Dept Decision and Inspector's Report

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

CHIEF SECRETARY Mr Will Greenhow ACMA

17 August 2015

Our Reference : DF15/0003

Planning Secretary Planning and Building Control Division Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Dear Sir/Madam,

PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL RECEIVED ON 19 AUG 2015 DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Town And Country Planning Act 1999

Town And Country Planning (Development Procedure)

(No2) ORDER 2013

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 the 6th August 2015, the Council of Ministers considered the recommendations of the Planning Inspector and determined to approve the application subject to the conditions specified below.

Conditions of Approval

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.

Applicant:	Strategy, Policy And Performance Division
Proposal:	Reconstruction of the highway and footpaths, drainage, services, street lighting, street furniture and signage
Address	Market Place: Douglas Street To Michael Street: Michael Street To Orry Lane Peel Isle Of Man

1. No development shall commence until a schedule of the materials and finishes to be used, including the surfacing and walling materials, and samples of these materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

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 Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary

Application By The Department Of Infrastructure For Planning Approval For Reconstruction Of Highway And Footpaths, Drainage, Services, Street Lighting, Street Furniture And Signage At Market Place, Douglas Street To Michael Street, Michael Street To Orry Lane, Peel, Isle Of Man

Case Reference: DF15/0003<br>Planning Application: 15/00075/B

Introduction

1. As the Department of Infrastructure is the applicant and has an interest in the site, this application has been referred to the Council of Ministers for determination pursuant to Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013. The transitional provisions in the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015 provide that the Council of Ministers should continue to deal with this application. I have been appointed to consider the application and to make this report. I inspected the site on 15 June 2015, and I held an inquiry into the application on 17 June. Appearances at the inquiry are listed at the end of this report. As Mr D Sewell who appeared for Peel Town Commissioners had until recently been employed by the Department, and had worked on this scheme, he also provided some information at the inquiry based on his former role.
2. This report provides brief descriptions of the site and the proposal, summaries of a Statement of Case on behalf of the applicant and a planning statement from the Planning and Building Control Directorate, and details of material points in the responses made to consultations. It continues with my assessment, conclusions and recommendation.

The Site And Surroundings And The Proposed Development

1. The application site mainly comprises roads and footpaths located in the Peel Conservation Area. It includes Market Place, a length of Douglas Street from Market Place to a point close to the junction with Michael Street, and a length of Michael Street from that junction to the junction with Orry Lane. The site incorporates an area on the east side of the Market Place, including the public conveniences.
2. The proposal is a repaving scheme, and would include:

• granite sett paving along Michael Street, with stone paving to the footways with integral recessed pavement lights, and new street lights at the corners with Orry Lane and Douglas Street;
• the stone paving would be continued along the footways of Douglas Street, with the carriageway there finished in tarmacadam with a buff-coloured grip finish, and with a new street light at the corner with Red Lane and an illuminated bollard alongside the bank ATM on the north east side;
• within Market Place the parking spaces in front of the Manx Wildlife Trust ("MWT") shop would be removed, and the surfacing would demarcate specific routes for traffic, denoted by the use of granite setts for the carriageways at the northern end of the Market Place and stone paving for the footways and other areas for pedestrian use; the carriageway in the southern part of the Market Place would have a tarmacadam finish with a buff-coloured grip finish; car parking spaces would be provided on both sides of the road in front of the public conveniences - on the south east side these would be at right angles to the carriageway, and on the north west side the spaces would be parallel with the carriageway; 2 other parallel parking spaces are shown on the east side of the northern part of Market Place, with another 2 such spaces to the east side of Market Street as it joins Market Place;
• crossing points would be defined by flat granite kerbs and setts, to match the main paving but of a different size; these would not form ramps but would be flush with the rest of the road surface;

