CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE

Olk yn Ard-Scrudeyr

Our Ref: DF12/0028 Planning Application Ref.No: 12/01327/B

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PROCEDURE ORDER) 2005

PLANNING SECRETARY 3 DEC 2012 Department Of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

| Applicant: | Department Of Infrastructure Highways Division | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Douglas Promenade improvements Phase 1, Sea Terminal Building To Royal Bank Of Scotland Buildings Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man |

In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report. In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed persons report is enclosed. On the 20th December 2012, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was approved subject to the conditions specified below.

| Date of Issue: 24th December 2012 | | | --- | --- | | Chief Secretary's Office | | | Government Offices | | | Bucks Road | | | Douglas | |

OR. C. C. C.

Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
2. This approval relates to drawing Nos D1/101, D1/102 and D1/103 date stamped 3 October 2012.
3. Prior to any works commencing samples and specifications of all finishing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details should include samples of all materials as indicated on the drawings referred to in condition No 2 above and details of all of the proposed street furniture, street lighting and other fittings. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Report on Planning Application

Written Representation Case: Site Inspection held on 19 November 2012 Application by: Department of Infrastructure, Highways Division, for: Douglas Promenade Improvements Phase 1, Sea Terminal Building to Royal Bank of Scotland Buildings, Loch Promenade, Douglas, Isle of Man.

Introduction

1. Because the application site includes parts of a public highway in which the Department of Infrastructure has a vested interest, it falls to be determined by the Council of Ministers under the provisions of 10(1)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.
2. This report provides a brief description of the application site, the surroundings and the proposals; background information and relevant policy and summaries of the written statements by the Planning Authority and the Technical Services Section of the Department of Infrastructure (fuller details are available for reference in the case file). My assessment, conclusion and recommendation then follow.

The application site and surroundings

3. The application site comprises of land on Loch Promenade, Victoria Street, Walpole Avenue, Peveril Square and the existing land to the front of the Sea Terminal Building. The application land forms the southern-most section of the 1.5 mile long, Douglas Promenade and is part of the Conservation Area. Due to its location, close to the Sea Terminal, it is a very busy section of the highway for both road users and pedestrians. The highway is relatively wide around Peveril Square; the road surfaces are worn and patched and the services and street furniture are in poor condition. The surrounding buildings comprise a mixture of old and modern structures with a significant number being in office and banking use.

The proposals

4. The proposals for this south section of the promenade form Phase 1 of a comprehensive scheme to improve the whole length of the promenade. The proposed works include full re-construction of the carriageway, including drainage works; remodelling at major junctions; improved pedestrian crossings and footways; reconstruction of the central island from Peveril Square to Victoria Street and new parking layouts. Proposed materials include high quality granite kerbs and channels; natural stone finishes to footways; asphalt concrete hard standings; tarmac finished carriageways; a single tram track corridor and tactile paving at specific crossing locations. It is also proposed to relocate the existing clock tower (Registered Building No 196, The Jubilee Clock - see separate report reference DF12/0030 and Application No: 12/01376/CON); to provide new wall pillars to de-mark the entrance to the Sea Terminal Building and to provide new street furniture.

Background information and relevant policy

5. Following instructions from the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, the Department sought public views about the proposals to improve the Promenade.

An 'Issues and Options' document and process was set up and a broad section of retailers, residents and the general public took part in the consultations. Key stakeholders such as Douglas Corporation and the Department of Economic Development were also involved in the detailed consultation process. A total of 9 options, ranging from 'do-nothing', through basic improvements to full reconstruction were considered. The chosen option was for reconstruction for the full length using high to medium quality materials with the tram tracks to one side and with no central island. This was Option 8. 6. In terms of land-use, the main part of the application site is designated a principal traffic route but part of the land is designated as Predominantly Office, under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. 7. There are two relevant policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 (IOMSP). General Policy 2 (GP2) normally permits development which is in accordance with land-use zoning and proposals set out in the appropriate Area Plan subject to certain criteria being met. Amongst other things, these criteria seek to protect the character of the townscape; to ensure appropriate design; to ensure that developments on adjoining land are not prejudiced; to ensure road safety for pedestrians and other road users and to take account of community and public safety. 8. The second IOMSP policy is Environment Policy 35 (EP35) which states that: Within Conservation Areas the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. In addition to the IOMSP policies, Policy RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) is also relevant. Policy RB/5 states that 'In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a Registered Building or its setting and whether to grant Registered Building Consent for any works the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses'. Policy RB/5 states that there is a general presumption against alteration unless a convincing case can be made and the proposals are justified.

