Dept Decision and Inspector's Report

Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Planning And Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Our Reference : DF14/0019

Dear Sir/Madam,

RECEIVED ON 29 OCT 2014 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE

CABINET OFFICE Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 28th October 2014

Town And Country Planning Act 1999

Town And Country Planning (Development Procedure)

(No2) ORDER 2013

PA Ref: 14/00373/B Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Highway improvements including re-alignment of vehicular access and parking bays, re-surfacing of pedestrian areas with natural stone, re-positioning of bus stop, installation of lighting columns and feature lighting to illuminate adjacent buildings and landmarks and tree planting Address: Market Square & The Parade Castletown Isle Of Man

I refer to the abovementioned planning application.

In accordance with the Article 10(9) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.

On 23rd October 2014, the Council of Ministers considered the recommendations of the Planning Inspector and determined to approve the application subject to the condition(s) specified below.

Conditions

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

1. No tactile paving shall be laid at pedestrian crossing points other than in accordance with further details submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To best reconcile the appearance of the development with the needs of people with visual impairment.

1. This approval relates BCA Landscapes drawings numbered: 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56, together with those within the BCA Landscapes document Market Square & The Parade, Castletown; BB Consulting Engineers drawings numbered: 42, 43, 45 & 60; Professional Lighting Design drawings numbered 170913-01 & 170913-02 and those within the Professional Lighting and Design document Market Square and the Parade (as amended by revisions date stamped 23 April 2014); and IOM Groundmodels drawing numbered 01, all date stamped as received by the Department on 25th March 2014.

In accordance with Article 10(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)

Yours faithfully,

A. Johnstone

A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary

Application by the Department of Infrastructure for: Highway improvements including re-alignment of vehicular access and parking bays, re-surfacing of pedestrian areas with natural stone, re-positioning of bus stop, installation of lighting columns and feature lighting to illuminate adjacent buildings and landmarks and tree planting, Market Square and The Parade, Castletown.

Site Visit Monday 22nd and Friday 26th September 2014 Inquiry Tuesday 23rd September 2014

Preamble

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

1. Most readers of this report are likely to be familiar with the subject location. Its place names differ in historic and contemporary plans. For present purposes, and in line with discussions at the inquiry, I refer to the open area between the Doric column Smelt Monument and confluence of the pedestrianised Malew Street and Arbory Street as the Market Square (or for brevity, the Square). The smaller but still significant open area facing the other way, to the former St Mary’s Church (now offices) I refer to as The Parade.

1. Both are framed by Registered and other buildings of interest and the whole locality is central to the town’s Conservation Area, itself enhanced by being the former setting for the Island’s Parliament. Castle Rushen stands on one side of the Square, arguably the finest and most complete medieval castle in the British Isles. The distinction may be a fine one, but it is more apt to describe the Square as forming its foreground rather than the Castle as part of the setting of the Square¹. In all then perhaps the most historically sensitive location on the Island; indisputably in the top handful.

1. And of course it is more than that, it is a key part of the functioning of the present day town. The existing carriageways have bituminous surfacing with footways largely in small block paving. The Square is closed to general through traffic, but has parking bays and a through passage for vehicles with permits for the pedestrianised streets. Drivers are constrained by bollards to join or leave the Square via its wider side between the Smelt Monument and the Castle grounds.

1. Vehicular traffic, including buses, passes along Castle Street and through the Parade to and from Queen Street. There are bus stops either side of The Parade, with parking bays behind one of them. Though not marked out it is also possible to stop outside the Co-op store.

1. A pedestrian thoroughfare, George Lane, emerges onto the Square between The George Hotel and Co-op, in the general vicinity of the Smelt Monument. It was refurbished last year as a pilot project for the more extensive works now being proposed. Approval was granted by the Council of Ministers following a favourable assessment by me. (PA 12/01243/B)

1. The current proposals would pave the whole Square, mainly without raised kerbs, using Carlow stone, similar to that in the pilot project other than in seeking to minimise exposed fossils. It would incorporate a through vehicular route for permit

¹ I claim no originality for this observation; it features in a 1971 work by Gordon Cullen, a doyen of townscape appraisal.

holding vehicles, with parking bays at right angles to either side. Drivers would be constrained to join or leave the Square between the Smelt Monument and the frontage including the Co-op, George Lane and the Hotel. The parking bays would be flexibly available. In everyday use there would be 17 bays (including 2 for people with disability). On occasions, the 8 general bays on the side towards the Castle would be taken out of use, extending pedestrianism. For major events all could be taken out of use, providing complete pedestrianism. The vehicular route and the 9 more permanent bays, alongside the footway and fronting buildings, would have a mechanical finish. The remaining area, including the less permanent 8 bays, would have a flame finish, with removable bollards separating these bays from the rest of the Square. The kerbs and channels would be bush hammered. In all cases, however, the underlying stone would be the same.