• the wall around the part of St Peter's Church to the west of Market Place would be removed, and a new entrance to the church site would be created with stone steps and a stone paved ramp; new stone paving would extend a short distance into the church site; new information/display boards and litter bins would be introduced at both sides of the stepped feature;
• the entrance to the public car park to the north of the public conveniences would be closed; a new planter would be provided in the position of that access, with a 1.8 m screen on its rear edge with "potential as a public art display"; a longer screen of similar height, and with the same stated potential, would be erected close to the rear of the footway to the south of the public conveniences as a screen to the car park;
• a further planters would be located on a new area of stone paving to the east side of Patrick Street and to the south of the remaining entrance to the public car park from Market Place, with another planter on the opposite (northern) side of that car park entrance; these planters would have low stone perimeter walls, including capping stones in a form to facilitate use as seating, and incorporating linear lighting down from these capping stones;
• 2 L-shaped seating benches of stone construction would be sited on a built-out section of stone paving in front of the MWT shop, incorporating similar linear feature lighting;
• new side entrances would be created to the shelter/waiting area at the front of the public conveniences building; due to the proposed parking spaces there would be no footway remaining in front of that building, and so the footway would pass through these new entrances;
• there would be new lighting within Market Place, including new street lights, various recessed pavement lights, and 3 illuminated bollards to the north side of the car park entrance; all lighting would be LED; the street lighting columns would be of a contemporary design, comprising only vertical poles with integral lighting and no projecting lantern elements;
• a scheme of road signage, comprising a total of 24 signs including one-way direction signs and disc parking zone signs, some pole mounted and others mounted on street lighting columns.

Case On Behalf Of The Applicant - Department Of Infrastructure

The main points made in this statement and at the inquiry are:

1. The site is in the Conservation Area and is bordered by attractive buildings of historical significance which contribute to the character of Peel, although they are not Registered. The present poor condition and appearance of the hard surfaces and street furniture seriously detracts from the streetscape, with patched macadam road surfaces, mainly grey and patched concrete pavements, and miscellaneous street furniture, including rusting street columns. The proposal seeks to provide high quality and neutral replacement surfaces, and street furniture appropriate to the area. It would improve the appeal of the town centre and create a more user friendly environment. It would not harm the character of Peel. The existing buildings would be unaffected.
2. The scheme would also rationalise the use of the space, including rectifying a present imbalance which provides little if any community space and too much emphasis on vehicle movements and parking. Parking in the main body of the square would be limited to disabled parking, and other parking would make use of the dead area of paving adjacent to the shelter. The visual intrusion of the main car park would be removed by use of artwork on screens. Highway safety and pedestrian circulation would be improved by rationalisation of parking, by increasing the area and width of the footpaths relative to the area and width of the roads, and by using natural surface materials to provide a natural slowing of vehicles. Only in Michael Street would the highway become a shared surface with no separate footway. The setting of the main buildings would be improved, the grounds of St Peter's would be opened up and space would be provided for community events, including increased public space outside the MWT shop and St Peter's Church. Disabled access to the grounds around St Peter's would be created. The alterations to the shelter would reduce the degree of enclosure and potential for anti-social behaviour.

