ref nos: (i) df15/0019; (ii) df15/0022; (iii) df15/0023 · pdf fileref nos df15/0019;...

Ref Nos DF15/0019; DF15/0022; DF15/0023 App Nos 15/00594/B; 15/00598/CON; 15/00599/CON

1

Ref Nos: (i) DF15/0019; (ii) DF15/0022; (iii) DF15/0023

Application Nos (i) 15/00594/B; (ii) 15/00598/CON; (iii) 15/00599/CON ________________________________________________________________

Report on Inquiry Planning and Registered Building Consent Applications

________________________________________________________________ Inquiry held on: 25, 26 and 27 November 2015 Evening Session: 25 November 2015

Site Inspections: 23, 24, 25 and 26 November 2015 ________________________________________________________________

Planning and Registered Building Consent Applications by:

The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) for:

(i). Re-construction of the highway and footways to create low speed streetscape, re-

location of horse tram tracks on to the promenade walkway, re-surfacing the promenade walkway and creation of a cultural quarter near the Gaiety Theatre,

Douglas Promenade, (from Peveril Square to Strathallan Crescent Douglas)

(ii). Change of surface to external footway at Registered Building No 200, The Gaiety Theatre, Harris Promenade, Douglas.

(iii). Change of surface to external footway at Registered Building No 82, Castle Mona Colonnade, Central Promenade Douglas.

________________________________________________________________ Present:

See Appearances Sheet and Attendance lists for each session (Docs A1 to A4).

________________________________________________________________

Preamble

1. Because the application sites include parts of the public realm and the highway (namely Douglas Promenade), in which the Department of Infrastructure has a vested

interest, they fall to be determined by the Council of Ministers (COMIN) under the provisions of section 10(1)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013. This is because the applications were made prior to the

introduction of SD No.2015/0150: Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015 (see below).

2. This report provides an introduction to the applications; a description of the full application site (the four sections of the Promenade and the external areas of the Registered Buildings); their surroundings; the proposals which are subject to the

application; background information and relevant policy. Statements (initial and addendum) from the Planning and Building Control Directorate (PBCD) of the

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) are then set out. The cases for the Applicant (DOI); Highways Services Division (HSD); Douglas Borough Council (DBC); The Isle of Man Inspector of Railways (IR); Manx National Heritage (MNH); the

Main Objectors and other parties are then summarised. The full details of cases, statements and reports are set out in the case file (see Document List). My

assessment, conclusions and recommendations then follow. These are based on the planning merits of this particular proposal but, for the sake of completeness and because the report needs to stand alone, all matters raised by the parties prior to and

during the Inquiry have been reported in full (see introduction to Assessment and Conclusions).


2

3. The detailed matters relating to the submitted Risk Assessments (RAs – Docs 33.1, 33.2, 33.3 and 33.4) are within Appendices 1, 2 and 3 to the report. My own analyses

of the four submitted RAs are set out in Appendix 1; detailed comments by some objectors are set out in Appendix 2 and a response to these comments by DOI is set

out in Appendix 3. Appendices 2 and 3 are as submitted and no corrections have been made. I have referred briefly to each RA in my Assessment and Conclusions section.

4. The Inquiry sat for two full day sessions, one evening session and one half day

session. At the end of the sessions I adjourned the Inquiry and requested the information below to be submitted in writing. The Cabinet Office Appeals Office wrote

to the parties (Docs 38 and 38.1) and requested: Closing submissions/statements. Comments on the Risk Assessments (Appendices 2 and 3).

Addendum Planning Report by PBCD and Suggested Conditions (Doc 29). The Applicant Department’s comments on specific submissions (Doc 40).

Copies of e-mails referred to by the Applicant Department (Doc 28). An addendum report from Highways Services Division (Doc 30). A statement from the Isle of Man Inspector of Railways (Doc 36).

5. These documents were submitted and relevant material points from the submissions/statements have been incorporated into the respective cases of the

parties. Other than the closing submissions (which were meant to be summaries for my benefit and are not included as Inquiry documents) the above are all included in the

Document List. Where points were being repeated or had been made more thoroughly or accurately by others, they have not been reported. Other documents and information (requested during the Inquiry), submitted by DOI are listed at the end of

their case. The Inquiry was closed in writing, by letter from the Cabinet Office on 4 January 2016 (Doc 60).

6. After the Inquiry had been closed, I received a copy of a letter dated 21 January 2016 (Doc 61) from the office of the Project Manager (PM) Burroughs Stewart Associates (BSA) to the Cabinet Office. This referred to an announcement from DBC

indicating that it would not be continuing to operate the horse drawn trams (HDT). This announcement does not affect any part of my assessment, my conclusions or my

recommendation to COMIN. Any Planning application (PA) or Registered Building Consent (RBC) application relates to the land or buildings in question and not to who might own the land or indeed in this case, who might currently, or in future, operate

the HDT. DOI has not withdrawn the application and wishes to continue with the application as submitted. My report had been completed prior to my receipt of the

letter, (with the exception only of the Appendices and various lists of documents, attendance lists and plans). However, in the light of the announcement by DBC, I have considered it appropriate to submit a short Addendum Report.

Procedural points

7. The correct Certification procedure was not carried out in that the DOI initially

certified that it owned the full application site. However, the Queen’s Gardens (QG) part of the site is in the ownership of DBC. This was confirmed at the start of the Inquiry but it was indicated by PBCD that in such circumstances an amended

certification process was acceptable if no person or party had been prejudiced. DBC has confirmed that it has no objection to this procedure. I am satisfied, therefore that

no prejudice has been caused and that the proper certification can take place.

8. The application was made just one day before the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015 (SD No 2015/0150) came into force. Thus initially PBCD

did not comment on the merits of the case. However, during the course of the Inquiry


3

PBCD officers did comment on the merits of the case and I therefore requested that an addendum report (Doc 29) be prepared to cover their professional planning views on

the various parts of the proposed scheme.

Site Visits

9. Between 22 November 2015 and 27 November 2015, I walked the full length of the Promenade several times and was able to note the exact positions of some of the proposed tram lines which had been marked out for me by DOI design team (DT). I

was also driven along the whole route in both directions twice: once during the morning rush hour and once at midday. I walked the Promenade during the evening rush hour

and also noted the traffic situations at the Broadway, Greensills and Summerland Road junctions.

10. On 27 November 2015 I visited the tram Depot and stables. I was able to view

the various trams (‘toast-rack’; ‘enclosed wet weather’ and ‘double decker’); their construction and their braking system. This was demonstrated and explained to me.

Because the trams are not in operation at this time of the year I was unable to ride on a tram along the carriageway. However, over the last few years, during my visits relating to other casework on the Island, I have used the HDT (as well as the other

Island Heritage Railways). I am, therefore, familiar with how it operates and what it has to offer to visitors and residents alike.

Introduction

The Applications and previous Phases of works to the Promenade

11. There are two Registered Building Consent (RBC) applications :-(Refs: DF15/0022, 15/00598/CON and DF15/0023,15/00599/CON). These relate respectively to changes to the external footways at RB No 200, The Gaiety Theatre (GT) and RB No 82 Castle

Mona Colonnade (CMC). Although these were listed as Written Representation cases, the submissions made by parties in relation to the main planning application

(DF15/0019, 15/00594/B) also included references to these proposals. I have, therefore incorporated the cases and my assessment and conclusions into this report.

12. The main planning application proposal relates to Phase 3 of the planned

improvements to Douglas Promenade. The whole of the application site (highway and walkway sections) is approximately 1.5 miles long, and lies within the Douglas

Promenade Conservation Area (DPCA). This is described in detail in the Douglas Promenade Conservation Area Character Appraisal (DPCACA – Doc 7). There were two previous Phases for improvements to the Promenade. A small section of the highway

(but not the walkway) at the southern end of the Promenade has already been improved under Phase 1.

13. Phase 1 (Plans D) included that part of the Promenade highway from the Sea Terminal (ST) to the Royal Bank of Scotland buildings. It was approved by COMIN in December 2012. The Registered Building (RB), the Jubilee Clock, was relocated as part

of Phase 1, and the works were opened to traffic in May 2014. Phase 2 (Plans E) was approved by COMIN in April 2014 and covered that part of the Loch Promenade from

Peveril Square to Regent Street. However, this phase of the works was not implemented. This latest phase (Phase 3), the subject of these applications, supersedes the previous Phase 2 proposals for this section of the Promenade and

includes the full length of the Promenade and tramway from Peveril Square in the south, to Strathallan Crescent and Summerhill Road in the north.


4

Proposals; introduction

14. The proposals include major changes to the four sections of the Promenade (see

below). The works involve alterations to the highway (carriageways and footways on either side) to create a low-speed streetscape (LSS); refurbishment works to the

Promenade walkways and the relocation of Horse Drawn Tram (HDT) tracks from the carriageway on to the various sections of the walkway. This latter part of the works is referred to as a shared space concept (SSC). The sunken Marine Gardens (MG) on the

Loch Promenade between the carriageway and the walkway, which are in the ownership of DBC, are not affected by the proposals. However, the Queen’s Gardens (QG), also in

their ownership, is affected by the scheme.

15. It is generally accepted that the whole of the Promenade is in a poor physical and visual condition. Road surfaces and the infrastructure clearly require to be upgraded.

Over the years the various road repairs, alterations and replacement of street furniture have resulted in what can only be described as an un-coordinated ‘hotchpotch’ of

surfaces, finishes and streetscape features. The walkways have been less affected over the years but surface finishes and infrastructure elements are still in dire need of repair/replacement.

Responses to applications and objections

16. In response to the initial planning application (as well as the two applications for

RBC) there were initially around 225 representations (Doc 20) made by interested persons and parties, as well as considerable interest and comment on a social media

site (Facebook). In response the application was amended by the Design Team (DT) and 49 additional representations, as well as repeat representations (Doc 21) were submitted. Overall there have been over 275 representations.

17. Several objectors attended all of the sessions and also put questions to those appearing for the DOI, PBCD, HSD, DBC and others. These individuals, together with

the other major parties submitted closing statements and some made comments on the risk assessments (Appendix 2). Their cases are reported below and some other objectors’ cases are précised in tabular form. The rest of the objections repeat one or

other of the main points made by those who spoke at the Inquiry and these are in the submitted documents. The Evening session was held to give an opportunity for those

working during the day to attend the Inquiry.

Details of the Application sites and the surroundings

18. The location plan in the DOI Statement of Case (Doc 10) shows the four sections

of the Promenade to which the proposals relate and the detailed drawings are related to these sections (Plans B, full size and Plans C, A3 size). From the south these

sections are: the Loch Promenade; the Harris Promenade; the Central Promenade and the Queens Promenade. Each Promenade section has a walkway on the seaward side and comprises highway on the land side. The whole of the

Promenade represents a major and important component of the public realm of Douglas. For visitors arriving by sea it is a significant point of arrival and its southern

section is perceived as a ‘Gateway’ to both the town and the Island.

19. The history of the Promenade is fully set out in the DOI Desk Based Assessment Report (Doc 12.2), undertaken by Oxford Archaeology North (January 2015). It gives

an indication of how the Promenade was developed (Section 3.2) over a number of years in its four sections. The PBCD initial report (Doc 1) also includes a number of

historical maps of various sections of the Promenade: the earliest being 1860 and the later ones being between the 1950s and the 1970s.


5

20. Many RBs (including the Jubilee Clock, the Gaiety Theatre (GT), the War Memorial (WM), the Villa Marina and Gardens (VMG), and the Empress Hotel) are located on the

Promenade and the HDT has been operating along its length since the late 1870s. As a highway the Promenade forms the main north-south arterial route through the town,

connecting Onchan and Summerhill Road to the town centre. It also provides a strategic alternative to the A2/A5 of Bray Hill.

The four sections of the Promenade

21. The Loch Promenade (LP) starts at what is known as the ‘Bottle-Neck Car Park’ (BNCP) close to the ST and has junctions with Regent Street, Howard Street, Granville

Street and Sienna Slip, up to just beyond Church Road and opposite the Sefton Hotel (SH). The highway is characterised by a very wide carriageway with two lanes of traffic and two pairs of HDT tracks located centrally in the carriageway.

22. This is one of the widest sections of carriageway and it incorporates parallel parking on its western side and chevron (angled parking) to the eastern side. There is

a narrow footway alongside the chevron parking area and this abuts the sunken MG stone walling. The current HDT tracks end adjacent to the BNCP.

23. The walkway along the LP is also at its widest along this section and is

characterised by a wide, open, gently curving and surface-patterned route which is typical of a Victorian seaside promenade. It gives access to this section of beach and is

separated from the highway by the sunken MG. The MG and the walkway contribute most positively to the character and appearance of the DPCA.

24. The Harris Promenade (HP) is the shortest of the sections and stretches from the SH to the junction with Broadway. Along this section the wider parts of both the highway and the walkway reduce in width. Traffic is split into two separate

carriageways between the SH and the GT by a landscaped island. The carriageways continue past the VMG, still separated by raised kerbs in a narrow central island.

Parking is more restricted along this section with the western side being for taxis/loading/buses/disabled parking. Parking on the eastern side is made up of parallel spaces within a 2 hour disc zone.

25. The HDT continues on the eastern side of the carriageway only and shares it with vehicular traffic. It travels towards oncoming traffic in a southerly direction and

vehicles, using the turning lay-by opposite the GT, need to cross the tram line. This part of the walkway section gradually reduces in width. The width is constant up to the bottom of Broadway where the width reduces further. Along this section there are a

number of public seats on a slightly raised platform. There is a Zebra crossing adjacent to Davidson’s ice-cream parlour and the VMG gardens.

26. The Central Promenade (CP) stretches from the junction with Broadway to just beyond the Palace Hotel at Palace View Terrace. This part is one of the longest and narrowest sections. The tram tracks are still located centrally within the carriageway

and, to either side, there is parallel parking along most of its length. Some parking is 2 hour disc parking whilst the majority is restricted to 24 hours.