1. The Parade would retain a bituminous surfaced carriageway, reflecting its continued role as a through traffic route, but with substantially widened pedestrian areas either side, again in Carlow stone flame finish paving and bush hammered kerbs and channels. Parking bays would be retained on the eastern side, as now behind the bus bay. Informal stopping outside the Co-op would no longer be possible.

1. These major works would be accompanied by new street furniture, including seats and cycle stands, tree planting and improved soil husbandry for existing trees, together with new lighting. As well as the large scale design drawings, an overall impression of the proposals is illustrated in the document Market Square & The Parade, Castletown (March 2014 BCA Landscape).

1. The application is by the Department of Infrastructure supported by design consultants and the Castletown Town Commissioners who have been actively engaged throughout. To avoid repetition, I shall summarise these supportive representations jointly as those of the Promoters. The Planning Authority representations are broadly supportive but quite separate from those of the Promoters and accordingly I summarise them separately. The proposals are opposed, at least as they currently stand, by Mr Tony Brown OBE, former Chief Minister,² and by Mr Jeremy Ludford-Brooks, both Castletown residents.

1. The nature of the application, aimed at public realm regeneration, with similar aims motivating the objectors, led me to conduct the inquiry hearing differently from the usual format. Rather than hearing each party in turn present their case, and have it cross examined by others, I invited a constructive discussion of the various issues in turn and I am grateful to all participants for their helpful response to this format.

Gist of the representations by the Promoters

Process

1. The Castletown Regeneration Committee was formed in 2009, then chaired by Mr Brown, under the Government’s Town and Village Regeneration Scheme. The Committee has a wide membership, including the Commissioners, Castletown Heritage and Castletown Chamber of Commerce, with support and advice from Manx National Heritage. They appointed Ashley Pettit Architects and Costain Heritage in 2010 to undertake public consultation and prepare concepts. Extensive consultation – online, face to face, focus groups and evening meetings – led to revisions and further consultation. There was strong support for outline proposals focused on improved town centre links, shared pedestrian/vehicular spaces, pedestrian routes, parking and environmental improvements. The Regeneration Committee agreed to

² In which capacity he chaired the panel that appointed me as a planning inspector to serve on the Island. AL

2

progress proposals, using George Lane as the pilot project. This current application is the town’s main regeneration scheme.

1. DoI officers drew up options. A balance was sought between supporting tourism and the local economy; protecting and enhancing heritage; enhancing pedestrian facilities; ensuring the safe, efficient movement of vehicles; parking provision; value for public expenditure; addressing the needs of nearby residents and taking account of views by the wider public.

1. Responses to the pilot project were mainly favourable, with negative comment mostly directed to the deliberate inclusion of exposed fossils in the flag paving. This would be omitted in the current proposals, although in other regards the materials are similar. Detailed proposals were displayed for public comment late in 2013. Following this, the Commissioners, Regeneration Committee and Chamber of Commerce confirmed their support. One of nine Commissioners voted against proceeding, seeking higher priority to the shopping streets rather than the Square, retention of existing lamps and no loss of parking.

Existing situation

1. As things stand, although surrounded by important historic buildings, the public realm is poor with unfitting expanses of tarmac, and pedestrians pushed to the edges. Features such as the Smelt Monument, Sundial and War Memorial are lost amongst cars and tarmac. Bollards and other street furniture clutter the way to the pedestrianised Arbory and Malew Streets and their fronting shops.

Proposals

Introduction

1. The scheme strikes a balance between improved vehicular accessibility and better pedestrian provision while retaining flexible parking provision. It would strengthen the link to the coach park and improve the setting of the Castle. There is incredible potential for a high quality public space, celebrating and positively framing the buildings, including the Castle, as well as other local features. The scheme would replace poor quality public realm with one of high quality; attractive and safe for pedestrians, while addressing parking, traffic and servicing. It would make the town a more attractive place to visit, improve the setting of Castle Rushen, Registered buildings and the Conservation Area.

