Dept Decision and Inspector's Report

Cabinet Office

CABINET OFFICE Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email planning [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA

Our Reference: DF14/0001 30 APR 2014 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

The Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013

PA Ref: 13/91533/B Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Douglas Promenade improvements Phase 2 Address: Loch Promenade From Peveril Square To Regent Street Douglas Isle Of Man

I refer to the abovementioned planning application.

In accordance with the Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.

The application has been approved subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following drawings: No|1/201, 1/202 and 1/203 and 1/204 received by the Planning Authority on 23 December 2013, subject to "Clarification of Key shown on Drawings" submitted on 29 January 2013.
3. The tram stop and pedestrian crossing to the north of Regent Street shown in Drawing 1/202, if implemented, shall be permanently removed no later than 2 months following the end of the 2014 horse tram season, unless the Planning Authority agrees in writing to an extension of time.

In accordance with article 10(c) of the Order, please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final (subject to the possibility of judicial review by petition of doleance).

The Planning Inspector's report, upon which the decision was determined, may be viewed by visiting http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/department-applications/departmental-applications-decisions/ or by contacting the office of the Chief Secretary for a hardcopy (Tel 685204).

Yours faithfully,

A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator

Application by Department of Infrastructure for Douglas Promenade Improvement Phase 2, Loch Promenade from Peveril Square to Regent Street.

Site Visits: Tuesday 18th and Thursday 20th March 2014.

Preamble

1. The application was referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Section 10(1)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 because the applicant is the Department of Infrastructure.

1. Douglas Promenade Improvements are a programme of comprehensive works intended to be undertaken in phases over a period of years. Phase 1, the southernmost section, comprised Peveril Square, the landward side of Loch Promenade to shortly north of Victoria Street, land fronting the Sea Terminal and parts of Walpole Avenue and Victoria Avenue. It was approved on 24 December 2012 (DF12/0028; PA 12/01327/B) and is currently being implemented.

1. Phase 2, subject to this report, extends from Peveril Square, initially overlapping with Phase 1 on the seaward side before continuing across the full width of the highway to about 35 m north of Regent Street into which it extends as far as Villiers Lane. Subsequent phases are indicated as: 3) relocate tram tracks from Sea Terminal to Strathallan Crescent; 4) highway improvements, Regent Street to Senna Slip; 5) highway and junction improvements, Senna Slip to Broadway; 6) highway improvements, Broadway to Castle Mona; 7) highway and junction improvements, Castle Mona to Strathallan Crescent.

1. The current application was received on 23 December 2013 accompanied by the applicant's Planning Statement of Case. It was advertised on January 10th, following which, in addition to the Planning Authority, submissions were made by the Multiple Sclerosis Society, Ian and Elizabeth Bleasdale of Kirk Maughold, the Water and Sewerage Authority and Douglas Corporation, these last two confirming their lack of objection. The Multiple Sclerosis Society sought confirmation that parking bays in and close to Regent Street would continue to be made available for people with disabilities. The Highway Schemes Manager, Mr Davidson, has done so, with a drawing showing 8 bays, 3 as now in Regent Street and 5 rather than the existing 3 on the Promenade. That issue may be taken as resolved at least with regard to Phase 2. Mr and Mrs Bleasdale query the intention to realign the horse tram service in stages but raise no objection as such to the overall scheme.

1. The week before my intended visit, well after the period normally allowed, further representations were instigated by and on behalf of MHE Investments Ltd. The Company owns and operates the Admiral House Hotel, with its associated bar and coffee shop, at the northern corner of Regent Street with Loch Promenade. After initial contacts, its submissions were pursued by Laurence Keenan, Advocates & Solicitors, and principally responded to by Mr Davidson. Given the location of these premises, with two sides fronting the proposed works, I exercised discretion to allow this late exchange of views, imposing an extended final deadline of 14th April, which was adhered to, when Mr Davidson would have the final right of reply for the applicant. At the outset, I also suggested that the parties met, which they did.