27. The walkway is at its narrowest at the bottom of Broadway (approximately 3 to 3.5m) but after around 100m it widens to around 4m for most of the rest of the length of this section. This section stretches past Castle Mona Avenue, Esplanade Lane,

Empress Drive, Mona Drive, Castle Drive and Place View Terrace. There is a pedestrian crossing close to Esplanade Lane and another one at the Imperial Hotel.

28. The Queen’s Promenade (QP) commences at Palace View Terrace. The initial section is narrow and similar to CP but there is no central reservation. The walkway starts to widen as it reaches Queen’s Gardens. There is parallel parking to the


6

carriageway along most of its length. Again most of the parking is restricted to 24 hours but a short section Strathallan Crescent is restricted to 2 hours. This section of

Promenade stretches past Switzerland Road, Summerhill Road, Strathallan Crescent and King Edward Road.

29. The HDT continues in the middle of the carriageway which is narrow and only increases in width as it approaches the Horse Tram Stables (HTS) at the bottom of the Summerhill Road junction. The tracks then cross the western side of the carriageway

and travel along Strathallan Crescent before ending opposite the Terminal Public House.

30. The walkway is initially at one of its narrowest points but it increases in width until it reaches Queen’s Gardens (QG) before decreasing again to about 6m up to the junction with Summerhill Road. QG is an attractive grassed garden area and is

distinguished by some of the famous ‘Manx Palm’ trees. Apart from some grassed sections within the MG, QG is the main green landscaped part of the Promenade.

The Registered Buildings

31. The area in front of the Gaiety Theatre (RB 200) is on the western side of the HP and comprises a rough concreted paved area. The theatre is one of the Island’s finest

historic buildings and was designed by the acclaimed theatre Architect Frank Matcham. It is recognised as one of his finest pieces of work alongside other famous theatres and

opera houses in London, Newcastle, Blackpool, Buxton and Belfast.

32. The area in front of the attractive and historic Castle Mona Colonnade (RB 82) also

comprises an existing concrete footway between the shops and the highway.

Details of the proposed development

33. The proposals comprise the re-construction of the whole length of the Promenade

carriageways and footways; the provision of new roundabouts and crossings; the creation of a low speed street scape LSS; the re-location of the horse tram tracks on to

the walkway sections of the Promenade to provide a shared surface walkway (SSC); the re-surfacing of the walkways and the creation of what is referred to as a ‘cultural quarter’ near to the GT.

34. The overall width of the highway part of the Promenade will remain as existing but it would be significantly altered in appearance and character. Carriageways would be

narrower and footways/crossings and the pedestrian realm would be improved. The aim of DOI is to provide a refurbished streetscape that is dedicated to pedestrians and vehicles. That streetscape would be in two parts; the LSS, carriageway/footways and

the SSC comprising the walkways and HDT corridor.

Highway Works

35. The carriageways would be reduced to 2.7m in width with an ‘imprinted concrete’ central reservation. This would vary in width and would be at its widest along the LP. On either side of the carriageways there would be footways and parking/loading areas

for vehicles including taxis. The parking would constitute normal parallel parking as well as ‘chevron’ type parking. The carriageway and parking bays would be finished in

black tarmac whilst bus stops and lay-bys would be distinguished by red tarmac.

36. The existing footways along the length of the Promenade would all be altered and the finishes would range from Granite paving (Kellen), Black Tarmac and Tegula block

paving. The footways would be generally increased in width.

37. The proposal involves an increase in pedestrian crossings from 12 to 24 and these

would be of three types. First, controlled crossings known as Puffin (3 No, reduced


7

from 10 - PCs); second, Zebra crossings (11 No, an increase of 9 - ZCs) and uncontrolled crossings (10 No- UCs). It is proposed to locate the PCs at Granville

Street, Castle Mona Avenue and Queen’s Gardens; the ZCs at Victoria Street, Regent Street, Howard Street, Church Road, GT, VMG, Broadway, Esplanade Lane, CMC, Palace

Hotel and King Edward Road and the UCs at Regent Street, Howard Street, two at Sienna Slip, two at two at Church Road, one at the WM, two at Summerhill Road and one at Kaye Memorial Gardens.

38. Alterations to the highway along the LP would be subject to more significant changes in terms of surface finishes. It is proposed to finish the footways on the

western side of the carriageway and adjacent to the pedestrian crossing points with Granite paving of various colours (see drawings HW3137-P124 and HW3137-P125).

39. This paving would continue down Regent Street, Howard Street, Granville Street

and Sienna Slip. The footpath to the eastern side would be finished in black tarmac, as would the chevron parking bays along most of this section of the Promenade.

40. Within the HP section it is proposed to significantly change the layout. Traffic would no longer run adjacent to the SH and the existing central island would be removed. The area in front of the hotel and the theatre would be re-designed to

provide a ‘cultural quarter’ which would include a curved seating section with landscaped areas fronting on to the highway (see drawing HW3137-P125).

41. Different new junctions are proposed at Church Road and Broadway. The first would involve shared spaces with informal crossings and a Zebra crossing at the three

approaches to the roundabout. The Broadway junction would be similar but the roundabout would be larger. This section of the HP is the only section where Granite finishes are proposed on both sides. These finishes would continue to the footways

opposite the Gardens and the finish would then change to the pre-cast Tegula paving which would extend to Castle Mona Avenue. A mixture of chevron and parallel parking

in this locality would be finished in black tarmac.

42. Within the section of CP (which includes the narrowest section of walkway), the main paving finish would be two tone black tarmac to both footways and the

carriageway. However, the footway adjacent to the Castle Mona Colonnade would be finished in granite paving. Most of the parking in this area would be parallel parking

and would be finished in black tarmac. In places the HDT tracks would straddle the existing raised kerb footway which currently houses the street lighting.

43. The proposed finishes would be black tarmac to footways and carriageway, with

the imprinted concrete providing a separation between the main carriageways: except, again, for the section adjacent to the Castle Mona Colonnade. The parallel parking in

this area would be finished in black tarmac and the walkway would be as set out above. The tramway corridor is proposed to be finished in red tarmac and there would be profiled edging between the walkway and the track corridor.

44. Within the QP the proposed finish would also be black tarmac to the footways and carriageways with the imprinted concrete separating the two carriageways. The

exception to this would be the footpath running adjacent to Marathon Terrace which would be finished in granite. The parking along this section would be a mixture of chevron and parallel on the western side.

45. A new traditional roundabout is proposed at the bottom of Summerhill Road and its three junctions would serve The Promenade, Summerhill Road and King Edward Road.

The slip road to Summerhill Road would also be altered and dedicated spaces are proposed to serve local businesses. There would be some landscaping improvements in


8

the immediate vicinity. The HDT would run within and along the western side of the QG.

The Promenade Walkways

46. The main proposals for these areas relate firstly to the introduction of the HDT into

the walkway sections and secondly, their resurfacing with two tone flecked black tarmac, with the tramway corridor highlighted in red tarmac. The HDT would be a single track only with a passing place opposite the Castle Mona Hotel. The tram tracks

have been generally positioned so as to form part of the walkway to provide a shared surface (SSC) with pedestrians and all other users. Tactile paving is proposed to the

sides of the tram corridor and where the pedestrian footways cross the track at locations along the length of the Promenade.

47. On the LP the tram tracks would end/start close to the TT Café building and

toilets. A proposed pedestrian waiting area is included and the ‘change around’ would occur at this point. The 3.7m tramway corridor along this section would be adjacent to

the walls (with a gap of 1.6m) of the MG. Between the walkway and the MG the existing openings and connections across to the highway would remain. There would be tactile surfaces as well as ‘kissing gate’ railings on the garden side of the wall at

these entrances and exits to the gardens.

48. From the end of the LP walkway the HDT would cut diagonally across the HP and

would straighten out again at the WM where the walkway section would reduce in width. There would be a tram siding in the diagonal section. The tram route would

then proceed on the land side of the walkway, past the Broadway roundabout and on to the side of the narrowest section of walkway at the start of the CP. Along this section, in places, the tracks are shown as straddling or following the line of the narrow raised

kerb footway in which the existing street lighting columns are located.

49. Beyond the Palace Hotel the walkway would widen slightly before the tramlines

split off from the walkway at the start of the QP. From here the tramlines would be set mainly within a strip of the QG and adjacent to the footway. A small retaining wall would be built at the QG Pumping Station. The HDT would continue to the end of the

QG, and then proceed between the carriageway and the walkway, beyond the Summerhill Road Roundabout, and finally across the carriageway to the tram depot.

50. There are no firm proposals for new street lighting, street furniture or signage although it was confirmed that the DOI and DBC are working on these necessary works. PBCD has indicated that such works, with the exception of any highways

related signage, would need to be the subject of further applications.

Proposals relating to the Registered Buildings

51. The proposals for the changes of surface to the external footway at the GT (RB 200) relate to the footways only and comprise the removal of the existing concrete paving and replacement with ‘Kellen’ paving (See Plan J).

52 The proposals for the changes of surface to the external footway at CMC (RB 82) again relate to the footway only and again it is proposed to replace concrete paving

with ‘Kellen’ paving (See Plan K).

Background information

History of the Promenade and Tramway

53. As well as in the Desk Study referred to above, the history of The Promenade is also set out in section 1.3 (Doc 10) of the DOI Planning Statement of Case (Doc 10). It

specifically refers to the four sections (LP, HP, CP and QP) and that the Promenade has


9

served the capital for well over 80 years, without any major maintenance or refurbishment works since the 1930s.

54. The HDT dates back to the late 1870s (1876, 1877 and 1878 were all referred to at the Inquiry). Initially a single track was laid and it became an integral part of the

Promenade’s attractions and remains extremely popular with visitors and most Islanders today. The current twin track was added later and still runs along a central corridor of the highway. The DPCAS (Doc 7) highlights the history, role, essential

characteristics and townscape features of the Promenade.

The Promenade today

55. Today the Promenade performs a dual role along the eastern shore. As well as being an historic seaside walkway, it is a primary distributor route within the Island’s road hierarchy. It is a main arterial route into Douglas from the south and north of the

Island. It provides access to the town centre, main shopping areas, commercial centre, off-street parking and leisure and local amenity venues. It is particularly busy during

road closures for the annual TT and the Motorsport Festival.

56. The Promenade is a major part of the public realm in Douglas and is the most readily visible face of the town. Its southern end is an important point of arrival for

visitors and there are many iconic and historic RBs along its length.

57. Activities along the Promenade since Victorian times have included the obvious

‘promenading’, cycling, restaurants, hotels and public houses. There are also events on the walkway sections including fun fairs and markets. At certain times of the year,

including Christmas, part of the LP promenade is used for parking The importance of this ‘cultural heart’ to the town was identified in the Central Douglas Masterplan (CDM) which has been endorsed by Tynwald.

The current condition and need for refurbishment

58. The overall condition of all parts of the Promenade now necessitates its

refurbishment and reconstruction. This not only involves renewing carriageways and pedestrian surfaces but also the storm water drainage system. The process started with Phase 1 and it is evident that work needs to continue in order to upgrade what must be

the best known thoroughfare on the Island.

59. The DOI indicates that despite its magnificent setting the Promenade in its current

condition no longer reflects the aspirations of the Isle of Man Government and DBC. It is recognised as being the ‘Gateway’ to the Island, and is often a visitor’s first impression when they disembark from the ferries or visiting cruise ships. Its

performance and appearance can be seen as a key facilitator to the Manx economy and it is seen as setting the overall tone for the capital and the Island.

The current and proposed tramway operation

60. The HDT is owned and operated by DBC. The service operates from mid-May to mid-September for approximately 18 weeks and normally from 09.00hrs to 18.00hrs.

There are various tram types including ‘open ones’; ‘enclosed ones’ and a ‘double decker’. A journey along the length of the Promenade takes approximately 20 minutes

and there would be two trams on the proposed walkway track at any one time. The DBC personnel confirmed that one passing place is adequate.

61. DBC informed the Inquiry that it had plans to build a new Tram Depot, Stables and

Visitor Centre at the northern end of the Promenade.


10

Consultations issues and options, stakeholder engagement, abandoned Phase 2, and public exhibitions

DOI sought the public’s views about the options in an ‘Issues and Options’ document (2010) and meetings were held with stakeholders.

There were 452 written replies and a feedback report was issued. In July 2014 the Department carried out presentations for Phase 2. The initial scheme retained the HDT within the carriageway.

There was considerable opposition from hoteliers and town centre traders. Phase 2 was suspended and an exhibition of options was held at the ST.

Option A showed tracks adjacent to and within the highway. Option B showed tracks within the walkway (now subject to the application). Of 792 feedback leaflets 344 selected Option A and 356 selected Option B.

The reasons for choices included the arguments that the walkway should not be shared and the loss of parking in Option A.

DOI considered that Option B had more advantages than A; that re-location would make the HDT experience more enjoyable; that it would be a safer environment for horses and would improve traffic flows.

Other suggestions were made with regard to the ‘cultural quarter’. In May 2015, following the Ministerial decision to relocate the HDT on to the

walkway the concept was put forward and presentations were made to Tynwald Members, DBC, the Chamber of Commerce, Douglas Development Partnership,

Douglas Regeneration Committee, Hoteliers and Businesses and Government Departments.

Relevant policy

62. On the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 (DLPO) Map No 1 - Central Area (Plan H) the highway section of the LP is designated as ‘Principal Traffic Route’. The Promenade

walkway is designated as ‘Public Open Space’. Map No 2 – South (Plan I) of the same Order and which is to a smaller scale, does not show any designation for the walkway sections of HP, CP and QP.

63. The reason for this is unclear but at the Inquiry PBCD confirmed that, for all intents and purposes, it classifies all of the walkway sections of the Promenade as

‘Public Open Space’ and all of the highway to be a ‘Principal Traffic Route’. Historic photographs and usage over the years were referred to and, in the view of PBCD; the current lawful use of any part of the walkway sections of the Promenade is ‘Public Open

Space’.

64. Although DOI stressed the difference between Maps 1 and 2, it is generally

accepted that all parts of the Promenade walkways have in the past been treated as ‘Public Open Space’. It seems clear to me that both walkways and gardens which form part of the Promenade should be classed as being ‘Public Open Space’ and it is on this

basis that I have reported and made my recommendation. There was no dissention from this approach raised at the Inquiry.