The Square

1. Complete pedestrianisation of the Square is impracticable, but it would become a largely single level, stone paved space, designed to facilitate events and celebrations but also otherwise accommodating some short stay car parking, service access and the passage of shoppers or visitors on foot. As in the pilot scheme, the principal hard surface would be Carlow stone, with contrasting finishes to distinguish vehicular and pedestrian spaces while achieving a strong consistency in colour and texture. Bush hammered finish for kerbs/channels, mechanical finish for parking areas and flame slabs for pedestrian areas. Carlow stone, from Ireland, is a high quality material in keeping with the surroundings, sustainably and economically sourced, relevant to limestone historically used and quarried locally, a classic backcloth with added interest on closer inspection. The proposal strikes the right balance without visually splitting up the Square. No change is proposed regarding the George Lane junction, where vehicular access would continue to be constrained by bollards.

3

1. The generally level layout and removable street furniture, such as bollards and seats, would offer flexible usage for a variety of events, although a kerb-line between parking bays and the footway would be retained to prevent vehicles encroaching. The service access, drop-bollards system would be retained, improved by the removal of clutter and by tree planting in currently ‘dead spaces’. The intended street furniture is suitable for the scheme; so is the lighting, which would introduce consistency and enhance the centre particularly in the evenings.

1. Five new trees are proposed, common Alder (Alnus glutinosa), resilient in a coastal locality and of appropriate ultimate size. These would improve the appearance of the controlled access to the pedestrianised streets. Each would be planted in pits designed to allow growth, with paving taken close the trunk, but without root incursion into buried services. Existing retained mature trees would have porous resin-bound surrounds, increasing rainwater to their roots. Two relatively small trees, of insignificant landscape value, would be removed in the vicinity of four of those to be planted.

1. Taking account of consultations, the Square would include 17 parking spaces, 6 fewer than now, reconfigured to minimise their extent and that for servicing while maximising pedestrian space. Balancing such benefits with traffic and parking required careful consideration. Removing all parking would be inconsistent with the Amey study³; and 9 hitherto reserved spaces at the far end of George Lane are to be re-designated for short stay public use and the Commissioners have also recently provided 6 additional spaces at Chapel Lane car park through improved layout. Overall there would be no reduction, but rather an increase, in publicly available spaces in the town centre, and those retained within the Square would offer more flexible availability.

The Parade

1. A through traffic/bus route must be retained between Castle Street and Queen Street via The Parade, but with an aim to improve its pedestrian environment. The Parade’s traditional layout of tarmac carriageway and paved footways would be retained, but improved by stone kerbs, widened footways paved with Carlow stone as at the Square, a new wearing course to the carriageway, with new street furniture and lighting again coordinated with that proposed for the Square. The bus stop on the northeastern side would be repositioned to provide a shelter better aligned for boarding, and six of the existing 7 car parking bays there retained behind the bus stand.

1. The proposed layout also strikes the right balance between pedestrian use and vehicular traffic. The Parade’s existing carriageway is extremely wide but for through traffic, including buses, there is a pinch point joining Queen Street. The carriageway retained adjacent to and east of the Smelt Monument would be no less than that along Castle Street, with additional provision to allow for vehicles turning into the Square. The layout would make vehicular access from the Parade into the Square slightly more difficult from the Castle Street direction but slightly easier in the opposite direction. The reduced access width should help signal to drivers that they are entering a space, unlike now, where pedestrians may be expected.

³ Castletown Town Centre Parking Study and Parking Policy Development Options (February 2013)

4

The Planning Authority

Process

1. The authority made little comment regarding process.

Existing situation

1. The Conservation Officer comments that the locality evolved over a considerable time, with various iterations. Early photographs show wide open space without kerbs, cobbles or the like. At some point between the 1830s and 1890s, pavements were formed, apparently in cobbles, the final vestiges of which remain around Compton House, Castle Street. Any sense of these historic finishes were lost in the late 1990s/early 2000s to tarmac, Pooil Vaaish⁴ kerbing and Marshalls Tegular interlocking paving – these last being widespread in the UK, offering little sense of place. Similarly, street furniture such as lighting columns and bollards evolved. Photographs from the 1890s suggest gas lighting on posts. Currently there is a diverse range of light fittings and mountings.