1. Laurence Keenan stress their client's general support for the overall programme, which has not been challenged in any submission. It seems to me that the need for improvements along Douglas Promenade, the general approach and choice of materials were endorsed by the approval of Phase 1. I can, I think fairly, also add here that the high quality finish evident in the Phase 1 works provides reassurance in this regard with respect to the current proposals. I will therefore touch only very briefly on the principle of the proposals, so as to focus on the specific objections.

Gist of the Representations

1. The Applicants: Parts of the heavily trafficked, and well visited, Douglas Promenade date from the late 19th Century with the last major works during the 1930s. It has reached the end of its useful life, functionally and visually. The horse trams have been integral from inception, but passengers boarding and alighting in moving traffic is becoming increasingly hard to defend even though accidents are rare. The refurbishment programme relocates the trams to a track on the seaward side alongside Marine Gardens clear of road traffic.
2. Currently there is a tram stop outside the Admiral House Hotel; passengers boarding or alighting have to walk across road traffic and whenever a tram stops it limits and sometimes halts the traffic. The proposal is to provide a safer arrangement, with passenger access via a signal controlled crossing. This is intended to be temporary, essentially a terminus only while trams can no longer reach the Sea Terminal, and is why it did not feature in prior consultations.
3. As now, there would be no provision for coach parking here; none of the hotels along Loch Promenade has coach parking. Any vehicle double parked in front of the hotel disrupts traffic and impedes the trams. The proposals do not exacerbate existing conflicts and will ultimately improve them. Construction traffic, temporary traffic management and communications are not material to the planning application, and would be required in any event simply to remediate the Promenade as it stands. Douglas Promenade is important and busy over its full length, there is an existing light controlled pedestrian crossing only just south of Regent Street and that proposed in its stead offers little or no change.
4. An initial "Issues and Options" public and stakeholder consultation in 2010 led to the overall approach. This was then subject to further consultation, Your Promenade - Your Say, during October/November 2012, illustrated by drawings prominently titled as "Outline". These did not indicate the temporary tram stop which was not envisaged at that time. It was included in the planning application because, by then, it was foreseen that the works would cut across the 2014 summer season for the trams. There was considerable support for the programme and consultations were conducted in a fair and open manner.
5. Planning Division Ltd: the site is designated as a principal traffic route and lies on the periphery of areas designated as Predominantly Offices, Principal Car Park, Predominantly Tourism and Public Open Space by the Douglas Local Plan 1998. It is also within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area and the Douglas Flood Zone. Relevant policies in the Strategic Plan 2007 include General Policy 2 (proposals compliant with zoning) and Environment Policies 10 (flood risk), 35 (conservation areas) and 43 (regeneration). Also material is Policy CA/2 (proposals within or affecting conservation areas) in Planning Policy Statement 1/01. The Conservation Officer comments favourably on the proposals. Douglas Promenade is a gateway into and out of the town; often providing the first impression for visitors, but it currently lacks quality. Its shortcomings would be rectified by the improvement programme.
6. MHE Investments: the Company has suffered significantly from noise, dust and inconvenience during the Phase 1 works, and maintained contact with Douglas Development Partnership regarding that and the impending Phase 2, including reviewing documents at the Partnership's offices. The drawing held there is entirely different from the application, with no notice of the changes during prior consultations, which were entered into in good faith. The application, on 23rd December, was at a particularly busy period for the Hotel, and in any event the Company was satisfied with the scheme as previously seen. It was not until 12th March that the differences were spotted.

Cabinet Office Reference DF14/0001 Application No 13/91533/B Inspector's report

1. At that stage the Company had concerns that there would be insufficient pavement space in the event of a fire evacuation, or to retain its outside seating, which benefits from planning permission (PA 11/01737/B, 24th February 2012) and has been subject to considerable investment. The former point has now been satisfied by seeing an overlay of the existing and intended paved areas, and the second would be by an amended drawing received on 7th April from Mr Davidson. The status of this drawing in relation to the detailed, advertised, application does however need to be considered.