65. The whole of the site lies within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area (DPCA). The DPCACA (Doc 7) describes it in detail.

66. The following policies are relevant in the consideration of the planning application:

Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) policies - Strategic Policy 1 (SP1); Strategic Policy 4 (SP4); Strategic Policy 8 (SP8); General Policy 2 (GP2);

Environment Policy 35 (EP35); Environment Policy 41 (EP41); Environment Policy 42 (EP42); Environment Policy 43 (EP43); Recreation Policy 2 (RP2); Transport Policy 1 (TP1); Transport Policy 2 (TP2); Transport Policy 3 (TP3);


11

Transport Policy 4 (TP4); Transport Policy 5 (TP5); Transport Policy 6 (TP6) and Transport Policy 8 (PT8).

Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment PPS 1/01– Policy CA/2 (impact on special character and

appearance of conservation area). Central Douglas Master Plan (CDMP) – VM5 (improvements at Church Marina

Road to Villa Marina/Gaiety complex); VM7 (improvements between Villa Marina

and Gaiety Theatre to the Promenade); TP4 (Creation of Promenade Activity Attractors); TP6 (improved connections Strand Street and Promenade); TP7

(explore potential to extend tram – this includes consideration of providing an alternative mode of transport for the town to reduce car activity).

67. The following are relevant in relation to the two RBC applications:

The sites are both zoned as Tourism and Leisure in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. No adopted Written Statements accompany the maps.

The relevant Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IOMSP) policies are Strategic Policy 4 (SP4); Strategic Policy 5 (SP5); General Policy 2 (criteria (b), (c), (g) and (i); Environment Policy 32 (EP32) and Environment Policy 35 (EP35).

Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) is also relevant.

Policy RB/3 relates to applications for Registered Building Consent and RB/5 to Alterations and Extensions.

Policy CA/2 relates to development of land within conservation areas and is referred to above in the planning policy section.

68. Details of the relevant policies are referred to below in the cases for the parties

and in the PBCD statements (Doc 1 Section 4.3 and Doc 29). My own Assessment and Conclusions cover the main policy considerations.

Other Design Guidance

69. The Manual for Streets 1 (MS1 DfT 2007); Manual for Streets 2 (MS2) (Chartered Institute of Highways and Transportation – CIHT 2010) and Street Design for All (DfT

2014) are all relevant and are referred to by the DOI (paragraph 2.3 Doc 10 Planning Statement of Case).

70. The DOI, HSD and some objectors referred to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB); Railway Safety Publication 2 Guidance on Tramways, Office of Rail Regulation (RSP2); Tramway Technical Guidance Note 2 Pedestrian Safety (TTGN2);

Technical Guidance Note 3A Segregated Tramway Crossing Guidance UK Trams 2010 (TG3A) and TA90/05 Geometric Design of Pedestrian Cycles and Equestrian Routes

1995.


12

THE CASES AND STATEMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Statement of Planning and Building Control Directorate of The Department of

Environment, Food and Agriculture (PBCD) (Docs 1 and 29)

71. The initial statement (Doc 1) includes details of the application site (section 2); the

Proposals (section 3); the Development Plan and policies (section 4); the Planning History (section 5); Representations (section 6) and a Commentary (section 7). The initial document does not comment on the merits of the proposals and nor does it make

a recommendation. However, the addendum statement (Doc 29) does cover the merits and the professional views of senior officers of PBCD. The overall gist of the

statements is as follows:

The relevant considerations are: the principle of the development; the potential impact on the visual amenities of the DPCA and the street scene and the

potential impacts on highway/pedestrian safety.

The principle of the proposed development

The LP walkway is identified as 'Public Open Space' and the highway as a ’Principal Traffic Route' under DLPO 1998 Map 1.

Despite Map 2 indicating the other walkway sections as not being designated for

any development the lawful use is considered to be ‘Public Open Space’. The principle of reconstructing the highway is to be welcomed.

The Promenade would become more of a public space and ‘face’ of the Island. The location of the HDT is less than satisfactory and moving it from its current

position would be an advantage. Relocation is not without its disadvantages: notably the loss of open space. Policy RP2 is relevant and any loss of space could depend on whether the HDT is

considered to be a form of transport or a recreational facility in itself. The PBCD view is that it is a recreational facility and, due to its low frequency of

usage is not, in itself, contrary to the planning designation. But the HDT would have an impact on how the walkways are used particularly

where the sections are narrow.

The Promenade use should not be underestimated. It is the main open space which serves the residents of Douglas as well as visitors.

Visual impact on the amenities of the Conservation Area

The entire application site is within the DPCA and therefore any development requires careful consideration against Policy EP 35.

Despite parts of the proposal having a negative visual impact, it is considered that overall the character and appearance of the DPCA would be preserved.

The DPCACA suggests traffic rationalisation as a means that could enhance the appearance and usage of some parts of the Promenade.

The scheme will provide notable improvements at the GT and CMC.

The works to the LP and HP would also result in significant improvements. The character of the LP and HP is currently dominated by vehicles and the

proposals will create a more pedestrian friendly area in the highway section. Although the proposed tarmac finishes would have a negative impact on the

DPCA, conditions could mitigate the effects.

Parts of the walkways do not currently compare favourably to streetscape improvements in other parts of the Island.

The red tarmac proposed for the HDT corridor would detract from the overall visual quality of the area but again conditions could mitigate the effect.

It is accepted that better quality finishes would be costly.

The work could be completed in sections when funds are available.


13

Street furniture would be the subject of further planning application(s). Phases 1 and 2 concentrated on new surface finishes with some minor highway

works. The HDT was to be positioned on the highway side of the LP. This development is a more radical redesign, rather than just re-paving.

Much of the re-surfacing is simple black/red tarmac rather than extensive use of high quality paviours or blockwork used in Phase 1 and elsewhere.

But overall it is considered that the works would achieve the requirements of

policies EP35 and GP2 of the IOMSP.

Highway Safety

The safety record of the HDT is good but its location is far from ideal. With traffic increases there is likely to be more conflict between HDT and vehicles.

There are also concerns relating to HDT passengers embarking into the

carriageways and crossing roads, particularly near to the ST. The proposed position introduces new conflicts but it is proposed to mitigate

these by various means including tactile paving and coloured tarmac. All development proposals result in some level of risk but it is considered that

the change in location will not result in an undue impact on highway safety.

Policy GP2, criteria (h) and (i) are relevant to highway considerations. Paragraph (h) states that any development should:- ‘provide satisfactory

amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and

manoeuvring space’. Paragraph (i) states that any development:- should ‘not have an unacceptable

effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways’.

Policy TP1 requires that new development be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.

Policy TP2 requires that proposals should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing.

Policy TP3 is most relevant in terms of the potential impact upon the HDT.

This requires proposals not to compromise rail routes; their attraction for tourism and leisure; potential routes and cycle/leisure footpath routes.

Paragraph 11.2.5 of the IOMSP is the supporting information for TP3 where it indicates that; ‘The Island is fortunate to have an historic vintage rail network, which includes the Isle of Man Steam Railway, the Manx Electric Railway, the

Snaefell Mountain Railway, the Groudle Glen Railway and the horse trams which run along Douglas Promenade.’

Policy TP4 indicates that works must be designed to ensure vehicle and safe pedestrian journeys safely and in accordance with environmental objectives.

Policy TP5 requires any works to the network (roads, footpaths, and cycle

routes) to be undertaken in accordance with the environmental objectives. There needs to be an assessment as to whether the needs of pedestrians will be

given similar weight to the needs of other road users as required by TP6.

Other Policy considerations

Policy GP2 need to be considered due to the site’s designation and the proposed

use. These are criteria (b), (c), (g), as well as (h), and (i). Criterion (b) requires proposals to respect the site and surroundings in terms of

siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping and surrounding spaces. Criterion (c) requires that a proposal does not affect adversely the character of

the surrounding landscape or townscape.

Criterion (g) requires that a proposal does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.


14

In terms of the uses and principle of the overall development it is necessary to be satisfied that the development accords with EP43 and RP2.

Policy EP43 indicates that support should generally be given to proposals which will seek to regenerate run-down urban areas.

Overall, the DOI considers the proposal would result in a greater community benefit and accessibility.

If it is considered that there is a loss of Open Space; the two following

circumstances as listed in policy RP2 could overcome this concern. Criterion (a) ‘where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of

equivalent or better accessibility is made available’ and Criterion (b) ‘where there would be an overall community gain from the

development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility

would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area.’

Case for the Department of Infrastructure (DOI):– the Applicant

72. This is set out in several documents. These are the initial Planning Statement of Case (Doc 10) received by PBCD on 29 May 2015; the initial Planning Application

Reports 1-8 (Doc 12 – 12.1 to 12.8) submitted at the same time; the Supplementary Planning Information (Doc 11) submitted on 28 August 2015; the Statement of Case

dated October 2015 (Doc 13); the Summary Statements by the Applicant’s team dated 30 October 2015 (Doc 14); brief statements given at the Inquiry and

responses/comments to the additional documents submitted.

73. The gist of the DOI case is as follows:

Introduction

The application is for a specific scheme which will regenerate the Promenade by reconstructing the highway and footways to create a LSS; relocating the HDT on

the shared re-surfaced walkways (SSC); re-surfacing of the walkways and the creation of a cultural quarter at the GT.

References have been made to various options to the proposal including one to

leave the tracks in their existing position. These are relevant in understanding how DOI reached its decision, but the

application is for Option B and not for any other proposal. The process of determining the content of the application was dealt with by full

public consultation.

It ultimately falls to the Minister for the Department (MDOI) to determine how best to balance the various views expressed, the professional views of the DT

and PM and the overall budget considerations. The MDOI reached a conclusion and approved the submission of the application

which is now the subject of the Inquiry.

The Planning process is not in place to challenge any political judgement and challenges can be made through Tynwald when funding is considered.

The fact that there are so many views suggests that there is no one solution that will suit all, but the common thread is that something must be done.

The application must be primarily considered and determined under the relevant

extant planning policies. The principle of redevelopment has been accepted and the matters under

consideration relate to the details of the scheme apart from any conditions. The main planning policies relevant are EP35 (which requires development to

preserve or enhance the DPCA); policy GP2 and relevant Transport Policies.

The proposals will preserve and enhance the DPCA and also accord with GP2 and relevant Transport Policies.


15

The view of the PBCD officers is that overall the proposal will preserve and enhance the DPCA; a view shared by MNH and DBC.

The HSD has confirmed clear support for the proposal. This is evident from the HSD reports (Docs 2 and 30) as well as evidence given to the Inquiry.

Nothing heard during the Inquiry alters the DOI view that the proposal accords with all relevant policies and that approval should be granted.

The Planning Statement of Case (May 2015 Doc 10)

The scheme will enhance the Promenade's form and function for all users (pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles and horse trams).

It will create pedestrian friendly areas in the vicinity of the Cultural Quarter using high quality Granite and Kellen (granite composite) slabs and setts.

Other key locations along the Promenade carriageway and walkway will be

improved using similar materials. The failing infrastructure will be reconstructed to accommodate future traffic and

will enhance the distinct conservation qualities of the Promenade. The proposals will improve the efficiency and flow of traffic at the major

junctions at Greensill's Corner, Broadway and Summerhill Road.

The overall scheme will create a sense of place by delivering a high quality public environment within the setting of the DPCA.

The proposals will remove the inefficient signal controlled crossings to reduce the 'stop-start' effect on vehicle movements and improve the environment.

The scheme will maintain parking at near to current levels, including taxi ranks and bus stops, and will introduce new drop-off points for hotel guests.

Hoteliers, businesses and the Isle of Man Chamber of Commerce (Doc 28) are all

in favour of the proposals. It will establish the existing and promote new safe pedestrian links across all

sections of the Promenade. It will provide a safe corridor for the HDT operation.

Policy Context

The scheme meets the strategic objectives of the IOMSP. It enhances the environment and brings sustainable transport to the community.

The improvements protect the individual character of the sea front and support its location dependent businesses.

The objectives of policy GP2 are met by enhancing this key public space,

supporting existing and future adjacent uses and establishing a much improved environment for pedestrians and other road users.

Sympathetic use of higher quality materials will enhance the entrance to the GT and the overall character of the building.

Policy EP32 is fully met by the use high quality materials and design.

The proposals will continue the use of high quality of materials used in Phase 1 to enhance the character of the Promenade.

The design will result in the removal of some road signage and traffic signals and reduce visual clutter.

The proposals will deliver a significant improvement to the area and will be a

catalyst to regeneration as well as driving economic growth. The scheme will regenerate a run-down urban area.

The HDT and the SSC will result in enlarged pedestrian areas (Regent Street to Broadway) and a new cultural quarter in accordance with policy RP2.

Policies TP1 to TP6 inclusive are also complied with in that pedestrians share the

same weight as other road users. The Transport Assessment supports the proposals.


16

The scheme addresses the issue in policy VM5 of the CDMP by realigning and improving connections from the cultural area to the retail streets.

This will increase footfalls helping to re-invigorate the cultural area and will stimulate the use of nearby existing commercial facilities.

New crossings and layout of this area will improve pedestrian movements between the GT and the VMG, in accordance with policy VM7.

The design includes numerous spaces that could accommodate public art and

this would accord with TP4 of the CDMP by creating more attractions. The scheme would improve connections across the Promenade facilitating links to

the retail area. Pedestrians will have greater priority in a safer environment. Vehicle users will

have greater awareness of pedestrians in accordance with policy TP6.

TP7 seeks to explore the possibility of extending the MER or the introduction of modern rolling stock. This proposal could assist in achieving these aims.

The proposals accord with all relevant policies and guidance. There would be environmental, social and economic benefits of the scheme.

It is vital to raise the profile of the ‘Gateway’ to the Island after years of decline

and deterioration. These proposals will play a critical role

Wider Guidance: Manual for Streets 1 (MS1) and 2 (MS2); Street Design for All

(SDA) and the Principles influencing design

Despite MS1 being related to mainly residential streets many of the principles

can be applied to other roads. The scheme follows the key recommendations of MS1 by giving ‘increased

consideration to the place function of streets’.