The Proposals

1. The critical issue is whether the scheme would be visually acceptable both in itself and in relation to adjoining Registered buildings and the wider Conservation Area; and whether it would have an adverse effect on car parking and traffic. Existing trees originated in the late 19C and would be better managed as a consequence of the works. It is understood that the application seeks to open views of the Castle, lessen the impact from cars, make flexible parking provision and offer a space suitable for events such as markets, traditional to this location. The colour palette, of grey tones, would pick up on natural limestone found in the area. Uplighting would enhance adjoining Registered buildings.

Gist of the representations by Mr Brown

Process

1. The location’s paramount importance, but with few people living immediately close by, means that Castletown residents generally should be afforded interested party status. The application also, at the very least, raises “considerations of general importance to the Island” warranting determination under Section 11(1) and (2) (rather than 11(3)) of the 1999 Act, and its consideration by the Council of Ministers should exclude any Minister conflicted by past involvement as a member of the Chief Minister’s Regeneration Committee. The outward support of the Chamber of Commerce belies internal concerns; their first priority is actually to see improvements to the two pedestrianised shopping streets. Indeed so far as he can tell there is a general consensus amongst business people, residents and visitors that the priority ought to be to repave those streets and then exclude motor vehicles entirely from the Square. That could be achieved by vehicles turning between the two streets where they come together at the end of the Square. He set out his serious concerns in December 2013 as a written response to the public consultation, but received no more than an undated standardised reply, believed to have been sent to all those who took the trouble to respond to the “consultation”.

Existing situation

1. Major reconstruction of the Square and Parade in 2002 introduced, for the first time on a Manx highway, locally quarried Pooil Vaaish stone kerbing, akin to polished

⁴ A limestone – sometimes referred to as Manx marble. AL

5

limestone in appearance. It employed Marshalls Tegular paviors, purposefully selected after research to reflect those previously laid in Malew Street and Arbory Street, reinforcing a sense of place. An earlier use of Pooil Vaalsh as paving, nearby in Castle Street and Parliament Square, had been unsuccessful. That too was replaced by the present Marshalls paviors. Previous to 2002, the Square and Parade had concrete kerbs and paving with tarmac carriageways. In his lifetime there has never been any area of highway cobbles. The 2002 works respected the locality’s character as established for at least the 20th Century and into the present one – probably its longest ever single defined layout.

The Proposals

1. He is not opposed to a scheme to enhance the Square and The Parade, but this requires great sensitivity. The instigation of a ‘roadway’ through the Square, differentiated by contrasting coloured paviors, would fundamentally alter the setting of this ancient Market Square and its relationship with the Castle and other buildings. An unwarranted and inappropriate intrusion. Defining half the Square as dedicated parking areas, either side of the ‘roadway’, using contrasting paviors would be a further intrusion. A roadway with car parking to either side and an added pedestrian area to one side, would destroy the historical origins, layout and concept of this historic market place. Even the stated objective of opening views of the Castle and lessening the impact of parked cars would be achieved only in a limited way, as cars would remain in the foreground. He understands the problems with limiting parking provision, but the continued lack of a coordinated, regulated parking policy for Castletown does not assist matters.

1. The Parade would retain and respect some semblance of its original layout and former use, and he is not against the use of appropriate paviors, but never in its history has the Square been sub-divided; previous works have always respected the concept of one whole area. Once lost, it is unlikely ever to be recovered.

1. Moving the new access/egress roadway would create vehicular/pedestrian conflict. The recent upgrading of George Lane has been most successful, but when first pedestrianised it was never envisaged that traffic would pass immediately across its entry onto the Square.

1. Two important local businesses, the Post Office and the Co-op would suffer seriously by facing onto the proposed chicane paving. The reduction in public parking in front of 1, 2 and 3 The Parade brought about by proposed raised paving is unnecessary, especially as those areas are more for design purposes than pedestrian safety. Raised paviors in front of No 3, by the Grammar School car park entrance/exit would cause problems as the width is already extremely narrow. Again this appears to be for design purposes without regard to practicalities.

1. Replacing the existing street lighting with something more subtle and less intense is welcomed. The existing lighting evolved during the 1980s, using Victorian standards salvaged from the harbour area, with subsequent adaptations and reproduction units. At least since the 1950s there has never been any form of gas lighting here, historic or otherwise.