1. Other points made include:

• the proposed natural sandstone paving and granite kerbs would be durable, in keeping with the Conservation Area and would create contrast and definition between footpaths and highways;
• the chosen materials would match those approved for the Peel Regeneration Project Phase 1 Derby Road (that phase has not yet been implemented);
• stone from the boundary wall at St Peter's, and existing stone coping and granite kerbs, will be reused where possible; some kerbs previously removed from Atholl Street could also be reused;
• MWT has welcomed the proposed seating area outside its premises;
• the only change to traffic circulation would be that the main square would become one-way (from a point opposite part of the new entrance steps to the St Peter's Church grounds);
• one entrance to the public car park would be closed, but there are 2 other entrances/exits;
• Market Place would be more pedestrian friendly and would retain its function as a meeting place; pedestrian safety would not be jeopardised by the shared surface in Michael Street, taking into account that at present vehicles can park part on the footway, even though parking here is illegal;
• signage would be minimised, subject to complying with the Traffic Regulation Act; the Local Authority and the Highway Authority have permitted development rights to erect traffic signs;
• the lighting has been professionally designed; it would complement the landscape design, emphasise the features of the area and pay respect to the area's heritage; general illumination and feature lighting of focus areas such as St Peter's Church would be provided; the street lighting columns would be non-traditional but have been used in similar locations to good effect;
• the reduction from 22 to 18 parking spaces in Market Place would be outweighed by the improvements to the appearance of the Conservation Area and the benefits to pedestrian safety, taking into account that there are 108 spaces including 7 disabled spaces in the main car park; the loss of parking would represent only $3 \%$ of the total number of available spaces; there would be no reduction in the number of disabled parking spaces;
• Michael Street would be regraded to eliminate the level difference between the footpaths and the central roadway;
• the selected paving materials are all smooth, and would be laid with minimal joints to make circulation and shop deliveries as easy as possible;
• the colour of the granite to be used would match that of the existing kerbs; the buff finish of the tarmacadam would harmonise with the granite setts and stone paving and would be more appropriate to the Conservation Area than standard tarmacadam; this surfacing would be durable and expected to last for about 15 years;
• the existing surfacing materials to be replaced are not traditional; the streets would originally have been of mud and ashes, and would later have been surfaced with beach cobbles or slate;
• consultation would take place to ensure minimal disruption to businesses;
• with respect to deliveries, Isle of Man Enterprises (Shoprite) and the Co-operative are now happy with the scheme; the location of the areas used for parking vehicles while delivering to the shops would not be changed;
• there has been consultation with statutory utility providers; there would be further consultation and structural appraisals of adjacent buildings would be undertaken to identify areas where construction vibration should be eliminated or minimised; schedules of building defects would be prepared in advance, including the undertaking of structural surveys, to ensure that the works can be carried out safely and to protect staff undertaking the work and members of the public;
• if defects in buildings are found, contributions to the required works would be sought from the building owners, but this matter would be dealt with outside the planning system.

Planning Statement

The main points made in this statement and at the inquiry are:

1. The Planning Officer makes no formal recommendation but highlights relevant policies and matters to be considered. The site is in a larger area designated as Mixed Use in the Peel Local Plan 1989 ("LP"), and it is within the Peel Conservation Area. Paragraph 9.7 of the LP refers to a scheme initiated in the Market Place which was to include matters including sympathetic surfacing materials, well designed street furniture, tourist information and landscaping. As the site is in the Conservation Area, Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("SP") is relevant. So too are parts of Planning Policy Statement 1/01: Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man ("PPS 1/01"). This seeks to provide "a framework of policies which address the protection of the historic environment, whilst balanced with the need for economic growth". Its relevant policies are Policy CA/1 Identification of Special Character, Policy CA/4 - Proposals for Preservation and Enhancement, Policy TM/4 - Roads in Towns and Villages, Policy TM/5 - Vehicle Restriction and Traffic Calming, Policy TM/6 - Floorscape, Policy TM/10 - Road Signs and Markings and Policy TM/11 - Street Lighting.
2. With respect to planning history, another scheme involving similar paving materials has been devised for a part of Derby Road in front of the Town Hall (Inspector's Note: that scheme was approved by the Council of Ministers and the decision issued on 23 May 2014).
3. As the proposal is in the Conservation Area, the assessment should include whether the proposal would accord with SP Environment Policy 35 and PPS 1/01. It must be considered whether the scheme would conserve the unique and special qualities of the environment, whilst having regard to economic considerations and highway issues such as managing traffic in a safe and efficient way, and ensuring Peel remains an attractive place for people to visit and in which to live. It is also important that the needs of businesses within the town are provided for, and so it is relevant to consider whether the proposed surfacing materials are suitable for a commercial area as well as whether they are visually appropriate. It must also be considered whether the scheme takes account of the special characteristics of Peel, and whether what is proposed contributes to its particular sense of place. Finally, it is relevant to consider whether the works to St Peter's Church are appropriate to its historic setting, taking into account any benefit to the public from its enhanced visibility and improved pedestrian accessibility.
4. With respect to road signage, comments are made which seek in some instances to reduce the number of poles on which signs are mounted by combining signage pointing in opposite directions on the same poles rather than employing separate poles.

