 Stathmore Avenue 13 The Larches 2 Hamilton Road 1 Hart Lane 28 Fieldgate 1 Laygreen Close 1 Olmsby Close 1 Marefield 1 Park Street 3 Dudley Street 3 Pomfret Avenue 11 Windsor Walk 1 Windsor Street 2 Hightown Road 3 Harrlestone Close 1 Old Bedford Road 12 Button Road 1 Haddon Road 6 Malton Rise 2 Hitchen Road 12 Farley Hill 10 Triumph Court 2 Meyrick Avenue 4 Mill Street 1 Hart Hill Drive 2 Heron Drive 1 Kingston Drive 11 Gladstone Avenue 1 Lathwell Court 1 May Street 2 Durham Road 2 Eaton Road 1 North Street 3 Langham Close 1 Upper George Street 1 Dale Road 5 Milton Road 5 Scotscraig 1 Ferndale Road 7 Road 3 Butlin Road 10 Ventnor Gardens 1 Road 1 Ridgeway Road 10 Mangrove Road 1 Clevedon Road 1 Lyndhurst Road 7 Cardiff Grove 2 Salisbury Road 2

Grove House 1 Eaton Valley Road 1 Wenlock Street 3 William Street 2 Clarendon Road 2 Reginald Road 8 Frederick Street 5 Hartley Street 4 Cross Street 1 Mallen Road 1 Moorland Gardens 1 Jubilee Street 1 Villa Road 1 Bute Street 2 Chesford Road 1 Edward Street 2 Marsh Road 1 Albert Road 2 Telscombe Way 1 Crescent Rise 4 Wellhouse Close 1 Langford Drive 1 Talbot Road 1 Viscount Close 1 Marlborough Road 1 Emmer Green 1 Gooseberry Hill 1 Chadwell Close 1 St Peters Close 3 Prospect Road 1 Winsdon Road 1 Wellington Road 3 Wimbourne 1 Hillary Crescent 1 Dane Court 1 Felbridge Close 1 Guildford Street 1 Charworth Green 1 Warminster 2 ANON 12