1. Taken as a whole, however, the scheme conflicts with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 Strategic Policy 4 (a) and (b) in relation to its historic setting; Environment Policy 35 in its effect on the Conservation Area; and Transport Policy 6 in its consideration of pedestrians. He is disappointed by this, but the present scheme should be refused without prejudice to consideration of one that protects and reflects its historic setting.

6

Gist of the representations by Mr Ludford-Brooks:

Process

1. Since the plans were made public in their final form there has been no public consultation other than the opportunity to object to this planning application. The general public should have that right as the scheme affects the whole town.

Existing situation

1. The informal parking area in front of the Co-op is vital, enabling customers to make short stops for small purchases.

The Proposals

1. People on foot entering the Square from George Lane would do so directly into the path of traffic, and it is also doubtful whether there would be sufficient width for two vehicles to pass there. This alone would have a devastating effect on the Post Office and Co-op. Customers would lose the opportunity to park momentarily outside the Co-op for quick purchases. The shop would probably close. The contrasting paving would create a roadway through the Square, dividing it into distinct parts, whereas it has always been a single open space. The quantity of street furniture proposed, including some of the lighting, would make it laborious to remove for major events. The scheme would fail to enhance Castletown or increase footfall in the centre.

Inspector's assessment

Process

1. Processing this application under Section 11(1) (a) and (2) of the 1999 Act would require any approval by the Council of Ministers not to come into effect until laid before Tynwald, who could resolve that the decision be annulled whereupon the application would be deemed refused. I draw attention to Mr Brown's submission regarding this, but see nothing in the legislation to suggest that it is something on which I should recommend either way. I similarly draw attention to his point that certain Ministers recuse themselves from considering the application, but again this is not something on which I should recommend.

1. Mr Brown and Mr Ludford-Brooks were in practice the only Castletown residents to respond to the application and both were treated as having Interested Party status, as would have been any other town resident. (The only other third party response on file was a standard technical one by Manx Utilities).

1. It is evident that the Regeneration Committee commissioned a programme of substantial stakeholder and general public consultations in advance of the submitted application. On the face of it this elicited mainly support or at any a lack of active objection. The response to Mr Brown's December 2013 letter, by the Chairman of the Regeneration Committee, Mr Richard Ronan MHK, is general rather than bespoke. However, it does set out clearly the Committee's then position and intentions following that phase of public consultation. That those differed from Mr Brown's submissions is not of itself an impediment to the current application.

1. I have highlighted two procedural considerations at paragraph 37 above, but see no basis for recommending against the application on process grounds.

Existing situation

1. It seems clear to me that the Promoters, and much more so the Planning Authority, rather over egg the pudding in their criticisms of works implemented around the

turn of this Century. Photographs illustrate that heritage features, such as cobbled surfaces, had been long lost and that the pre-existing layout was essentially utilitarian, with concrete footways, bitumen surfaced carriageways and a mix of street furniture. Against that background, the subsequent works represented a considerable improvement. Tegular paviors are widespread, but for good reason, they provide a surface that is attractive, durable, walkable and reasonably subdued visually. They have been laid to good effect, for example, in the recent refurbishment of Mona Terrace, Douglas. Their use at Castletown around the Square and Parade is hardly unsightly, but rather relates this locality to the surface treatment along the pedestrianised Malew and Arbory Streets. Mr Brown graciously rejects any suggestion of a personal slight at criticism of the Castletown works, with which he was involved, but his defence of them is readily understandable.

1. To my mind a more appropriate criticism is that the public realm here is unprepossessing, failing to measure up to the importance of its surroundings much less contributing positively towards to it. Bitumen surfacing predominates, patterned only by white lines and lettering that in other circumstances would be seen as graffiti. Intrusive car parking undermines the Square, in particular, as a key urban space, competing visually with the adjacent high quality, historic buildings. This is particularly stark with regard to parking along the Castle frontage. In contrast, the pedestrian realm is wholly inadequate for such a key location, narrow strips that appear begrudged around the edges, combined with the need to traverse expansive vehicular realm as best people are able.

1. The street furniture, lighting and trees are far from the worst, but are somewhat uncoordinated, particularly around the service access restrictions at the Malew/Arbory Street end of the Square. The existing trees are variable in quality while the lighting can fairly be described as pastiche, neither authentically historic nor attractively modern.