Responses To Consultations

1. Peel Town Commissioners recommended approval in written representations, backed up by Mr Sewell at the inquiry.
2. Comments made by Mr Sewell at the inquiry included information that there had been 2 public consultation exercises. The first was undertaken by the present agent for the applicant in conjunction with the Commissioners, and was at concept stage in about 2010. The second was just before the planning application was made. The extent of the scheme contained in this application was related to the consultation responses, and was seen as a first phase. The length of Michael Street included in the scheme was logical, taking into account that the character of this street changes at Orry Lane, and that Orry Lane is a route taken by pedestrians walking from the vicinity of the kiosk on the beach. Attention was drawn to the fact that there had already been some changes to surfacing materials within the Conservation Area since the adoption of the LP, including the introduction of areas of modular paving. The Commissioners were happy to take on the future maintenance of the proposed lighting and landscaping, and were content with the proposed designs of these and other elements of the scheme.

The lighting would reduce energy requirements. Although parking provision is at a premium in Peel, the reduction in the number of spaces would be insignificant, and there would benefits for pedestrians.

1. Manx Utilities drew attention to the presence of underground cables/overhead lines, and requested contact to discuss working practices around these. Highway Services Division made some detailed comments about the proposed road signage and road markings that would be needed to accompany some of the signs. Comment was made that the pole/sign locations were not shown on a scaled plan and so it was not possible to determine if the signs need to be located at the rear of the footway, having regard to the fact that poles should not cause obstructions on the footway. This Division would be happy for the issues identified to be managed by condition. (Inspector's Note: Revised signage proposals were submitted following these comments).
2. Peel Heritage Trust opposed the proposal. It was felt that the purposes of each element of the town had been forgotten. As an example, the Market Square would be subsumed by a traffic management scheme. The fact that the market arose from the confluence of 3 major routes and access from the port should be recognised and restored.
3. Isle of Man Enterprises plc (owner and occupier of 13 Michael Street) wished account to be taken of the practicalities of store operations and sought minimum disruption to businesses during and after the works and protection of the character of Peel. Both their own store and the Co-operative store have to take deliveries from the front, which involves the use of roll cages to transport stock from the nearby car park to Michael Street. These cages are difficult to pass over uneven or ridged surfaces, and it was queried whether the proposed surfacing would be suitable for this purpose. Conditions were requested to ensure deliveries can be accommodated during and after the works, to phase works to minimise disruption, and to ensure additional parking to replace spaces lost is made available elsewhere, as parking is in short supply. The suggestion from the Planning Officer regarding a condition requiring prior approval of the paving materials, perhaps involving consultation with local businesses, was supported. Phasing should be agreed with local businesses.
4. Mrs J Tatchell ( 60 Patrick Street) made written representations and spoke at the inquiry. She is supported by her neighbours in opposing the proposal. It is queried why increased amenity space is required. The proposal would gentrify Peel and remove its charm. Too many modern road signs and items of modern street furniture are included. Information boards are not required as there are existing direction signs. It is queried who will be responsible for maintenance of the planters and display boards as an existing garden on the Promenade is poorly maintained. Removing the pavements on Michael Street would result in cars parking closer to the buildings and pedestrians having to walk in the road. It is agreed that the shelter could be improved. It is questioned where the recycling bins would be relocated and whether there is to be only one entrance/exit to the car park. Parking spaces should not be lost. There should be more than 2 disabled parking spaces. The use of granite setts is opposed. These are not easy to walk on and are terrible for wheelchairs and prams. The scheme ignores the fact that Peel is a historic town, and would not be in keeping with the Conservation Area.
5. Mrs I M Lawrence ( 14 Peveril Avenue) made written representations and spoke at the inquiry. The surfacing materials would make the town centre nondescript and indistinguishable from other towns. Peel's unique character would be destroyed. The proposal would not accord with PPS 1/01.
6. Mr J F Kerruish (The Mount, Mount Morrison) objected on the following grounds:

• the scheme is simply a traffic management measure which would harmfully change the ambiance and function of the Market Place within the Conservation Area;

• the modern street furniture, lighting, signs and information boards do not represent conservation;
• damage could be caused to fragile buildings by vibrating machinery;
• the pavements in Michael Street should be retained in the interests of pedestrian safety.