It caters for movement of all and ensuring sustainability for the community, its environment and the quality of life.

The scheme is of good design which MS1 indicates is fundamental to achieving high quality attractive spaces.

The concept of inclusive street design for all, seeks to ensure the quality of the

walk for walkers; that cyclists are appropriately catered for; that bus routes are planned so that stops are key elements of the walkable neighbourhood; that

services can be readily delivered and that emergency vehicles have the necessary access. The proposals deliver all of these aims.

MS1 and MS2 outline guidance for carriageways (including recommended

speeds), junctions, crossings, accesses, visibility, on-street parking and servicing. Again the proposals follow this guidance.

It avoids the negative effects of poor parking layouts; too much parking; too little parking and the taking up of space which could be better used.

The scheme has a balanced approach overall.

SDA refers to streets being designed to give a sense of place; to enhance the street scene; to encourage well-being through healthy and active lifestyles.

It also stresses the need to have a greater understanding of driver needs and expectations and that the overall aim should be one of a total street design concept rather than just un-coordinated components.

MS1, MS2 and SDA provide some context for this phase of the Promenade refurbishment and align with local policy and the CDMP.

The need for improvement, traffic volumes and speed, accident statistics, pedestrian movement and junctions

The Douglas Promenade has reached the end of its useful life both in highway

terms and from an aesthetic viewpoint.


17

Ride quality along its full length is poor due to failure of foundations, settlement, reflective cracking, trench reinstatements, patching and repairs.

The survey of traffic volumes and speeds for the various sections of the Promenade are set out at paragraph 3 (Doc 10).

The heaviest daily used section is the HP (17,451 two-way), followed by the LP (14,187 2-way). The lowest figure is for QP (10,810 2-ways).

Average speeds in all sections at peak hours are between 4 and 6mph but

average 85th%iles show speeds of 28 to 33mph. In some locations the survey indicates that speeds are at or slightly above the

speed limit and this is a concern given the number of pedestrians. Between December 2009 and November 2014 there have been 1 fatality, 5

serious injuries, 42 slight injuries and 119 causes of damage only.

Most incidents are rear end shunts and most of the occurred at junctions. There is a very high pedestrian use and a one hour survey at Regent Street

showed that 310 people crossed at the junction. Most pedestrian movements are between the east Promenade parking and the

town centre as well as the Promenade walkway and Queen’s Gardens.

The crossing points are at signalised crossings or rely on opportunity crossings between gaps in vehicles.

The main barriers to pedestrian movement are vehicle speeds as well as delays at crossings. The Promenade width limits the potential for crossing.

Major junctions are at Victoria Street, Greensill’s Corner, Broadway and Summerhill Road. They no longer meet the needs of users.

The four Puffin crossings all work independently and cause delays to both

pedestrians and vehicles.

The Horse Drawn Trams

The HDTs have operated since the late 1870s, well before the motor car. The car is now more dominant and passenger access to the trams in the centre

of the carriageway has become more hazardous.

Whilst accidents are rare it is becoming more difficult to defend this practice. The proposals will remove this conflict making access to the trams safer as well

as enhancing the experience for both tram users and onlookers. There is also conflict between the trams and the controlled pedestrian crossings,

junctions and uncontrolled crossings.

The HDT affects traffic flows in the narrower sections of the highway where larger vehicles cannot pass in the carriageway. (See Appendix C Doc 10)

On-Street Parking

The Promenade currently provides parking on both sides of the carriageway. In the main it is parallel parking but there is some angled parking on the

seaward side of LP, close to the main shopping area. The angled parking causes problems with longer vehicles and those with tow

bars overhanging the pedestrian footways. The proposal will overcome this issue (see Appendix C, plate 8, Doc 10). The Puffin crossings to this section are located adjacent to the street links to the

shopping area and are mainly used by motorists who have parked. Overnight coach parking is provided at the Sea Terminal (ST), the War Memorial

(WM), The Palace Hotel (PH) and King Edward Road (KER). The Department considers that overnight parking at locations other than the ST

and KER to be unsightly.


18

Evolution of preferred design

The scheme including construction, alignment and layout is summarised in

Chapter 5 of Doc 10, as is the proposed enhancement to the cultural quarter. With regard to the HDT one single track with passing places is proposed.

Where the track crosses the highway it would comply with the guidance stipulated by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR).

DBC are committed to running a service from May to September and see it

purely as a tourist service rather than one for commuters. A siding will be constructed near to the WM so that the trams can operate

between Derby Castle and the WM during the TT festival. The trams will share the walkway with pedestrians, cyclists and children and the

tram corridor will be highlighted using a contrasting red tarmac.

The boundary of the corridor will be marked by tactile paving. The gauge of the new track would allow future use by the MER.

Low-Speed Streetscape (LSS)

The design is based on a low speed and shared space environment A report by Lord Holmes of Richmond in 2015 (included with Mr David Quirk’s

submissions) criticises such schemes. DOI gave full consideration to the concerns and incorporated specific solutions to

address these matters (particularly crossings and higher kerbs). The proposal now provides all the safety and efficiency benefits of a LSS whilst

accommodating the needs and requirements of all potential users. Successful examples of shared streetscapes include Fishergate in Preston,

Exhibition Road London and Poyton Village in Cheshire.

These have adapted techniques to influence drivers; to moderate speeds and to achieve advantages over conventional signal-controlled traffic flows.

Busy intersections work more efficiently at lower speeds; these enhance the environment with advantages for businesses and improve safety.

The scheme will create distinctive places at junctions and key intersections. It

will restore the Promenade to being an attractive frontispiece. The proposals have been subject to careful quality and road safety audits.

The scheme has been designed so that it is sympathetic to the Promenade’s arterial route function.

The concept does not lend itself to traditional modelling techniques.

Instead, Micro simulation traffic modelling which has the ability to capture the feature of the proposals has been used (see below and Docs 12.7 and 12.8).

Traffic Modelling (TM) and the base traffic model (BTM)

S-Paramics Microsimulation (SPM) is a software programme that is designed to predict traffic impacts of traffic flow changes and network improvements.

It is especially beneficial in analysing and understanding vehicular movements in congested urban areas.

It takes into account the interactions that vehicles have with each other as well as with other road users.

The Base Traffic Model (BTM) was developed by up-dating the 2009 BTM with

new 2014 and 2015 count data. The 2014 BTM currently reflects the congestion spots at Victoria Road, Peel Road

and Old Castletown Road in the inbound direction during the AM period. And at the Peel Road/Athol Street junction, the Rosemount junction along the

Promenade in the northbound direction for the PM period.

The proposed network changes, including alterations to the highway, kerbside parking and re-location of the HDT were included in the model.


19

National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) was applied globally to the 2014 Base matrices to derive future year traffic demands.

The scheme was tested in the 2018 opening year and 2028 assessment year. The impacts of the proposals were compared against the performance of the

road network with no network modifications (Do-nothing scenario - DNS). The results showed significant congestion for the scheme proposal and the DNS

during the 2028 future year.

The modelling showed an increase in average journey times along the Promenade for AM southbound and PM northbound journeys.

The proposal introduces a roundabout at Broadway and at Church Road. The current stop-start traffic behaviour appears to be removed by the proposed

scheme with a more consistent lower speed along the Promenade.

This would significantly improve the pedestrian environment making it safer and friendlier and would reduce potential frequency and severity of accidents.

The Supplementary Planning information

74. This document (Doc 11) sets out the changes made to the scheme following on from the submissions in response to the initial planning application: In summary these

changes are as follows: Repositioning of the HDT tracks along HP, CP and QP so as to maximise the

width of the walkway between the tram lines and the sea wall railings. Provision of additional controlled pedestrian crossings, 3 PCs and 10 ZCs.

Increase in the minimum kerb height between the footways and the carriageway from 25mm to 75mm.

Modification of the available space at the Summerhill Road junction.

Modifications to the horse tram road crossing at Strathallan Crescent. Rationalisation of the on-street parking.

On–going Consultation

Discussions with interested groups and parties continued following the submission of the application.

These highlighted two main areas of general concern. The first was the relocation of the HDT on to the walkway and the second was

the lack of signalised facilities for the visually impaired and disabled users. These concerns have been addressed and a number of recommendations set out

in the independent Quality Audit were also considered.

Following the campaign to prevent the walkway from being used by cars or the HDT it was confirmed that there was no intention that of car parking.

It was agreed that the width of the walkway along LP was sufficient to accommodate the tram track alongside existing leisure users.

The underlying concern related to the perceived reduction in width along the HP

and QP. The MDOI gave his assurance that DOI would investigate the possibility of creating additional width along these sections.

The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) and the Manx Blind Welfare Society (MBWS) expressed concerns about the lack of Puffin crossings and the kerb heights and as indicated above the scheme has been amended.

A Quality Audit (QA) was undertaken in May 2015 and although the recommendations were only advisory many have been incorporated.

In more detail the existing walkway widths vary from 5.8m to 8.5m. The new proposed walkway width including the tram corridor is 8.2m to 13.1m.

The new proposed walkway widths excluding the HDT are 4.9m to 9.8m.

The amended proposals show a significant increase to the overall width of the walkway representing an increase in 2705m² or 9.5%.


20

Revisions to crossings include 3 Puffin crossings; 11 Zebra crossings and 10 uncontrolled crossings. This totals 24 as opposed to just 12 at present.

Alterations to the HDT have resulted in minor changes to the roundabout at Summerhill Road and this has allowed additional areas of landscaping.

The HDT crossing at Derby Castle has been designed to include ‘Wig-Wag’ traffic signals which will operate whenever a horse is crossing the highway.

An additional dedicated cycling facility has been provided.

Changes have been made to crossings; a section of parking and the footway between Strathallan Crescent and King Edward Road.

This is contained within the highway and allows an additional Zebra crossing. The changes resulted in a modest reduction to on-street parking numbers. In making these amendments it is demonstrated that the DOI has consulted,

listened and responded to the concerns and views expressed by various groups, interested parties and individuals.

Statement of Case October 2015 (Mr Kaz Ryzner, Doc 13)

75. This covers an introduction; the proposals; details of the initial Planning application (PA) and the two RBC applications for the footways outside of the GT and CMC; the

amended plans stage; a list of attendees on behalf of the applicant; a summary and recommendation. The gist is as follows:

There have been a considerable number of representations received which clearly reflects the importance of the Promenade to the local community.

The issues that have been raised as objections to the proposals have all been carefully considered by the DT.

The individual Summary Statements provided by team members have identified

and responded to the key concerns that have been raised. The DOI is of the view that there has been proper consideration given to all of

the proposals including the public consultations (see above). All responses have been considered and the report ‘Supplementary Planning

information’ (Doc 11) provides a summary of the amendments.

The DOI is of the view that the proposals are acceptable and that they will provide significant environmental improvements and benefits.

Summary - Mr A C Burroughs, Project Manager (BSA), (Doc 14, Statement 1)

76. This summary covers an introduction; the role of the Project Manager (PM); a list of other appointments and reports. These appointments and reports are TMS

Environmental (Air Quality) Doc 12.1; Xodus (Noise Assessment) (doc 12.5); WGS Rail (Tramway Provision) Doc 12.8; Oxford Archaeology North (Desk based Assessment

Report) Doc 12.2 – appointed by MHNH and Modus (Registered Building Consent Application). The gist is as follows:

The TMS Air Quality Report (Doc 12.1) indicates that the proposal will have no

adverse impacts in terms of air quality or climate regime. Although dust levels are likely to rise during the construction period these will be

short term and minimal due to mitigation measures employed. Gaseous emissions may indicate a very slight increase in localised areas due to

diesel powered engines but these will be short-term and insignificant.

There are no measureable adverse impacts predicted. There could be a minor net positive impact on the local air quality due to

superior road surfaces and improved traffic movements. The noise assessment study carried out by Xodus (Doc 12.5) indicates that the

scheme will have no negative impact on noise levels.

There is expected to be a small reduction in noise levels due to the reduction in average traffic speeds although this is unlikely to be noticeable.


21

There will likely be more significant reduction in noise levels due to the removal of existing potholes as part of the road resurfacing.

The WGS Rail Tramway Provision report (Doc 12.8) concludes that the HDT on the walkways should be both practicable, safe and workable.

The Report was prepared by S.P.Bissell CEng BSc (Hons) FIRSE MIET for the Project Management Team in November 2014.

It covers an introduction; legislation and guidance documents; tramways

operating in public pedestrianized areas; risk management and conclusion. It considered the principles of operating HDT along the walkways.

The HDT consists of a double line in the highway and the proposal is to relocate it (as a single track with passing places) into the walkway section.

There is no legislation or formal guidance for tramway installations enshrined in

IOM law but the requirements of Construction and Health and Safety apply. The UK Office of Rail Regulation (now Office of Road and Rail-ORR) ‘Guidance on

Tramways’ (RSPG2) Railway Systems Principles and Guidance is relevant. The ORR guidance is not legally binding but following the guidance is likely to

result in a tramway that complies with the requirements of health and safety

There is some guidance within RSPG2 which relates to tramways in public areas including the marking tramways by different surface finishes or levels.

Reference is made to many examples in the UK where tramways have been routed through areas that are frequented by pedestrian traffic.

Situations vary but include large tramway stops and interchanges and streets which are virtually pedestrianised.

Manchester, Dublin and Croydon are examples but in all of these locations the

trams are larger, faster and more frequent than the proposed HDT service. In terms of Risk Management and Design perspectives each specific tramway and

each scenario within each tramway needs to be considered. The operation of the HDT as proposed should be both practical and be capable of

being designed and risk assessed to be safe and workable.

The Oxford Archaeology North (Doc 12.2) assessment recommends liaison with the Archaeologist; further research; a Conservation Management Plan (CMP)

and recording of features. All of the recommendations are able to, and will be followed and the CMP will

require the Contractor to complement the findings and recommendations.

There will be no adverse Archaeological impacts of the scheme. The Modus RBC applications will integrate the outside areas of the GT and the

CMC whilst improving the important public spaces. The existing concrete hardstanding outside of the GT is not of any architectural

or historic significance.