1. The pilot project at George Lane, although modest in extent and impact, is an important component of the existing situation, offering as intended a test bed for the stone paving proposed for the Square. Unless my memory is at fault, I do not recall a stated intention as part of that planning application to feature exposed fossils. Although imaginative – walking on millions of years of natural history – I can see why the outcome drew mixed responses; the fossils are insufficiently identifiable as such and in most cases simply convey a false impression of an imperfection or damage.

1. More positively, the lane now provides a clear indication of the appearance of the Carlow stone, and does so in a Castletown context. Leaving aside for the moment the issue of contrasting finishes, to my mind the stone has a very attractive appearance. Desirably, it is not flamboyant, drawing attention to itself, but a visually recessive subdued grey, referencing much of the local natural stone. At the same time, within that overall grey appearance, it exhibits a rich tapestry of hues and textures resulting from its natural origins, obviating any suggestion of blandness.

1. In all I consider that shortcomings to the appearance of the Square and The Parade as they stand should not be over-stated; these areas are not strikingly timeworn, much less shabby or in the slightest degree derelict. Equally, however, their appearance is in no sense uplifting or complementary to their own historicism or that of their surroundings. Provision for pedestrians is woefully below what might be expected at such a key location.

8

The Proposals

1. To succeed, this regeneration project should be attractive to see; functional in use, assisting the town’s economic wellbeing; and be durable over time.

Appearance

1. A proposal to pave the whole of Castle Square with Carlow stone is a bold one, and within that the intention to define a service lane and parking areas in a contrasting textures to the stone is an important aspect. The Square is unprepossessing now, but could the expanse of stone paving risk the reverse, over emphasising this area so that it competes visually with the historic buildings rather than being subordinate but complementary? Would the differentiations in surface texture, as Mr Brown and Mr Ludford-Brooks suggest, fragment the Square and harmfully erode its defining attribute: that of a single, open urban space?

1. These are important questions, very important given the location, but easier posed than answered. I revisited Castletown again following the inquiry to visualise the outcome on the ground again, having regard to cogent, well-reasoned arguments for and against at the inquiry. I make no pretence of infallibility and would be less than frank if I did not admit to having pondered these issues at length. Immediately following completion, I fear that the expanse of stone paving might indeed appear over-dominant, not least to people who had long familiarity with the existing Square. In time, however, as newness and gloss became tempered by usage and weather, and familiarity with the new Square displaced memories of the old, I believe that the outcome would increasingly be appreciated as having created a fitting location at the heart of this historic town.

1. After considerable thought I have reached similar conclusions regarding the Square’s potential visual fragmentation: this would be a short term risk that could be expected to fade with time. The submitted drawings necessarily depict the different intended textures, as did the earlier Newsletter, and in doing so risk exaggerating the differences as these would appear in practice, particularly after, say, 6 months or so following completion. I accept fully that for so long as parking and the passage of servicing vehicles is to be accommodated, then on safety grounds some surface differentiation would be essential. That proposed is about as discreet as possible to be effective, particularly during wet weather when the textures would be muted but safety considerations heightened.

1. Solely considered in townscape terms, full pedestrianisation of the Square would undoubtedly solve this and other dilemmas, as I think was generally accepted by those representing the Promoters at the inquiry and certainly by Mr Brown. But firstly that is simply not the application before me to advise on, or the Council of Ministers to determine, and second there was also a general recognition that full pedestrianisation of Market Square, and complete removal of car parking from it, would not be acceptable to the town’s residents or traders. Indeed this is what shaped the application as made, following the consultations I refer to above. From my recent consideration of proposals for the nearby Callow’s Yard⁵, I am in no doubt about the strength of feeling locally regarding parking provision, or servicing for Malew Street and Arbory Street. What I can note here, however, is that if ever opinion swung towards full pedestrianisation, there is nothing in the current proposals that would create a major impediment. For now, the more compact parking provision, and especially the removal of cars directly along the Castle

⁵ PA 14/00338/B

Rushen frontage would represent a more than worthwhile improvement in the Square’s appearance and character.

1. I have no qualms regarding the Parade, where the changed appearance would be much less dramatic, but unequivocally beneficial by framing the, resurfaced, carriageway with high quality paving, including the parking bays, matching and merging with that across the Square.