1. Mr S Knight (47 Ballaquane Park) felt that the scheme was unsuitable for Peel. It should not include Michael Street. There should be a separate planning application for the road surface, pavements and kerbstones, to include parking restrictions, shop deliveries and vehicle access. There is concern about the increased number of street signs. The improved access to the grounds of St Peter's has merit.
2. Ms A Woods (Apt 2, Peel Castle House, Market Place) objected to the proposal. The scheme would have no economic benefit. The "modernisation" was not appropriate to the heritage and character of Peel. Too much signage was proposed. The levelling of the roads and pavements was supported.
3. C and J Alford (30 Stanley Road) objected, citing the paving of Parliament Street in Ramsey as having made what was a historic and unique street into a soulless modern precinct. Peel should not suffer that fate. The roads/pavements should be resurfaced in a conventional manner rather than paved. That would be less expensive. The proposed areas of modern paved brick and granite, the road signs and the floor lighting were not needed. Other alternative improvements within Peel were suggested.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. There are 2 main issues in this case: (i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Peel Conservation Area, and (ii) the effects it would have on traffic and pedestrian convenience and safety, including with respect to the ease of making deliveries to local businesses.
2. The existing surfacing of the roads and pavements presently detracts from the character and appearance of this area. These materials are of standard types, mainly involving black tarmacadam to the road surfaces, with some brick paving at the car park entrances, and with a mixture of tarmacadam, concrete, paving slabs, paving blocks and paving bricks on the footways/pedestrian areas. Save for some granite kerbstones, there is nothing to suggest that these existing materials are crucial to the historical context of Peel in general or of its Conservation Area in particular. Not only is the mix of surfacing materials visually unattractive, it also seems that the surfaces do not have any historical integrity, bearing in mind that the available evidence suggests that at stages in the past the streets would have been characterised by mud/ash, and later by cobbles and/or slate material. The visual harm caused by the existing floorscape is added to by the poor condition of much of the surfacing, with patching evident in places. The harm is compounded by the poor quality, ageing appearance and lack of co-ordination of design which characterises much of the existing street furniture.
3. With that context, the main architectural and historic interest of this part of the Peel Conservation Area would be unaffected by this proposal, since that interest is essentially founded on the buildings which line the streets. With one exception no alterations are proposed to those buildings, the character and appearance of which would be unaffected. The exception is the shelter on the west side of the building which incorporates the public conveniences. Openings would be made in the side walls to facilitate the passage of the footway through the shelter. As no extension of this building is proposed, and as the alterations would include making good and painting to match the existing finishes, the changes to this building would be of no material significance to the character or appearance of the area.
4. The appearance of the spaces between the buildings, in the form of the roads and pavements, would be altered by the proposal. However, the surfacing to be installed would for the most part involve natural materials which would be unobtrusive and recessive in their appearance. The intention to use granite

setts of a colour similar to the existing granite kerbs, in combination with stone paving slabs to footways and pedestrian areas and stone steps up to the grounds of St Peter's Church, would constitute the employment of relatively neutral, natural materials. These materials would be visually appropriate to the context of the Conservation Area, and would not challenge or jar with the appearance or characteristics of the area's buildings, which incorporate a variety of external walling materials including natural stone and painted render in various colours. Although the tarmacadam to be used on some parts of the road surfaces would not be a natural material, the intention to apply a buff coloured grip finish to this material would serve to blend these areas with the remainder. Given the assurances given at the inquiry that this material would have a life of about 15 years, I find that it would also be appropriate to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