There will be no adverse impacts caused as a result of these works. The WGS (Doc 12.8) report concludes that it should be possible to provide for

safe operation in a shared surface space by risk review and mitigation. The process of risk review is ongoing and is conducted within the

Client/Operator/DT risk review meetings held at regular intervals.

Moving the tramway from the centre of the highway will result in improved and safer access and egress for passengers.

This will allow free movement of vehicles along all sections of the Promenade. Before the tramway can be brought into operation it needs to satisfy the IOM

Passenger Transport Act 1982 (IOMPTA 1982) and be certified safe for use by

the Inspector of Railways (IR). This role is performed by the Director of Environment Safety and Health (DESH)

who has sought and is receiving support from the ORR (UK).


22

Design principles and standards (Mr K Podmore Design Team Leader DOI) Doc 14 Statement 2 NB. Mr P Barnett attended the Inquiry in place of Mr Podmore

77. This summary covers an introduction; the writer’s role in the application; the report (Doc 12.4) conclusions and relevant objections. The gist is as follows:

The purpose is to clarify the design principles used to develop the Promenade highway improvements and to supply additional information.

The conclusions reached highlight the DOI commitment to developing the

promenade to the benefit of all users. The issues raised by the many objectors have been discussed in depth by the DT

and there is a firm belief that the HDT can be run safely. Discussions were held with vulnerable user groups including representatives of

the MBWS; the RNIB and the Guide Dogs for the Blind (GDB).

As a result, the design team has included signalled crossings and a distinguishable kerb face within the proposals.

Three Puffin Crossings (PC) are included in the scheme; eleven Zebra crossings (ZC) and a minimum kerb height of 75mm.

The location of the HDT in the original planning application showed the corridor

within the existing walkway. Following discussions (with a Facebook Group) the lines between Broadway and

Queens’s Gardens were re-positioned. This relocation has maximised the remaining space on the walkway.

The horse tram corridor will now form part of the newly refurbished walkway and its overall plan area will increase by around 2700m².

Response to Quality Audit (Doc 12.3 and see Doc 14 Mr K Podmore summary)

(Nr1 etc refer to suggestions within the document)

Highway Design: Suggestions relating to road geometry at Summerhill Road

junction Nr1 (Nr refers to suggestion numbers); removing parking where in conflict with pedestrians Nr2; removal of median strip and using space to widen footways on seaward side Nr3; rationalising materials Nr4; kerb heights and

tactile installations Nr5, have all been taken into account Crossings: Nr1, Nr2, Nr3, Nr4, Nr5, and Nr6 have all been taken into account.

Cyclists: cycle parking Nr1 response and cycling permitted on the walkway and carriageways Cycle stands accessible from either of these routes.

Side Roads, Private accesses and Servicing: Suggestion Nr1 entry treatments

Nr2 tactile paving, Nr3 Service vehicles all considered. Parking: Suggestions Nr1, Nr2, Nr3 all responded to positively.

Tramway: Nr1, Nr2, Nr3, Nr4 and Nr5 all responded to positively. Buses and Taxis: Nr1, Nr2 and Nr3 responded to positively. Materials including Street Furniture and road markings: Suggestions Nr1, Nr2,

Nr3, Nr4, Nr5 and Nr6 all responded to positively. Drainage and Lighting: Nr1, Nr2, Nr3 and Nr4 all responded to positively.

Streetscape Planning (Mr A Thompson) BCA Landscape) Doc 14, Statement 3

78. This statement covers an introduction; the role of the author in the application; relevant documents; conclusions; relevant objections; tramway on walkway; safety

concerns; car parking; loss of amenity; positions of benches and seating. The gist is as follows:

The low speed approach required co-ordination of surface materials against the intended use so that all elements of the scheme are clearly defined.

They produce a clear ‘language’ to reinforce the prime purpose.

The public realm design strengthens the links between the Promenade and the inner streets by the use of a consistent ‘house style’.


23

Once on the Promenade the materials become more functional using flexible materials (tarmac, imprinted concrete) due to costs considerations

All objections were reviewed and design changes were made. HDT zone is defined by red tarmac and the tram lines. This contrasts with the

black tarmac, accentuated by the kerb which separates the two materials. Examples in Disneyland and Spain are referred to and, in Blackpool, the tram

runs the full length of the sea front within a pedestrianized zone.

The walkway section is generous in width and gives ample space to move away from the tram as it approaches.

The relocation of the tram is also safer for passengers getting on/off within a clear pedestrian zone.

There will also be benefits to the track and its durability whereby the surface and

tracks will not be affected by heavy traffic. The clear identification of the tram corridor will encourage those with skates,

prams, cycles and anything else with wheels to stay off the track. This is safer than the current system where tram rails are within the blacktop

road surface with no clear delineation.

Crossing points are well-defined including tactile paving markers and are consistently arranged at 90º so that wheels cross the flangeway.

There will be a reduction in parking spaces from 540 to 485 (10.2%) but the car parking is arranged in clearly defined bays.

The design incorporates higher road kerbs and well-defined crossing points and the provision for less abled users is consistent with best practice.

There are 8 material types which are used to distinguish different finishes: in

particular those which delineate between the HDT and the walkway. Crossing points have been re-designed and re-positioned following the comments

by the parties. The proposals maintain the full extent of the existing open space and there is no

conflict with policy

The overall design continues the general strategy of uplifting the Douglas public realm as evidenced by improvements to-date.

The positions of seats and benches are to be determined but these will be provided as part of the improved appearance of the Promenade.

Traffic Modelling Assessment and potential impacts Mr R Allan SIAS Limited Transport

Planner (Doc 14, Statement 4 and Doc 12.7).

79. The statement covers an introduction; role of the author in the application;

relevant document; conclusions in document; and relevant objections. The gist of the statement is as follows:

The traffic modelling assessment gauges the potential impact of the proposals.

It summarises the modelling to assess the traffic impacts and provides a qualitative and quantitative assessment of the impacts.

If the scheme is implemented the modelling suggests that the current start/stop traffic behaviour will be reduced by the scheme

This will result in improved journey time reliability and predicts an increase in

average journey times along the Promenade. In conjunction with the new roundabouts the rest of the scheme will result in a

reduction of traffic speeds along the Promenade. Having reviewed the objections to the proposals there is no specific comment on

the modelling work carried out.

There have been objections relating to the roundabout junctions but the scheme is not simply about traffic alone.


24

It is aimed at creating a more sustainable environment with improved pedestrian links across the Promenade whilst enhancing its form and function for all users

including pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

Road Safety Audit Stage 1 Mr Robert Cyples TMS (Doc 14 Statement 5)

80. This statement includes an introduction; role of the author in the application; reference to the relevant document (Doc 12.6 Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage 1, Doc 12.6); conclusions and relevant objections. The gist of the statement is:

The objective of the RSA is to identify aspects that could give rise to safety problems and to suggest modifications that would increase the road safety.

The document identified 14 safety problems and 6 of the 14 were common problems with the other 8 being identified at specific locations.

The implementation of the recommendations can mitigate and eliminate the

safety issues identified in the scheme. There have been numerous objections which could be construed as relevant to

road safety expertise. These are: HDT on the Walkway; concerns regarding horses and dogs; wheels of

prams, pushchairs, skates, cycles, wheelchairs becoming stuck in tracks;

concerns regarding pedestrians, runners, cyclists, children, the elderly; concerns of the shared space concept and stopping distance of trams.

Some of these have been identified in the report and recommendations have been provided to the Design Team to mitigate the issues.

Other objections and perceived problems may be eliminated through the detail design process (Road Safety Audit Stage 2).

Inquiry statement by Mr J Davidson (Doc 15)

81. The brief statement covers the history of the Promenade and the HDT; its role today as a primary distributor road and multi-functional space. It repeats points

relating to the ‘Gateway’ function of the Promenade; its condition; the failed drainage system and general deterioration. The gist of other points is as follows:

It refers to issues relating to pedestrian segregation; obstructions and barriers

and delays caused by crossings. The HDT is stated to be problematic for the free-flow of traffic on the highway

and particularly at the narrower CP and QP sections. Whilst the HDT is positioned in the centre of the road there is no opportunity to

undertake safe and functional improvements at the major junctions.

Over the last 5 years DOI has developed options for improvements. An on-going part has been consultations with stakeholders and the public.

Phase 1 of the improvements was completed in 2013 and this set the scene for further improvements.

In 2014 the DOI included the walkways and allowed enhancements to be

introduced including the concept of a LSS and the relocation of the HDT. This proposal provides the best solution for improving the whole of the

Promenade for the benefit of all users.

Inquiry Statement by Mr S Yellop (Planning Supervisor in accordance with the IOM Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2003 (Doc 16)

82. Mr Yellup also acted on behalf of DBC in the absence of Mr Alder (Pegasus RA3). The gist of his initial report to the Inquiry is as follows:

With all projects it is inevitable that changes will have an impact on the local environment during the construction and engineering works.

There is a need for stakeholders affected by such change to modify their

acceptance and responsible actions relating to Health and Safety (HS).


25

Key HS concerns have focused on pedestrian movement (inclusive of visually impaired and non-ambulant persons); cyclists; children; perambulators; dogs

and seasonal attractions (TT MGP and Funfair). The Project Designers (DOI and BSA) have continuously identified foreseeable

hazards involved in the HDT works its future operation. A risk profiling register has been devised and is continuously up-dated to

illustrate where design influence, together with risk assessments (RAs) have

reduced the residual risk to as low as is reasonably practicable (ALARP). DBC has contributed to design influence and has produced RAs based on HDT

operations that state the necessary control measures to minimise risk. With regard to ‘Zero Risk Tolerance’ (ZRT) ‘in the real world’ everybody is

surrounded by hazards, many of which are suitably controlled.

It is understandable that the relocation of the HDT and its operation will present residual risk.

The implementation of risk controls, combined with behavioural attitude and responsibility of stakeholders will assist in the minimisation of risk.

Designers and members of the project team have used ‘ICE’ to determine the

reasonable foreseeable H&S risks rather than adopting a ‘what if’ approach. ‘I’ stands for Industrial bodies’ information and guidance –reference to UK and

global heritage transport systems. ‘C’ refers to Common knowledge –experience of HDT staff and DOI

‘E’ refers to expert knowledge – Health and Safety Executive (HSE); ORR; Environment Safety and Health Directorate of DEFA and Isle of Man Railways.

The Registered Building Consent applications

83. The details are set out in the reports by Modus (Doc 12, 12.11 & Plans J and K).

Responses to additional submissions (Doc 40)

84. The DOI comments on the addendum reports and additional documents requested are as follows:

Response to Addendum Planning Statement (Doc 29)

Both PBCD Officers who attended the Inquiry confirmed that on balance they supported the proposals.

The principles of the scheme are welcomed and it is considered by PBCD that the proposal is a recreational facility which is not contrary to policy.

PBCD consider that works to the LP and HP would result in significant

improvements to the character and appearance of the DPCA. PBCD accepts that all development results in some risks but does not consider

that there would be an undue impact on highway safety. The removal of existing materials and replacement is considered to represent an

enhancement to the DPCA.

The improvements outside of the GT would also enhance the character and appearance of the DPCA.

Even though there is an absence of a recommendation considerable weight should be given to the views of the senior officers who support the proposal.

With regard to the List of Conditions the DOI has no objections but suggests that

condition 6 should be an informative. With regard to requiring alternative colouring to the surface finishes, the DOI

stress that it wishes the application to be considered as submitted. The scheme has been undertaken with extensive consultation and has had to

balance finishes with available budget.


26

Response to Objectors’ Closing Submissions

Many are not ‘Closing Submissions’ and include statements which are not

relevant as well as being repetitions of the objectors’ earlier documents. The planning objectives of the proposals are clear and matters of safety have

been dealt with and are supported by the Risk Assessments (RAs). Reference to and questions about the RAs are not a ‘closing statement’. Matters relating to future landscaping will be dealt with by conditions.

Some Closing statements merit no further comment. One ‘closing statement’ represents a summary of policy matters. There were no

policy questions put to the planning witness of DOI. Nothing submitted is not already before the Inquiry. There is insufficient

justification to refuse the proposed development on planning grounds.

During the course of the Inquiry none of the planning policies relevant to the application were contested.

The submissions do not raise any new issues that have not already been submitted in writing or were matters dealt with in detail during the Inquiry.

Response to Addendum Highways Report (Doc 30 and Doc 42)

The HSD report sets out the four documents that were used in relation to design guidance for the proposals.

HSD confirmed that RSP2 and TTGN2 are relevant in assessing the proposed HDT route along the walkways against Policy GP2 (h) and (i) of the IOMSP.

HSD is satisfied that the design of the HDT on the walkway conforms to the above guidance.

HSD confirms that TGN3A (STCG) to be the most appropriate guidance and

concludes that both ‘x’ and ‘y’ distances are acceptable. At each of the crossings to the sunken garden, HSD states that visibility splays

are in accordance with TGN3A for the operational speed of the tram. HSD is also satisfied that the design of the pedestrian cyclist crossing will not

have an unacceptable effect on road safety.

HSD states that the scheme is considered to comply with policy GP2 (h) and (i) and that it provides satisfactory amenity standards, safe and convenient access

for all highway users and would not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways.

All matters relating to highways and safety have been satisfactorily addressed.

No part of the proposals has been professionally challenged.

Response to Statement from Inspector of Railways (Doc 36 and Doc 41)

The questions raised in the letter to IR (Doc 35) have been answered. Meetings were held to assess health and safety implications and further meetings

are due to be held to discuss up-dates in the design.

An Inspector from ORR has been appointed with the aim of providing the IR with a view on levels of compliance with UK Guidance for Tramways.

All of the matters raised have been the subject of review of the IR. The IR confirms that the final assessment will not be conducted without the

provision of a design risk assessment and copies of proposed management

systems and operating procedures. The H&S Directorate has promoted two core principles during the meetings.

Firstly the importance of using the design stage as a means of ensuring appropriate (reasonably practicable) control of risks.

Secondly the objective of ensuring that there will be no net increase in risk as a

consequence of any new tram layout.


27

Response to Mr Butt’s statement (Doc 27)

DOI does not accept that the consultation process was flawed.