1. In contrast to Phase 1, the parties have now also agreed that the programme of works will be communicated to the Company, who will relay information as necessary and arrange any consequential closures or suspension of services. The Company would expect any variations to be notified and for works to be limited to business hours.

1. Other objections remain. The application locates a tram stop and pedestrian crossing immediately outside the Hotel. This would cause major congestion, and hazard, when, for example, guests arrive or depart by coach, while taxis also drop off and collect many times each day. There is no provision in the layout for vehicles to pass by and stopping on the zig-zag markings at the crossing would be an offence. Moreover, noise and light pollution from the crossing, at all hours, together with pedestrian congestion in its vicinity, would cause further disruption.

1. The application drawings did not indicate that the crossing was foreseen as temporary, to maintain services during the 2014 summer season or, as it now seems, perhaps for only part of the season or even not at all, dependent on the actual timing of the works. That offers some comfort but no guarantee; the risk remains. Temporary installation would also be disproportionate when a siting on Harris Promenade would offer a more cost effective solution; and once installed the "temporary" crossing could remain if future budget constraints curtailed future phases. The application sought detailed rather than in-principle approval, which calls into question how the subsequent, permanent layout would be seen as authorised. Such reinstatement should be a condition of approval.

1. The first consultation period presented no plans; the second (Your Promenade - Your Say) is said to have received considerable support but presented only outline proposals. The temporary tram stop did not feature, which is itself a further ground for objection. Had it featured, even as a temporary measure, the Company would have had the opportunity to object at that earlier stage. On advice to the Company by an established planning consultant, Mr Kaz Ryzner, one option would be to exclude this stop from an approval, providing opportunity for proper discussion and possible agreement, particularly as it now seems likely that this facility will not in fact be needed given the current timeframe for the works.

1. This course of action, together with implementation of the amended plan received on 7th April would lead the Company to withdraw its objections.

Inspector's Assessment

1. As foreshadowed above, the case for the Douglas Promenade regeneration programme, its overall form and finishes were I think firmly established by the approval of Phase 1. The scheme had widespread public support during prior consultations. It barely needs saying that the Promenade, as well as being a key traffic route, provides Douglas with an iconic, vibrant sea-front. It also barely needs saying, as may be readily seen, that this highway is in poor condition, timeworn and at the very least requires substantial structural, drainage and surfacing works. Highways Division are to be commended for seeing this as an opportunity also for upgrading and refurbishment, with high quality finishes, improved pedestrian crossings and relocating the horse trams clear of today's road

Cabinet Office Reference DF14/0001 Application No 13/91533/B Inspector's report

traffic. There has been no objection, at least in relation to Phase 2, regarding the scheme considered broadly.

1. The earlier non-statutory consultation drawings, annotated as Outline, perhaps understandably illustrated the final layout then envisaged rather than any intermediate one during the works. It is also understandable that the Hotel management might initially have relied on those drawings, with which they are satisfied, rather than taken a prompt look at the application when made. Any potential injustice, if there was one, was however I believe overcome by the opportunity afforded to the Company to make written submissions to at least the equivalent extent, and perhaps more, than would have been available to them had they looked at the application when first advertised. And although submitted on 23rd December, when the Hotel would have been fully engaged on its business, the application was advertised on 10th January. I see nothing to criticise in that, and certainly no basis for recommending refusal on process grounds.

1. Nor do I see any such basis relating to impacts from the works. Few people or businesses relish facing major roadworks, but these are required from time to time in the wider public interest, and would be simply to repair and reconstruct Loch Promenade with or without associated upgrading. I note the lines of communication now established between the Project Team and the Hotel, together with a more positive tone in the latter exchanges, and leave this issue at that.