1. I have taken account of the suggestion that the function of the spaces to be resurfaced would be harmed by the proposal, but I have found no grounds for agreeing with that contention. Michael Street and Douglas Street would retain their existing functions as thoroughfares, and the Market Place would still be at the confluence of the same roads, albeit that some restrictions on turning manoeuvres and directions of traffic flow would be introduced. The functions of Market Place as a meeting place and as a potential area for community events/congregation would be enhanced, by the reduced proportion of its space that would be taken up by moving and parked vehicles and by the consequent increase in space available for use by pedestrians. The potential for those functions would be further aided by the introduction of information boards and public art display screens, and by the provision of seating outside the MWT premises and around 2 of the proposed planters. Another important benefit of the scheme would be the improved access to the grounds of St Peter's Church, including the creation of disabled access.
2. The appearance of the area would be improved not only by the surfacing proposals, but also by the provision of a more co-ordinated scheme of street furniture, including bins, bollards and street lighting columns. Whilst those columns would not be of traditional form, as they would lack any form of projecting or pole mounted lanterns, they would be quite minimalist in their design, having the form of vertical poles incorporating the lighting elements flush within them. They would as a result be relatively unobtrusive and neutral in their appearance. Further enhancement of the area's visual amenities would result from the provision of planters, the screening off of some views of the public car park by public art screens, and the reduced dominance of vehicle parking within Market Place.
3. Taking all these considerations and all other relevant matters in the representations into account, I have concluded that the proposal would be acceptable in both its visual impact and its effects on the functioning of the area involved. In my assessment the scheme would serve to preserve the character of the Peel Conservation Area and to enhance its appearance. In those respects the proposal would comply with SP Environment Policy 35. For the same reasons, I have found no conflict with the intentions of those policies cited from PPS1/01 which bear on this issue.
4. Moving to the second issue, the main concern raised relates to the intentions for Michael Street, along which there would be a distinction in surfacing materials between the intended areas for the use of vehicles and those for pedestrians, but there would be no step up in levels to the footways and surface water would drain to the centre line of the street. Whilst intuitively this might seem to create a danger for pedestrians, the existing footways along Michael Street are so narrow that the extent of safe refuge that they give to pedestrians is very limited. Shared surfaces of the type proposed are appropriate given the narrowness of Michael Street and the relatively limited volumes of traffic which I observed is carried by this road. The arrangement would provide greater ease of use and consequent safety for users of wheelchairs and prams/pushchairs who cannot make much, if any, use of the present narrow

footways. The evidence indicates that parking in this street would continue to be illegal, and I find no reason to conclude that parking would be more likely to take place if the footways and carriageway elements are at the same level than it would be at present.

1. I do not find that any other part of the scheme would jeopardise traffic or pedestrian safety or the free flow of traffic. Benefits in safety terms would be likely to result from the channeiling of traffic flows into more restricted areas of Market Place; from the consequently increased space available for the use of pedestrians; from the simplification of vehicle turning manoeuvres through the removal of one of the entrances to the public car park and from the rationalisation and clear demarcation of the remaining parking spaces; and from the inclusion of northern part of Market Place into a one-way system. Other benefits to highway safety would arise from the improvements to lighting and the clear definition of locations for crossing by pedestrians. The scheme also incorporates the road signage required for direction and safety purposes to comply with the relevant Traffic Regulation Act.
2. Bringing these matters together, I have concluded that the proposal would cause no significant harm to traffic and pedestrian convenience and safety, and on balance would be likely to be beneficial in those respects. Included within that conclusion is my view that the ease of making deliveries to local businesses would be unaffected. The parking areas for vehicles being unloaded while delivering to such businesses would not be changed by this proposal, and the evidence indicates that the close-jointed smooth paving proposed would facilitate the movement of the roll-cages used in making deliveries.
3. I have found no conflict on this issue with the intentions of SP General Policy 2, which seeks amongst other matters to avoid unacceptable effects on road safety or traffic flows on local highways. Although overall parking provision would be reduced by 4 spaces, that factor is outweighed by the benefits for the safety and convenience of pedestrians. In that respect it is relevant that SP Transport Policy 6 gives similar weight in the design of new development and transport facilities to the needs of pedestrians and those of other road users. The balance of those matters in this scheme reflects the intentions of Policy TM/4 of PPS1/01, which recognises that the creation of vehicle-restricted areas or traffic calming may be appropriate to protect the historic environment from the worst effects of traffic, whilst recognising that extensive pedestrianisation can result in a feeling of sterility. The means of traffic calming through the use of different surfacing would accord with advice in Policy TM/5 of PPS 1/01, which seeks to ensure that means of traffic calming are integrated with older streetscapes without being intrusive. I have found no material conflict between this proposal and the other policies of PPS1/01 which have been cited. With respect to Policy TM/10, the revised proposal now under consideration appears to have minimised the number of road signs to be erected as far as is possible, and no intention to employ double yellow line parking restrictions is indicated on the submitted drawings.
4. I have taken account of all of the other matters raised, but I have found nothing of overriding significance. I have concluded that the application should be approved. I am including in my recommendation the standard time limit condition suggested in the planning statement. As the information provided about the surfacing materials is rather general, I recommend a further condition to control the details of the materials and finishes to be used. It is not appropriate to include consultation with local businesses in this condition, as was suggested in the covering letter to the Planning Statement, as involvement by third parties should not be referred to in planning conditions.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that planning approval be granted for reconstruction of highway and footpaths, drainage, services, street lighting, street furniture and signage at Market Place, Douglas Street to Michael Street, Michael Street to Orry Lane, Peel, Isle of Man, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice. (Reason: 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.)
2. No development shall commence until a schedule of the materials and finishes to be used, including the surfacing and walling materials, and samples of these materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out other than in full accordance with the approved details. (Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area.)