Whether the public consultation was flawed or not, the position is that, following all consultations, the MDOI approved the proposed scheme.

In relation to the Hansard extract, this records discussion regarding the public consultation exercises undertaken by the Applicant.

References are made to the positioning of the tram together with the concerns

expressed by retailers with regard to loss of parking. The proposals were agreed with and have the full support of the MDOI which

clearly reflects what the DOI wishes to be considered and approved. A position that took into consideration all the responses to and issues relating to

the consultation process.

The issues of public consultations and concerns from local retailers (and hoteliers) were fully covered at the Inquiry.

The proposal represents the final stage in the scheme’s progress after all consultations and representations have been taken into consideration.

The information provided does not add anything new to the Inquiry.

It is neither a Closing Statement nor representative of a letter or statement. It should have been submitted prior to the Inquiry. It appears to provide a

summary of the issues fully reviewed at the Inquiry.

Options

It is incorrect that to ‘leave the rails where they are’ has not been considered. Mr Barnett gave an outline of all options considered, including placing the HDT in

the road where there were serious dimensional constraints.

In terms of Option A, Mr Butt is again wrong in the assertion he has made in paragraph 6 on page 3 of his statement.

The DOI made it quite clear that following representations with various stakeholder groups, the consultations on Options A and B were undertaken.

It was only after Option B was chosen that the proposals for ‘shared space’ were

considered and reviewed in detail. It a fact that there is now insufficient space to go back to Option A.

Mr Butt’s statement that ‘The decision was made only on the basis of the reduction in parking’ is therefore incorrect.

Shared Space

Mr Butt`s comments on shared space would appear to represent his opinion as to what the nature of the shared space should be.

There may be other proposals that might be of interest, but the scheme before the Inquiry is the only one which is under consideration.

Parking

The issues relating to parking were fully discussed at the Inquiry and Mr Butt`s comments do not add anything new.

Flooding

Details of flood issues were also fully reviewed during the Inquiry and the scheme facilitates any future introduction of sea defences if any such proposals

were to be put forward at some future date. A flood statement has been submitted.


28

Loss of Amenity

Loss of amenity issues were all very extensively reviewed at the Inquiry.

Mr Butt has not raised any new issues. The proposals do not inhibit the uses of the Promenade Walkway as outlined by Mr Butt.

Conclusions

The submission and extracts from Hansard and copies of emails to the MDOI do not raise any new issues that have not been dealt in some detail.

In support of any of his objections Mr Butt’s has not made reference to any of the relevant planning policies that might support his objections.

His emphasise on more suitable alternatives is not what is before the Inquiry.

Summary of Comments on objectors’ comments on Risk Assessments (See Appendix 3 for full comments)

Significant parts of all the submissions are not comments on the actual Risk Assessments undertaken on behalf of DOI.

The comments which have been provided, to a great extent, highlight the objector’ opposition to the scheme.

Most, if not all, the objectors’ opposition to the proposals based on safety issues

have already been put on record in their letters of objection. Considerable evidence on general safety issues, tram operations, appropriate

sight lines and other safety related matters was provided to the Inquiry by a number of witnesses from both the DOI team, the proposed operator’s experts at

DBC and from HSD.

Risk Assessments - Overview

Zero tolerance of risk, or risk aversion, is not an option in the real world where

hazards prevail in all workplaces and locations where people assemble. Management of residual risks associated with significant hazards, i.e. where

control measures may be non-existent or minimal, offers the challenge to designers to influence an unacceptable level of risk through design considerations, planning and specification.

The definition of risk assessment is to ‘Consider hazards that may cause harm to people and decide whether enough is being done to prevent harm. Once this

exercise has been carried out, appropriate and sensible control measures are to be implemented to reduce any residual risk to as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).

Reasonably practicable is ‘balancing the level of risk against the measures needed to control the real risk in terms of money, time or inconvenience’.

It is not needed to take action if it would be grossly disproportionate to the level of risk evaluated.

Competence in undertaking risk assessments is achieved by an assessor

possessing skill, knowledge and experience. These attributes were established when the design team completed a project-

specific competence and resources questionnaire during Phases 1 and 2. Each member of the team through their CPD programmes demonstrated their

current competence in fulfilling design risk assessments.

In determining what risks are reasonably foreseeable, the design team has sought information and guidance from industrial bodies; reference to UK and

global heritage transport systems; common knowledge; consultation with DBC HDT operator staff and the DOI; and expert knowledge: HSE, ORR, Environment, Safety and Health Directorate (DEFA), and IOM Railways.


29

Summary

Objectors have failed to grasp how design influence and the DBC control

measures will have a marked effect in the management of H&S risks. The changes will require new control measures; changes in behavioural attitude

and acceptance of responsibilities to minimise risks. A large part of the individual submissions do not comment on the actual details

of the Risk Assessments undertaken.

In many instances, the responses simply highlight or reiterate objections based on safety matters that are already before the Inquiry.

Most, if not all, of the safety issues referred to were the subject of submissions to the Inquiry through the Applicant`s Summary Statements.

In response to points of clarification and questions, considerable explanation was

provided by both the Applicant and the operator (DBC). It is accepted that there are subjective judgements that have to be made in all

risk assessments. However, the risk assessments undertaken have been made by professionals

with extensive experience in the field of risk assessment.

DOI will continue to use recognised professionals of the highest calibre to ensure that as safe a scheme as possible is developed and operated.

Nothing in respect of risk has been placed before the Inquiry that should prevent a recommendation that the scheme should be approved.

Additional documents and information provided post adjournment of the Inquiry

85. The following documents were submitted and some of the information has been incorporated into the respective cases of the DOI and HSD.

Existing Promenade Dimensions (Doc 57). HDT Speeds based upon GPS information (Doc 52).

Visibility Distances (Doc 50). Climate Change Adaptation: Protection against flooding and wave overtopping in

Harbours and on Sea Fronts: Executive Summary (Doc 55).

Climate Change Adaptation: Protection against flooding and wave overtopping in Harbours and on Sea Fronts Prioritisation of Schemes (Doc 54).

Flood Risk Statement, JBA Consulting dated 2/12/15 (Doc 53).

Case for the Highways Services Directorate (HSD) of the DOI (Doc 2)

86. This report was made on the same basis as for any application for planning

approval. The highways officer (Ms H Reid) had no involvement in any of the discussions or design meetings prior to the application being made but had one

meeting with the Design Team following submission. The report provides an independent highways review of the SIAS report on traffic flows (Doc 12.7).

87. Ms Reid was unable to attend the Inquiry and Mr K Almond of HSD attended in her

place. An addendum report (Doc 30) was provided relating to HSD’s application of the guidance in DMRB and RSPG2 of the ORR. The gist of the points covered in both reports

is as follows:

Initial Report

Concerns on Functionality and Visual Appearance Audit (Doc 12.3) and the Road

Safety Audits (Docs 12.4 and 12.6) have been taken into account. Some of the recommendations in different reports are conflicting due to the

different requirements of each of the interested parties. The Promenade performs many functions and it is difficult to balance the needs

of each of these functions at different times of the day, week or year.


30

During peak traffic hours the Promenade functions as a primary arterial route into and out of the town.

The Promenade is particularly busy in the summer months and at weekends with walkers, runners, cyclists and for beach access.

Parts of the LP are used for overspill parking at Christmas; for events at Villa Marina and for funfairs.

The highway is traditional with dominance and priority given to the vehicles.

This makes the area less attractive to pedestrians and leisure users. The proposal aims to provide more of a balance between the needs of the motor

vehicle and the needs of pedestrians. On-street parking has been retained with a slight reduction in spaces. This has to be balanced against improved visibility; safety at crossings and the

requirement that buses and coaches do not obstruct through traffic. Traffic flows have been modelled and a report is produced (Doc 12.7).

The existing traffic model was used as a baseline. It was compared to existing movements and was found to be within acceptable parameters.

This provides confidence that the output from the model is indicative of the

impact of the scheme. It looked at predictions for 2018 and 2028 and future growth and compared the

proposal as if nothing was done (Do nothing Scenario DNS). The modelling work does not take into account the amendments. However, the

changes are not significant in modelling terms. Due to the 20mph speed limit and the speed reduction elements, overall AM and

PM travelling times along the Promenade will be longer.

But this would be the case whether or not the scheme is implemented. The current AM peak journey time (PJT) is 3mins 35secs. This will increase by

8secs under the DNS and 55secs under the proposal. The current PM PJT is 4mins 03secs. The average journey will take an additional

18secs under the DNS and by 58secs for the proposal.

On Saturdays the PJT is between 11.00hrs and 14.00hrs. Average southbound journeys would take 15secs under the DNS but a decrease in 6secs in 2028 for

the proposed scheme. Speeds would fall with the lowest speeds being in 2018. Traffic speed during peak periods is not considered to be as significant a safety

issue as speeds outside of these times when there is less traffic. There is therefore, likely to be a reduction in traffic speeds at all times due to the

road design and speed reduction measures included. Traffic would become more free-flowing due to the replacement of signals with

roundabouts and use of of PCs ZCs and UCs.

This will improve the quality of the journey for motorists but may impact on the quality of the environment for pedestrians and side road motorists.

This is balanced by reducing the time that pedestrians are in conflict with vehicles due to the narrower road widths and the reduction in traffic speeds.

There will be impacts throughout the surrounding roads. These will have to be

assessed and accommodated within improvements to traffic management. The overall balance along the highway will favour pedestrians and cyclists.

The number of pedestrian crossings has not changed but there will be 3 new Puffin crossings, 11 Zebra crossings and 10 uncontrolled crossings.

The reduction in carriageway width presents a less intimidating situation for

pedestrians to cross since there will only be one lane in each direction. The reduction in width will be of particular benefit at the pedestrian crossing

point at Villa Arcade where currently the carriageway is very wide.


31

A reduction in speed and the width reduction should make pedestrians feel more confident to use the crossings to cross between gaps in the traffic.

For access to the HDT passengers have to interact with live traffic. This is of particular concern for children and the elderly at the ST.

The relocation of the HDT

The proposal to relocate the HDT away from the carriageway and live traffic would result in an improvement in road safety whilst improving traffic flows.

But design of the new facility is important and needs to ensure that a new safety hazard is not introduced.

It is not unusual for HDTs to share space with pedestrians but care is needed for partially sighted pedestrians regarding tracks and safety zones

The RNIB and MBWS have been consulted and had an input into the final design

and proposals to relocate the horse trams into the walkway. The introduction of the trams will clearly impact on the width of the walkway and

the space available to pedestrians and cyclists. However, this impact has been minimised on the amended scheme to provide a

walkway that varies in width between 4.9m and 9.8m.

These widths are far in excess of the minimum widths for shared pedestrian/cyclists routes.

The safety benefits in reducing speeds; reducing the carriageway width; safer crossings and the removal of conflict between tram passengers and live traffic is

considered to balance out the small increases in journey times. The IOMSP aims to embrace the principles of sustainable development and

travel. It is considered that the proposal accords with policy TP4 and TP6.

The scheme accords with policy GP2 (criteria h and j).

The Addendum Report (Doc 30)

The following documents were used to assess the effect of the HDT on the safety of users of the walkway and its entrances from the sunken gardens. Railway Safety Publication 2 Guidance on Tramways, Office of Rail Regulation,

2006 (RSP2). Tramway Technical Guidance Note 2 Pedestrian Safety, Office of Rail

Regulation, 2008 (TTGN2). Technical Guidance Note 3A Segregated Tramway Crossing Guidance, UK

Trams, 2010 (TGN3A).

TA90/05, The Geometric Design Of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes. RSP2 is intended to give advice in the design and construction of mainly new

and altered tramways which require regulatory approval within the UK. The HDT falls within the definition of tramway within the guidance, and would

be categorised as an integrated on-street tramway.

Its operation is by line-of-sight; the rails are laid in the highway and part of the highway is capable of being used by other vehicles or by pedestrians.

RSP2 also includes guidance on heritage tramways, and the guidance in the document should be followed whenever it is reasonably practicable to do so.

RSP2 sets out guidance on integrating the HDT with traffic (including

pedestrians and cyclists) within a street environment. With TTGN2 updating the guidance on pedestrian safety.

Given that motorised traffic is generally prohibited from using the Promenade HSD considers design advice from RSP2 and TTGN2 to be relevant in assessing the route on the Promenade walkway against General Policy 2(h) & (i):

Where the HDT is in a highway shared with other road users, its design and construction should allow it to be used by those other road users.


32

Any on-street tramway should be capable of being readily recognised as such by other road users.

The path of a tramway should be marked where it is not apparent from the

carriageway or kerbs, and where it would be useful either to users. Markings should be consistent with those in the Traffic Signs Regulations and

General Directions 2002. (IOM-The Traffic Signs Regulations 2003). The tramway route should provide adequate lateral clearance to allow the

tram to pass fixed structures in the presence of people

Pedestrian crossings over on-street tramways should be by default uncontrolled with passive signing.

Where safe pedestrian routes are defined, there should be clearly recognised features to aid identification.

All designated crossings of tram tracks should be designed with the needs of mobility- and visually-impaired people in mind.

Where it is necessary for cycle lanes to cross tram tracks, these intersections

should be, as far as possible, at right angles to the tracks. For cyclists, consideration should be given to measures that raise awareness

of the presence of rails in the carriageway such as signage or use of texture.

HSD is satisfied that the design of the tramway on the Promenade walkway

conforms to the above advice.

Visibility Splays at the pedestrian/cyclist crossing points onto the Promenade walkway from the sunken gardens

HSD considers the TGN3A to be the most appropriate guidance for determining visibility splays at pedestrian/cycle crossings on the walkways.

TGN3A applies TA90/05 ‘The Geometric Design of Pedestrian, Cycle and Equestrian Routes’ to tramways.

UK Trams have a Memorandum of Understanding with ORR to manage the

Tramway Guidance – RSP2 and associated supporting guidance documents.

‘X’ distance

TGN3A states the ‘x’ distance should be taken from either the near side running edge or the DKE. TGN3A recommends an ‘x’ distance measured from the DKE for pedestrian/cycling crossings should be between 4.0m and 1.0m.