1. As things stand there is a light-controlled pedestrian crossing a little south of Regent Street. On the face of it, this is well located to cause minimal disturbance, having an enclosed but apparently little used area on its landward side and, as may be expected, part of Marine Gardens on the other. From the Admiral House Hotel's perspective, and indeed that of the Sugarland Hotel next door and other premises a little north of Regent Street, the existing crossing location has the added advantage that nearside traffic queuing on its approach does so before reaching their frontages. Whatever the rights and wrongs, it is a fact that vehicles do stop to set down and pick up at the hotels, and this is less problematic beyond rather than on the approach to the crossing. Traffic orders associated with a pedestrian crossing combined with the physical works to create the tram stop just north of Regent Street, would clearly create extreme problems for the Admiral House Hotel in its day to day functioning. It would be ironic, to put it no stronger, if that were to an outcome of this regeneration scheme.

1. As an aside here, I might add that I see the problem as solely related to vehicular traffic: there is a tram stop in the vicinity now, and this day time, seasonal service is surely of far greater interest and benefit than it is intrusive. Similarly, the simple fact of pedestrians crossing at this point is something that might reasonably be expected on a busy main road.

1. But to return to the key issue, the intended permanent layout submitted by Mr Davidson during the exchanges, but not part of the application, would fully resolve the issues. It returns the crossing much to its existing location and removes the central tram stop. The question is should the crossing and tram stop north of Regent Street be countenanced, temporarily, and if so subject to what conditions? This is a difficult balance to strike. It illustrates the impracticality of the suggestion by Mr and Mrs Bleasdale, although well meant, for the whole tram line to be relocated at the same time; while moving the southern terminus to Harris Promenade as suggested by the Hotel would cause a substantial curtailment of a popular service.

1. The temporary measures proposed by the Project Team were foreseen as needed at a time when it was expected that Phase 2 would follow Phase 1 in the earlier part of 2014 and therefore conflict with the tram season. It appears more likely now that Phase 2 would not start until, say, August, in which case the overran with

Cabinet Office Reference DF14/0001 Application No 13/91533/8 Inspector's report

the tram season could be no more than a few weeks, and works might be programmed around the existing stop until the end of the season.

1. If practicable and safe, that would be the ideal solution, and would avoid nugatory public expenditure. However, if it proved impracticable, perhaps by compromising safety, then my own view is that the Project Team should have the option to implement the temporary measure, in the wider public interest served by the overall scheme, albeit undesirably at considerable inconvenience to a substantial local business and its customers. I shall recommend that this element of the project be granted temporary approval only, so that if implemented there would be a requirement regarding its removal. In the event that the Project Team decide not to implement the temporary measures, I see no problem from the perspective of planning control were they to proceed directly to the layout submitted during the current exchanges: this would effectively retain the existing crossing point and involve works that could be carried out by the Highway Authority under its own powers but within the scope of Phase 2 as a whole. I suggest that the temporary period expires two months after the end of the tram season, in order to facilitate removal, subject to review by the Planning Authority.

1. Subject to these important, but detailed considerations I have no doubt that Phase 2 as a whole would greatly enhance the appearance and character of this part of Loch Promenade and adjacent length of Regent Street, within the Conservation Area. The aims of Environment Policies 35 and 43 would be fully met, as would be the relevant criteria in General Policy 2. The scheme has no effect on flood risk and thereby complies with Environment Policy 10.

Recommendations

1. I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions. The clarification referred to in Condition 2 simply corrects a colour coding and has no consequential effect.

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

1. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in accordance with the following drawings: No 11/201, 11/202 and 11/203 and 11/204 received the by Planning Authority on 23 December 2013, subject to "Clarification of Key shown on Drawings" submitted on 29 January 2013.

1. The tram stop and pedestrian crossing to the north of Regent Street shown in Drawing 11/202, if implemented, shall be permanently removed no later than 2 months following the end of the 2014 horse tram season, unless the Planning Authority agrees in writing to an extension of time.

Alan Langton

Inspector