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appearances at the inquiry

For the Applicant: Mr S Prescott (Chartered Landscape Architect - Prescott Associates Ltd) Mr A Lynne (Chartered Architect - McGarrigle Architects Ltd)

For the Planning Authority: Miss S Corlett

For the Highway Authority: Ms H Reid

For Peel Town Commissioners: Mr D Sewell

Interested persons: Mrs M Lawrence Mrs J Tatchell

Title: The Impact of Climate Change on Global Ecosystems

Introduction

Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. It affects ecosystems worldwide, leading to significant changes in biodiversity, habitat loss, and species extinction. This report explores the impacts of climate change on global ecosystems, focusing on key areas such as forests, oceans, and polar regions.

1. Forest Ecosystems

Forests play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and maintaining biodiversity. However, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are altering forest ecosystems. Key impacts include:

• Increased frequency of wildfires: Rising temperatures and drought conditions have led to more frequent and severe wildfires, destroying vast areas of forests.
• Changes in species distribution: Shifts in temperature and precipitation patterns are altering species distribution, leading to species extinction.
• Insect outbreaks: Warmer temperatures have increased the survival rates of pests like bark beetles, which are causing widespread wildfires.

2. Ocean Ecosystems

Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:

• Increased frequency of wildfires: Rising sea levels and drought conditions have led to more frequent and severe wildfires, threatening species like polar bears and seals.
• Changes in ocean currents: Altered ocean currents are causing widespread sea-level rise, threatening species like polar bears and seals.
• Changes in ocean currents: Shifts in ocean currents are altering ocean currents, threatening species like polar bears and seals.

3. Polar Ecosystems

Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:

• Melting of sea ice: The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global average, leading to sea ice loss.
• Glacial retreat: Melting glaciers and their presence in the Arctic are rising, threatening sea ice, which are causing sea-level rise.
• Permafrost thawing: Thawing permafrost releases stored carbon and methane, further accelerating global warming.

4. Polar Ecosystems

Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:

• Melting of sea ice: Melting glaciers and their presence in the Arctic are rising, threatening sea ice loss.
• Glacial retreat: Melting glaciers and their presence in the Arctic are rising, threatening sea ice, which are causing sea-level rise.
• Changes in ocean currents: Altered ocean currents are causing widespread sea-level rise, threatening species like polar bears and seals.

5. Polar Ecosystems

Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:

• Melting of sea ice: Melting glaciers and their presence in the Arctic are rising, threatening sea ice loss.
• Glacial retreat: Melting glaciers and their presence in the Arctic are rising, threatening sea ice loss.
• Changes in ocean currents: Altered ocean currents are causing widespread sea-level rise, threatening sea ice loss.

Conclusion

Climate change poses a significant threat to global ecosystems, with far-reaching consequences for biodiversity and human societies. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can protect the planet for future generations.

---

References

1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
2. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). (2020). Living Planet Report 2020.
3. NASA. (2021). Global Climate Change Vital Signs.