‘x’ = 4.0m preferred distance (TA90/05) if cyclists are using the crossing ‘x’ = 2.5m acceptable distance (TA90/05) if cyclists are using the crossing

‘x’ = 2.0m acceptable minimum distance (LTN 02/08) if cyclists use crossing. ‘x’ = 1.0m absolute minimum distance (TA90/05) if cyclists have to dismount

prior using the crossing.

In the design of the pedestrian crossings on Loch Promenade it is proposed to install staggered fencing on the approach from the sunken gardens.

This arrangement will mean crossing users will have to turn through 2 sharp 90 degree bends prior to entering the DKE.

Also, signing will be placed telling cyclists to dismount. It is not possible for cyclists to cycle through without dismounting due to the

barrier arrangements; it is intended to make cyclists dismount.

Therefore the applicant in line with TA90/05 has designed the crossings with a minimum ‘x’ distance of 1.5m, which is suitable for both pedestrians and cyclists.

HSD considers the 1.5m ‘x’ distance acceptable.

‘Y’ Distance

TGN3A Table 2a recommends a ‘y’ distances for a range of tram speeds in 5km/h

increments.


33

From GPS recordings the average speed of the HDT is 10.4 kph (6.5mph). In addition DBC states the operating speed will be 11.2 kph (7.0mph).

For all trams travelling at or below 20kph, TGN 3A recommends that the “y” distance is set at 35m; no relaxation is allowed for slower trams.

HSD considers the 35m ‘y’ distance acceptable.

Visibility splays

The proposed visibility splays are shown in Drawings Numbers HW/3137/D1/040

to 044 (Plans B). In practice at each location a greater ‘x’ distance is achievable while maintaining

a distance of 35m, and conversely at 1.5m ‘x’ distance the ‘y’ distance will be greater than 35m. The following table shows the maximum ‘x’ distance achieved at each location with a ‘y’ distance of 35m.

Location Direction Maximum ‘x’ distance ‘y’ Distance

Regent Street North 1.84m 35m

South 1.89m 35m

Howard Street North 1.94m 35m

South 1.78m 35m

Granville Street North 1.57m 35m

South 1.75m 35m

Senna Slip North 1.79m 35m

South 1.74m 35m

Church Road North 1.59m 35m

South 1.66m 35m

Note: ‘x’ distance measured from DKE of tram, the ‘y’ distance is measured to nearest running edge.

HSD considers the visibility splay at each of the crossings to be in accordance with TGN3A recommendations for the operational speed of the tram.

It should be noted that pedestrian/cyclists whose eye line is higher than the

sunken garden boundary wall (approximately 1.1m) would achieve the 35m ‘y’ distance to the tramway before they reached the crossing.

HSD is satisfied that the design of the pedestrian/cyclist crossings will not have an unacceptable effect on the road safety.

Statement/Report from Isle of Man Inspector of Railways (IR) (Doc 36)

88. In response to the letter dated 4 December from the Cabinet Office (Doc 35) the IR replied on 8 December 2015 (Doc 36). The gist is as follows:

The Inspector of Railways (IR), appointed under the IOMPTA 1982 (as amended), is required to inspect new railways to assess whether they are safe.

The IR is also responsible for ensuring that the duties imposed by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (as applied to the IOM) are complied with during the design and operation of the proposed HDT.

The IR and/or other members of the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate (HSWI) have been involved in 3 meetings and a telephone conference to discuss various iterations of the proposal and H&S implications. Design drawings have been available during these meetings.

Future meetings will be held to discuss updates on the design and to review proposed operating procedures and management systems.


34

An Inspector from the ORR UK will review the design and operating procedures to provide the IR with a view on levels of compliance with UK guidance.

This guidance does not apply directly to the IOM but the standards it contains will be considered as part of the approval process.

The Inspectorate has had the opportunity to ask questions on a range of technical and operational issues such as the design of the road cross-over at the North end of the tramway; the interface with (and proximity of) other road junctions, point arrangements at sidings and passing loops and the control of trams on the approaches to sidings.

The following issues have been discussed during the meetings: horse and driver training, the installation of railings at pedestrian access to the promenade (crossing locations), textured coloured pavement at the interface between promenade footpath and tramway, improved visibility at crossing locations, interface between pedestrians and trams (particularly children) and bad weather (the possibility of breaking waves alarming the horses).

The final assessment of the design will not be conducted without the provision of a design risk assessment and copies of proposed managements systems and operating procedures.

While the risks to H&S have been considered in close detail, firm proposals on how the final control measures for some risks will look have yet to be agreed.

The Inspectorate will therefore need to see more information on the following topics to facilitate detailed assessment of the proposal:

a. Detail on the road/tram crossing at the Derby Castle end of the tramway. b. The design and operating principles of the points and tram control (at exits

from and entrances to passing loops and sidings). c. Horse training and selection processes. d. Interface between trams and children on the south end of the promenade e. Interface between trams and children exiting vehicles parked alongside the

tramway adjacent to Queens Gardens f. Impact on horse behaviour of road design changes – particularly the

introduction of traffic islands in place of other junction formations (cars could approach the horses at a 90 degree angle while they are negotiating the traffic islands).

The HSWI (incorporating the Railway Inspectorate) have had the opportunity to promote two core principles during the meetings to discuss the proposal;

1. The importance of using the design stage as a means of ensuring appropriate (reasonably practicable) control of risks and

2. The objective of ensuring that there will be no net increase in risk as a consequence of any new tram layout.

Statement by Manx Utilities (MU) (Doc 3)

89. Manx Utilities do not indicate whether or not they support the proposal. As is usual for their comments on planning and other applications they simply set out their

statutory requirements should the application be allowed to proceed ( Doc 3).

90. They refer to underground cables and overhead lines and would require contact to be made with the Network Operations Department (NOD). It is also stressed that in

relation to any effect on electricity supplies the MU for Electrical Site Safety documents need to be referred to and followed.


35

Case for Manx National Heritage (MNH) (Doc 4)

91. The Inquiry statement is dated 24 September 2014 and Mr A Johnson of MNH

attended for part of the Inquiry. The gist of the points made is as follows:

The desire to improve the Promenade environment is welcomed.

MNH has contributed to cross-Government discussions from the early planning and design stages.

The recommendation concerning the commissioning of an assessment of cultural

heritage has been adopted by the Department and this is welcomed. The view of MNH is that the proposal would have very little impact on either

cultural or natural heritage. Historically the tramway has been altered many times and there is little intrinsic

value in its precise location.

Its retention as a linear feature along the length of the Promenade is thus of greater historical and cultural importance and is therefore welcomed.

The substantial alterations proposed north of Greensill’s corner in front of the Sefton Hotel, Gaiety Theatre and Villa Arcade are also noted and welcomed.

This will be a positive improvement to the environment which brings great

opportunities to develop better uses of the space in front of the theatre. There is little recognition in the proposals of the historical development of the

Promenade and its cultural associations (tourism and wartime internment). These aspects are emphasised in the Archaeological assessment and particular

attention is drawn to the conclusions summarised on pages 26-29 of the report (main archaeological and historic sites and the Archaeological recommendations).

These matters should be dealt with by conditions and agreement with stakeholders to ensure that necessary measures are in place for recording of

archaeological features and the interpretation of the Promenade’s cultural legacy.

Statement by the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Services (Doc 5)

92. This short letter dated 6 September 2015 indicates that a Fire Safety Officer has

examined the application and that ‘Prior to commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult with the Fire Service with regard to the provision of hydrants and

access for fire appliance’. It would appear that these requirements can be met and there can are no objections in relation to Fire and Rescue Services.

Case for Douglas Borough Council (Doc 6)

93. The Executive Committee of Douglas Borough Council (ECDBC) considered the proposals at its meeting in June 2015. The Committee considered that policies EP10,

EP11 and EP13 of the IOMSP relating to Flooding were relevant. Because the proposals do not include any occupied building it was concluded that a full flood risk assessment was not necessary. However the Committee requested that the applicant Department

provides a flood risk statement. This statement was provided on 2/12/12 (Doc 53).

94. DBC has submitted three brief statements from: Ms K J Rice Chief Executive; Mrs S

Harrison Assistant Chief Executive and Mr I Alder of Pegasus Safety Consulting Limited. Two senior operatives of the HDT operation attended the Inquiry: Mr Crellin and Mr Cannon. The gists of the statements are as follows:

Ms K S Rice Chief Executive

The importance of the Douglas Promenade as a gateway to the Island must not

be underestimated. The regeneration of the Town Centre has shown the benefits of revitalisation.

This has emphasised the very poor condition of all sections of the Promenade.


36

Its redevelopment is vital to Douglas as the capital and to all sectors of the economy. It needs to be progressed at the earliest opportunity.

The investment required is significant but this is a priority scheme and any delay would not be in the overall interest of the Island.

DBC will be contributing to the redevelopment in a number of ways. There will be appropriate modern single side lighting to the highway removing

the requirement for lighting columns on the landward side.

Additional LED type lights will be fitted to the seaward side to light the walkway and to enhance its overall appearance.

At specified feature areas, including the ‘cultural quarter’ there will be additional lighting to enable night time use.

DBC is liaising with DOI in relation to street lighting, street furniture,

landscaping, for the trams, shelters and other enhancements. The Council is also developing a £2million scheme for a combined tramshed,

stables and visitor hub on the Strathallan site.

Mrs S Harrison Deputy Chief Executive

The HDTs have been operating since 1876 and 2016 marks the 140th

anniversary of the commencement of the service. There is widespread interest in the horses, the trams and the history of the

service which is the only remaining one of its type in the world. DBC has worked closely with DOI to ensure that the relocation of the tracks will

enable the Council to operate to the same levels as at present. The Council fully supports the application and the relocation of the tracks. The relocation will bring an improved experience. It is proposed to re-launch in

2017, bringing a new perspective and retaining the historic and appeal. It is the intention to increase and enhance the leisure experiences on the

Promenade. The re-launch will boost user numbers and increase income. DBC has an exemplary safety record in respect of the HDT and the experience of

the staff will ensure that this record can continue.

The two tramway managers (Mr Crellin and Mr Cannon) have a combined experience of 70 years of operating the service.

They are of the view that the operation of the HDT on the walkway can be effectively and safely operated.

DBC has worked with DOI and rail experts and has appointed Pegasus Safety

Consulting Limited (an IOM company with experience of the HDT) to put in place a Safety Management System and accompanying RA (RA3).

Mr I Alder Pegasus Safety Consulting Limited

The RA (RA3, Doc 33.3) addresses concerns of the Promenade walkway users in relation to the introduction of the HDT to the walkway.

The RA includes the following: The Management of HDT operations.

Mixed use of the walkway. Wheels (prams, skates, bicycles) becoming lodged in the tracks. Horse Manure.

Stopping Distance of Trams. Service disruption during TT.

The Case for Mr Tim Norton (6)

95. Mr Norton supports the DOI case and is in general support of the proposals. The gist of the case is as follows:

The application is broadly supported.


37

However the Promenade should be treated as a whole: not as two sections. The roundabout at the bottom of Summerhill will be problematic and traffic lights

for peak hours would assist flows. The tram line should extend to the BNCP and a shelter built to link as a terminal

for trams and buses. The extension of the MER is not practicable. The number of parking spaces, (particularly disabled) should be maintained.

The underlying problem with the SSC is that the Promenade is a route into town for non-public office uses as well as leisure uses.

The former should be encouraged to move to outside business parks to relieve and reduce traffic on the Promenade.

96. Peter Barlow (46) The gist of the case is as follows:

The comment is in favour of the trams being within the walkway. Objectors are unaware that they can walk along the area of tram tracks.

The scheme should proceed as quickly as possible.

THE CASES FOR OBJECTORS TO THE PROPOSALS

Introduction

97. Following the submission of the application, a total of around 225 representations

were submitted to the PBCD (Doc 20). As can be seen from the cases and statements above, the DOI amended the scheme to take on board objections and

recommendations from the various representations and reports. As a result a further 140 representations were made, comprising 91 repeats of the earlier submissions and 51 completely new submissions (Doc 21). I have received and read a total of around

275 different representations. The vast majority are objections to the proposals. However, two individuals (Norton-6 and Barlow-46) support the scheme as a whole

(see above). Some people support some aspects of the proposals (particularly for example, the principle of upgrading the Promenade). The objectors set out a variety of reasons. The main focus of objection is the relocation of the HDT on to the Promenade

walkway sections: mainly in terms of H&S but also in relation to the effect of the use on the character and appearance of the DPCA.

98. There are many objections relating to the consultations carried out; to the cost of the proposals; to some of the technical details and to the manner in which the chosen option was eventually put forward as a planning application.

99. The table below shows some of the main categories of objection which both DOI and PBCD have identified in their submissions. However, this is not a complete list, as

can be seen from the submitted objections at both initial and amended stages of the application(s) (Docs 20, 21).

Concerns about the HDT on the walkways

Safety concerns in respect of the horses and dogs.

Safety concerns in respect of wheels becoming stuck in the tracks; prams, pushchairs, skates, bicycles, wheelchairs – when tracks are wet and slippery.

Safety concerns in respect of people in general; pedestrians, runners, joggers, children, the elderly, the visually impaired and wheelchair users.

Concerns over car parking.

Concerns of the scheme cost and value for money.

Inclusion of the partially sighted, blind, deaf and disabled.

Loss of public amenity (Policy D/OS/P5 of DLWS 1998).

Concern of shared space concept; safety of crossings and irrelevant comparisons


38

to other shared spaces and tramway situations

Position of benches, seating and other street furniture

Horse manure/clearance on the pedestrian walkway

Service disruption during TT (shorter in length).

Stopping distances of trams.

Traffic flow disruption.

All Island Strategic Plan (in respect of well-being/health/activities).

Conservation Area status and effect on character and appearance.

Trams should/could cease to operate.

100. Others’ representations include suggested options/amendments/additions to the

scheme. These included: Leaving the tracks as they are in the carriageway.

Reversion back to Option A with the tram lines on the seaward side of the carriageway and the rest of the scheme as proposed.