1. Similarly I readily endorse, and commend, the proposed street furniture (including signage), lighting and tree planting/replanting across the Square and The Parade. The only substantial objection is Mr Ludford-Brooks’ concern that the furniture, such as bollards, would be unduly laborious to move as and when the Square needed to be cleared for major public events. This point was fully countered by the design team, supported by the Commissioners, to the effect that all items requiring removal from time to time have been carefully selected along with their fixings to make this a practical and proportionate undertaking for, say, two operatives without recourse to lifting equipment. The proposed energy efficient, neatly installed LED lighting would be unobtrusive during daylight hours and then provide gentle uniform illumination, greatly enhancing the evening and nighttime ambience. Uplighting the historic buildings would be a transformational enhancement. Jubilee Buildings, Victoria Street, Douglas provides a good example, employing similar luminaires⁶. Finally, the new trees, and better root management and irrigation of those retained, would be beneficial while the two trees to be lost are not fine specimens.

Function

1. As above, I start from the premise that, as well as people on foot, the Square must accommodate permit holding vehicles and short stay parking, and The Parade must continue to carry through traffic including buses, while retaining its bus stops and some parking bays.

1. Subject to these inherent requirements, the most contentious functional change to the Square would be repositioning its vehicular access and egress from one side of the Smelt Monument to the other. The left turn out and right turn in would be tight, particularly as and when they coincide. Understandably the operational arm of the Highway Authority has subject this to detailed analysis, including Mr Almond’s computer generated tracking of private cars simultaneously making these manoeuvres without conflict. Reappraising this aspect of the proposals was another of my reasons for revisiting Castletown after the inquiry. I was able to satisfy myself that drivers leaving the Square would have adequate visibility to and from their left, past the Memorial, before proceeding. Also, from the technical work and my own appraisal on the ground, the two simultaneous manoeuvres would be possible in private motor cars.

1. However, as also discussed at the inquiry, I think it more likely that a driver turning right into the Square would pause on seeing a car leaving, until the way became clear. Given the modest level of vehicular comings and goings, this would be an infrequent occurrence, unlikely to cause significant delay to traffic passing through The Parade. In other ways the tight entrance and exit would beneficially reinforce the Square’s primary role as a place rather than a traffic route.

1. Relocating the vehicular route as proposed would bring it closer to the end of George Lane as this emerges onto the Square, but there would remain rather over 8.00 m of clear space between the building frontages and the vehicular route, more

⁶ A scheme approved by the Council of Ministers following a favourable appraisal by me (PA 12/01560/B) AL

10

than ample to see and be seen, with tactile paving (considered further below) to assist pedestrians with visual impairment. There is no such thing as absolute safety, but I see nothing hazardous about the proposed layout. Considered more widely the outcome would function far better than now for people on foot, with expansive pedestrianised areas, increased by more than 60% even with the full day to day parking provision.

1. The Parade would lose one parking bay, but as noted above the Commissioners are making compensatory provision elsewhere in the town centre. The six retained bays would continue to be behind the bus stand, where they would be blocked while a bus is stopped, but this rather quirky little compromise would be apparent to drivers and unlikely to cause significant inconvenience. The associated bus shelter would be much better located, so that boarding passengers no longer have to thread their way past the parked cars. The passageway leading to the historic Grammar School would, as now, be narrow but not reduced by the proposed extended paving.

1. Although not authorised as bays, it is currently possible for two or three cars to be stopped outside the Co-op, perhaps for a quick purchase. That would cease, as this location would be given over to widened paving and the relocated vehicular route. I note first that there has been no objection by the Co-op, or any other business, and was told that the Manager is well aware of the proposals. The Co-op deliveries are from its rear. This store in particular, but also the businesses around the Square generally, are well served by public car parking just at the other end of George Lane, and once on foot potential customers would experience much improved conditions compared to now. In all, I consider that the loss of these informal parking opportunities should not be seen as a significant impediment to the scheme, but simply a consequence of improved provision for pedestrians.