The Planning Authority statement

12. The points made, in summary, are as follows:

• The planning statement sets out the background of the application and relevant planning considerations.
• No assessment is made of the proposed development and the intention of the statement is to define the site and identify relevant planning policy.
• The statement includes an introduction; a brief description of the application site and the application; the planning history (no material applications relevant); planning policy (as set out above) and suggested conditions.

The Technical Services Section statement

13. The points made, in summary, are as follows:

• The prime objective of the project is to reconstruct the promenade to fulfil its role as a primary distributor road. The other requirements are to improve the efficiency and flow of traffic; to provide enhanced pedestrian facilities; to maintain on-street facilities; to promote and enhance the appearance of this part of the promenade and to provide a link to the town centre regeneration.

• The promenade is a very busy primary distributor and one of the two arterial routes to Douglas from the north and South. It provides access to the town's main shopping area; to off-street parking; and to leisure and amenity venues.

• Parts of the Promenade were constructed in the late part of the 19^{\text {th }} century with the most recent being in the 1930s. Although it has served the capital well the infrastructure has reached the end of its useful life and is now in urgent need of reconstruction, repair and improvement.

• Road surfaces are patchy, uneven and in need of re-surfacing and the whole area presents a drab, shabby, tired and downtrodden image.

• The surface water drainage system is only partly functional and needs replacing. Its present condition has resulted in localised flooding.

• The Promenade is often a visitor's first impression of the Island and currently this must be very poor. This sets the tone for the capital as well as the Island.

• The popular and unique horse tram tracks are in need of refurbishment works and there is an urgent need to address safety aspects of usage. There have been 173 recorded accidents over the last 5 years.

• Consultations and an 'Issues and Options' study were carried out and the key points of the feedback have been incorporated into the scheme.

• These include improving the ride quality for vehicles; preventing further damage; improving safety and accessibility to the horse trams; improving traffic flows and improving pedestrian flows, safety and crossing points; enhancing surface finishes and providing a high quality attractive 'gateway'.

• Option 8 was considered to satisfy the overall requirements of the brief in accordance with the consultation process.

• The project has been broken down into manageable phases and will be spread over a number of years. This phased approach is essential for economic reasons, as well as to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum.

• Each phase needs to take account of the restrictions on operating the horse trams, of on-street parking, of traffic flows and pedestrian routes. Events such as the TT, the MGP and Christmas shopping need to be taken into account.

• This first phase is between the Sea Terminal Building and The Royal Bank of Scotland Building. The Terminal Building car park, which is in the ownership of the Department of Infrastructure, is included.

• Improvement works will be undertaken on the landward side of the carriageway but not including the existing horse tram tracks.

• Carriageway replacement is the main priority, but it is also intended to improve the aesthetics of the Conservation Area by introducing high quality surface finishes similar to those used in the Town Centre Regeneration work.

Other Representations

14. The only other written representations which have been submitted are by Patricia Newton. She indicates that she has already contributed to the public consultation but that, because the questionnaire did not give an opportunity to comment of the design of the scheme, these further comments are submitted:

• The parking in front of the Sea Terminal building does not allow cars to circulate and would force reversing movements into and out of the spaces. This would be hazardous for pedestrians moving between cars and the terminal. The present layout is better.
• Chevron parking on the inland side of the Promenade will lead to more traffic congestion whilst people try to park. When ferries arrive it will be more chaotic and the scheme does not take this situation into account.
• There should be at least 3 carriageway widths. Busses will become jammed.
• No proposals should be finalised until a solution is found for the bus terminus. Cross departmental thinking is required and if use of public transport is to be encouraged money should be spent on a solution for a terminus rather than on simply providing a 'gateway'. Because the proposal does not address this issue it is contrary to Strategic Plan Policy and does not address the issue of public transport.

Assessment and conclusions

15. The main considerations are the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the conservation area and the streetscape in this part of Douglas, the effect on road traffic safety and circulation and the effect on the Registered Building.
16. There is no doubt that a comprehensive scheme to refurbish the full length of the Promenade is required. Following the 'Issues and Options' exercise, a particular option has been decided upon and this is the first phase of that option. This first part of the scheme sets the scene for the rest and, in principle, it is acceptable in land use and general policy terms.
17. With regard to whether or not it accords in detail with Policy EP35; the relevant detailed criteria in Policy GP2 and Policy RB/5 of PPS 1/01, the following considerations need to be taken into account:

• The effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area.
• The general effect upon and the wider protection of the streetscape.
• The standard of design.
• The effects on developments on adjoining land.
• Road safety for pedestrians and other road users.
• Community and public safety generally.
• The effect on the Registered Building, its setting and its features of special architectural and historic interest.

18. The existing highways and streetscape finishes and street furniture are in very poor condition and neither enhance nor preserve the character or appearance of the Promenade Conservation Area. The proposed works would certainly improve the character and appearance of this 'gateway area' and the surface materials and finishes, comprising high to medium quality natural stone, asphalt and concrete would provide a much improved streetscape.
19. Clearly this is the first phase of the scheme and there is a danger that, if subsequent phases do not proceed, this new part of the Promenade will end up contrasting starkly from the older sections and this difference in appearance will be almost as detrimental to its overall appearance as the current situation. However I consider that the Phase 1 proposals, in themselves would both enhance the character of the conservation area and would have a positive effect on the streetscape and its protection generally.
20. However, I do have some minor reservations about the range of proposed surface finishes and I have not had sight of any of the proposed materials. For example, in front of the Terminal Building it is proposed to finish the footways partly with 'medium quality stone' (granite/composite finish) and partly with a 'standard quality finishes'. In a scheme such as this the surface finishes and how they relate to each other are critical and if not carried out with care and sensitivity (in terms of matching colours and appropriate textures) the overall result can detract from, rather than enhance the appearance of the streetscape. In this case, therefore, I consider that if approval is to be granted for the works, further information about the precise materials and how they are going to relate to each other, would need to be submitted to the Planning Authority (including the Conservation Officer) for comment and approval prior to any works commencing.
21. Turning to the question of road traffic and pedestrian safety, the proposals in my view would be a significant improvement on the current situation. Pedestrians would be able to safely negotiate a designated and recognisable route from the Terminal Building; across the car park; across the highway via new marked crossings and around the corner leading to Wallpole Avenue and Victoria Street.

Whilst acknowledging the point raised regarding the circulation of cars within the car park to the front of the Terminal, it appears to me that pedestrians rather than cars have been given priority. If cars were allowed to circulate all around the edges of the car park this would cut across the safe pedestrian footway between the Terminal Building and the pavement fronting the highway. I consider, therefore, that the proposed layout is appropriate and safe for all users.

21. There are also delineated crossing points at the necessary strategic positions and I consider that the proposed arrangement at the junction of Victoria Street and the Promenade are a significant improvement for the safety road users and pedestrians. This part of the works has resulted in the re-positioning of the Jubilee Clock (Registered Building No 196). With regard to this planning application, I consider that the clock, its setting, and its features of architectural and historic interest would be preserved and that appropriate treatment around the base would result in an enhancement in the appearance of this part of the Promenade Conservation Area (see Report DF12/0030).

22. Whilst it may have been an opportunity to consider inclusion of a new Bus Terminus in this area, this is, no doubt, a complex matter which is currently still being considered by various Departments of the Government. I do not consider that in proceeding with the phased Promenade improvements as intended, the proposals are contrary to Strategic Plan Policy. This particular proposal must be considered on its merits and the Bus Terminal issue should not, in my view, be allowed to delay the necessary works to improve the Promenade.

23. Overall, I find the design of the proposals to be acceptable and I do not consider that there would be any detrimental effect on adjoining buildings or land uses. In conclusion, on the main issues, I find that the scheme will enhance the character and appearance of the Promenade; that it would preserve the Registered Building; that it would improve road safety for pedestrians, other road users, and the public and that these improvements would benefit the community in general. In addition, there would be economic benefits due to both the improved appearance and the resulting easier and safer usage of the streetscape. I consider that the scheme accords with the relevant IOMSP policies (GP2 and EP35) as well as Policy RB/5 of PPS 1/01 and that planning approval ought to be granted for the scheme (subject to conditions).

Recommendation

24. I recommend that the planning approval be granted for the Douglas Promenade Improvements Phase 1, Sea Terminal Building to Royal Bank of Scotland Buildings, Loch Promenade, Douglas, Isle of Man in accordance with the application dated 3 October 2012 and subject to the following conditions:

25. The development hereby approved shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision.

26. This approval relates to drawing Nos D1/101, D1/102, and D1/103 date stamped 3 October 2012.

27. Prior to any works commencing, samples and specifications of all finishing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The details should include samples of all materials as indicated on the drawings referred to in condition No 2 above and details of all of the proposed street furniture, street lighting, and other fittings. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI Inspector