1. The overall outcome would combine a much improved pedestrian realm across the Market Square and The Parade, while retaining permitted vehicular accessibility to the shopping streets and no less public car parking convenient to the town centre. The importance of what might be called ambience influencing people's choice of shopping or tourism destinations should not be underestimated. Castletown has a fine range of town centre shop premises, larger and smaller, though not all trading as well as they might, as well as a rich concentration of historic attractions and architecture. The public investment proposed for its key central open areas, especially the Market Place, can be expected to increase footfall and with it economic viability and vitality.

Durability

1. Limestone is not the first material to come to mind as a public realm paving material – the oolitic limestone of my home city would barely last a winter if so used – but Mr Sewell confirmed that the DoI have assessed Carlow stone closely and are satisfied regarding durability. It certainly appears very dense, and in my experience secure to walk on dry or wet. Materials and finishes for the street furniture, such as public benches have been specified to reflect a marine environment, while the lighting columns are spaced so as to provide for essential, regulatory signage without the need for separate posts. In all, due regard has been had to durability.

Planning Conditions

1. Towards the end of the inquiry I held a round table, without prejudice, discussion regarding possible conditions in the event that the Council of Ministers determines to grant approval. The only issue of note, which I introduced, concerned tactile paving at pedestrian crossing points. This is important to assist people with visual

11

impairment and, as Mr Almond helpfully outlined, guide dogs are trained to stop at these surfaces to enable interaction with their owner before proceeding. As things stand these areas would be in precast concrete, visually undesirably so in my view given the otherwise general use of natural stone. It might be possible instead to rely on stainless steel or brass studs set into the stone at the crossing points, and Mr Sewell referred to an example at Laxey. There was a consensus that this approach would provide an improved appearance, subject though to consultation with representatives of the potential users. I shall recommend a condition accordingly. In other regards, I agree with the Planning Officer that the George Lane pilot obviates the normal requirement for the submission of examples of the intended materials.

Conclusion and Recommendation

1. Over the past few years I have appraised a number of public realm regeneration proposals on the Island, generally though not always favourably. A combination of the importance of the locality and fundamental rather than evolutionary change proposed for Castle Square make these current proposals the most difficult to date. I am grateful, as I hope are the Promoters, to Mr Brown and Mr Ludford-Brooks for ensuring that these important proposals were subject to challenge, and with it the debated consideration that the location warrants. Having given the issues full consideration, I have concluded that the scheme’s boldness is justified by its quality. On balance, and for the reasons set out above, I consider that outcome would enhance the locality in appearance in relation to its historic surroundings, and also its character as a busy town centre for residents and visitors. Accordingly the proposals meet the aims of the Area Plan for the South designation of the town centre for Mixed Uses, and also the Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 4(a)&(b) and Environment Policy 35 regarding its historic, Conservation Area, setting. With no hesitation, again for the reasons above, I conclude also that the proposals would not compromise highway safety and would meet the aims of Transport Policy 6 in better meeting the needs of pedestrians.

1. I recommend that the application be approved subject to the following conditions.

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

To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

1. No tactile paving shall be laid at pedestrian crossing points other than in accordance with further details submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

To best reconcile the appearance of the development with the needs of people with visual impairment. Note: this approval relates BCA Landscapes drawings numbered: 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 & 56, together with those within the BCA Landscapes document Market Square & The Parade, Castletown; BB Consulting Engineers drawings numbered: 42, 43, 45 & 60; Professional Lighting Design drawings numbered 170913-01 & 170913-02 and those within the Professional Lighting and Design document Market Square and the Parade (as amended by revisions date stamped 23 April 2014); and IOM Groundmodels drawing numbered 01, all date stamped as received by the Department on 25th March 2014.

Alan Langton DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCIHT Inspector

12

Inquiry Participants
Mr Derek Sewell BE CILT	DoI Policy, Performance and Strategy Division
Mr Andrew Thomson	Architect BCA Landscape
Mr Paul Bergen	Consulting Engineer BB Consulting
Mr Ralph Peake	Professional Lighting Design
Mr Richard McAler	Chairman Castletown Commissioners
Mr Keith Hargest MRTPI MIHT MRICS	Hargest Planning Ltd for the Commissioners
Miss Laura Davy BSC(Hons) Urban Design	Planning Officer
Mr Steve Moore BA(Hons), Dip Arch (Hons), RIBA	Conservation Officer
Mr Kevin Almond	Highway Services
Mr Tony Brown OBE	Objector – Castletown Resident
Mr Jeremy Ludford-Brooks	Objector – Castletown Resident

^{}[]