A Revised scheme (Option C) to place a single track tram line back into the

middle of the carriageway with passing places at wider points. Properly designed terminus and intermediate points to ensure safe access/egress

from the trams, thus avoiding traffic/passenger conflict. Provision of a Park and Ride scheme to operate from the Summerland site in the

north and also from a site to the south.

Removal of the trams to some other part of the Island. Provision of alternative car parking and substantial reduction of car parking along

the sea front.

101. Many objections were made on the basis that the Options and Issues Consultation(s) were flawed and confusing. References are made to the two

consultation exercises; the fact that the Options Leaflet (Doc 8) did not show the full length scheme; that the MDOI was misled, as well as not being clear about the full

extent of the scheme. I refer to these in the introduction to my assessment and conclusions but have reported them in full.

Individual Objections from objectors, who attended one or more sessions of the

Inquiry (numbers in brackets relate to number of objection in Documents 20, 21). Those marked with an Asterisk (*) spoke at the Inquiry and/or put questions to the

other main parties. The gist or summaries of the cases are as follows and the full texts are within the documents.

102. Mrs M and Mr S D A Bridson* (213 and Doc 23)

Various representations are submitted and this is the most comprehensive and detailed objection. Most of the issues raised are also covered by others (see briefer outlines below). A separate table of relevant policies is submitted and is part of Doc 23. Their

comments on the RAs are set out in Appendix 2.

Certification

The Certification of the scheme was flawed. DOI does not own the land which comprises the QG.

Timing of application and relevant planning procedure

This is queried. If the application had been made one day later then it would have been subject to the new planning regulations.

General

The DOI submissions fail to satisfy safety concerns about the scheme and

there is a failure to comply with planning policies. DOI has failed to demonstrate that the HDT can operate safely on the

walkways and failed to produce any credible evidence on safety.


39

I

Comparisons with other locations are made without research, proper examination or related statistics.

A safe HDT operation relies upon line-of-sight principles. Neither DOI nor

DBC can even estimate a stopping distance of the HDT.

This is illogical, unsound and creates an unacceptable public risk.

Evidence from DBC is that the tram can operate safely in the middle of the

road even on a single track and with its exemplary safety record. Prev ious DBC minutes confirm that operating in the carriageway is the

preferred alternative and the safety record is good.

There is no evidence of passenger safety issues in its current location.

DBC accepts that incidents will always occur with animals and that its equipment is vintage including the braking system to the trams.

There is evidence of side-swiped vehicles and loose bolting horses.

Similar events on the walkway the results could be catastrophic.

DOI has failed to conduct pedestrian surveys on the walkways.

The tram driver will be about 2.4 m away from the walls. Whilst he has a

high view point he cannot see through the walls and other barriers.

The ramped paths in the MG are at a lower level than the walkway and

children will be hidden from sight.

‘Kissing gates’ will not eliminate the problem given the configuration of

the paths. Additional gates will hinder wheelchair and pram users.

Many of the walkway openings cannot be widened due to the Iris vents

without significant additional costs.

Tactile paving can only be effective against constantly attentive users.

A driver's view will be partially obscured by a large horse.

Drivers stressed their use of dynamic risk assessments but their forward

visibility will be hindered by the horse.

Side visibility will be limited by the need to constantly assess hazards.

Drivers rely on a vintage breaking system (no back-up) and are affected by

the momentum of the HDT and multiple unpredictable hazards.

These, such as youngsters on bikes, can be uncontrolled or inattentive.

Drivers now deal with predictable traffic and cannot reasonably take

account of such a variety of users and loose objects.

The scheme leaves too much to chance and too many opportunities for

human error and unpredictable scenarios.

Alternative parking provision is available nearby during HDT season. The walkway is public open space and the stated extra 2700m2 consists

only of HDT corridor not additional walkway.

No figures were given for the equivalent loss of walkway space to users.

But in effect it must relate to any space taken up by the HDT corridor.

Only a single representation was made in support of this scheme and

over 270 people engaged in the due process to raise objections.

No account had been taken of cars waiting to reverse into the angled

parking spaces when the traffic flow modeling was been undertaken.

This is supposed to be the flagship project and it should have a net

positive benefit for drivers not a negative impact.

The density of traffic flow and its status as a main arterial route means

the promenade is not suitable for a LSS.

It will cause congestion and delay which will lead to worse driver

behaviour through frustration.

The Landscape Architect only considered 2 of the 4 Promenades and had


40

not addressed his mind to the distinct nature of the 4 promenades.

It was stated that there was no ‘house style’ of materials in Douglas. But

PBCD noted the inferior materials and treatment of the walkway. There is no provision for cyclists and safety issues have not been

considered either on the walkway or at sunken garden entrances. The HSD report comments on safety aspects of trams on walkway but

provides no evidence in comparison to operations in other locations.

There is no evidence that safe vision splays from the MGs have been

established or that the works would accord with ORR guidance. The mandatory Floodrisk Assessment (EP10) has not been undertaken.

The walls of the MG were seriously damaged by flooding. There has been suggestion of a possible new sea wall and the evidence

is that room has been left in this scheme for a sea wall. This must be an acceptance that there is a distinct possibility that a future

sea wall will encroach further on the proposed walkway.

The failure to properly set out a plan for a sea wall in this significant and

extremely expensive scheme is incredible.

Specific effects of the scheme

The proposal will affect many people: young, old, able, disabled, visitors and locals. If implemented, it will be irreversible.

The investment to-date is not a sufficient reason to approve the scheme. The costs in terms of detriment to the community far outweigh the cost of

preparing these flawed plans. If the tram tracks remain in the centre of the road there would not be a loss of

150 parking spaces.

The DOI should consider alternative parking provision. The 2014 consultation gave Options A and B and, contrary to the earlier formal

consultations, the HDT was to be moved to the walkway for both proposals north of the WM. The results were not published.

Loss of Amenity

Serving residents who live in flats and apartments (as well as visitors), for all sorts of activities, the loss of public space to the HDT is unacceptable and

contrary to policy D/OS/P5 of the DLPO 1998 and 10.3.2 of the IOMSP. DOI is wrong in concluding that amenity value will not be lost. The loss of part

of the QG cannot be justified.

Safety

The proposals increase the risk of collision between users of the walkway due to

the narrow corridor and this will be a year round problem. The Mobility and Accessibility Audit (MAA Doc 12.4) raises questions about there

being sufficient width. Children in particular will be at risk.

The DOI suggestion that users will need to take more care of themselves and their children is not acceptable.

The proposal is contrary to the IOMSP aim to improve access for less able people and to paragraph 11.4.1 relating to safety for pedestrians.

The proposals are far from safe. The ‘Tramway Provision on Pedestrian Promenade’ (Doc 12.8) is woefully inadequate.

There is no justification given for the quoted 6mph speed for trams.

The suggestion that the noise of an approaching vehicle will be sufficient to warn users is not acceptable for the aurally impaired.


41

Horses can react unpredictably to sudden movements and noises and are unused to sharing close spaces with dogs, children, bikes and skateboards.

The Trams do not have automatic fail-safe braking systems and rely upon the driver ‘winding on a Victorian braking system’. This will be a danger.

The carthorses have to be released at the end of a journey and be reversed. If ‘spooked’ during the process they could bolt and cause serious injury. In a recent accident in Leeds a horse handler was injured.

The IOMSP advocates a ‘Precautionary Approach’ and MS1 stresses the need to provide a quality walking experience and design for everyone.

Risk Assessment(s) (see detailed comments in Appendix 1)

It is clear that the DOI consider that there is an obvious and foreseeable risk in the HDT being placed on the walkway.

DOI feel that risks might be mitigated by the introduction of fencing; education; different coloured tarmac or simple prohibition.

Simply by placing the HDT elsewhere, such as middle of the roadway, would remove the obvious risk of mixing horses and heavy trams on the walkway.

Favouring motorists and parking over other users

The Functionality and Visual Appearance report (Doc 12.3) indicates that the proposal sought to maximise parking.

It concludes that walls of parked cars would detract from the scheme. Whilst the boosting of retail activity is necessary this could be better achieved by

placing chevron parking on the hotel side of the Promenade. The priority given to parking is contrary to sustainability aims of the IOMSP. The fact that the trams cause traffic delays should be seen as a positive aspect

by calming the traffic.

Lack of balanced examination of the shared space concept

The SSC is not suitable for the full 1.5 mile length of the Promenade. The Poynton example has high traffic volumes but consists of just two

roundabouts and is only 300m long.

In Blackpool there is obvious confusion with the SSC and the Council minutes indicate a desire to reverse the scheme in some areas.

SSCs raise serious issues for impaired users and children (Holmes Report) This advocates the need to look at the consequences of these schemes. The proposal is contrary to the IOMSP aim to improve access for less abled

people and the DOI thinking is muddled. The proposal will result in a loss of a sense of place on the walkway.

Lack of provision for cycling

The MAA at 3.10 (Doc 12.4) states that no details of a cycling strategy or provisions for cyclists have been set out.

It also outlines the dangers of any wheels getting stuck in the tram lines. The Road Safety Audit (RSA) by TMS (Doc 12.6) identifies risks for cyclists and

that they would be vulnerable to collisions with other users. Cycling should be encouraged and a safe strategy is required. The proposal will

discourage people from exercising in the shared walkway.

The proposal is contrary to 10.3.3 of the IOMSP in relation to the need to facilitate recreation opportunities and to retain open space.


42

Noise Impact

Road noise varies with changes in road surfaces and additionally noise levels will

increase if some form of audible warning is required as in other places.

Consultations and other points

Disability, pedestrian and cycle groups have not been fully consulted as recommended in the MAA; only businesses and hoteliers.

DBC has not stated whether the current level of losses of the HDT can be

sustained and whether any increased costs will impact on future plans.

Visual impact and damage to conservation area

The majestic sweeping Promenade is a beautiful sight of which the residents of the Island are proud. The whole of the Promenade is a conservation area.

Plans for the area should take this into account and cater for all users, not just

seek to maximize car parking. DOI should provide for car parking but should not jeopardise the amenity

provided by the walkway and put at risk the safety of its users. The proposals are contrary to policy EP35 as they do not preserve or enhance

the character or appearance of the DPCA

It is a special feature of the DPCA that the Victorian HDT operation passes through it on its original tracks.

The transfer of the HDT from roadway to walkway will turn an authentic heritage tram into a ‘Disneyesque’ pastiche.

The different coloured surfaces will be visually intrusive and contrary to the areas status as a conservation area.

The RAs indicate the extent to which the new signage will be necessary on the

walkway. This will harm the character and appearance of the DPCA

Public Health

Horse excrement will be both unpleasant, smelly and pose a health hazard to users particularly small children and will be required to be removed.

There will need to be a motorised vehicle to clean up after the horses which will

increase traffic movements on the walkway. It is not permitted for dogs to foul walkways so it must also be contrary to public

health policy to allow horses to foul a walkway.

Overstated claims of economic benefit

Hamilton–Baillie (Doc 12.9) notes that “it is difficult to put precise figures on any

long term uplift in property values, footfall or turnover”. Economic benefit will flow simply because the roadway is properly repaired and

that the hard and soft landscaping is improved. There is no quantifiable additional economic benefit from the relocation of the

HDT and the implementation of the shared space.

The Proposals note that the majority of the road crossings are undertaken by motorists parking on the seaward side; crossing to go into Strand Street.

It follows that by making it a SSC this will not facilitate an increased flow of users as these people already cross over the road?

Response to the Statement of the Planning and Building Control Directorate

PBCD initially made no statement as to the merits of the planning application. However, it outlines the considerations to consider and then indicates ways in

which barriers to these grounds can be overcome.


43

PBCD does not draw attention to the fact that the number of objections to the application is exceptional for the Island.

It gives the impression that the representations are without merit and do not require serious consideration.

Paragraph 7.10 illustrates the lack of balance. The Statement cannot be regarded as a fair and unbiased report. PBCD acknowledges the impact of the relocation of the HDT on DPCA..

The DPCACA points relating to the walkways adding elegance to the streetscape are not acknowledged.

The introduction of black tarmac would complete its transformation from the ‘walkway’ element into a quasi-roadway element.

The DPCACA also considers the essential character and townscape of the

Conservation Area and states ‘synonymous with the image of the Promenades is the unique system of Horse Trams which run the entire length during the

summer months. It is judged that this feature makes an important contribution to the special character of the Conservation Area.’

The Application is contrary to EP35 and GP2 by detrimentally affecting the

character of the locality, the amenity of local residents.

Comments on addendum PBCD Report (Doc 30)

The PBCD view regarding policy RP2 is wrong. The question of whether the HDT is a form of transport or a recreational facility misinterprets policy RP2.

The HDT is development which affects the open space and will have a significant unacceptable effect on the way it is used.

The need to improve road surfaces is not sufficient grounds for the scheme.

PBCD has not addressed itself to the improvements as a whole. The loss of green space at QG and amendments to other features will be

detrimental to the character and appearance of the DCPA. The harm identified by PBCD cannot be mitigated by conditions. With regard to safety the DOI can retain the tracks in the carriageway.

PBCD defers to HSD regarding highway safety but then concludes on highway safety with regard to the walkway. This is a somewhat anomalous.

PBCD have not properly considered matters relating to vision splays. PBCD have not commented on the failure to provide a Flood Risk assessment. PBCD has not given sufficient consideration to possible sea defence works and

the effect that this would have on further reducing the walkways.

‘Shared Space on the Walkway’ and the extent to which the

public will be permitted to use the horse drawn tram corridor.

The plans were revised and the press release went on to say ‘provide walkways of 8.2m - 13.1m compared to current width of 5.8m to 8.5m’.

And, ‘The tram tracks would form part of the walkway (shared surface) and the areas of the tram tracks would also be useable by pedestrians.’

This finding is not borne out by a consideration of the Designers Risk Assessment or the Designers Summary of Risks and Hazards.

The area may be shared but this is only a term to indicate that the two areas

share the same physical space and that they are not separated. This is distinct from the SSC concept where people can freely wander over

whatever part of the roadway they choose and that vehicles will give way. Douglas Quay area has no kerbs and the pavement and roadway is on one level.

But users still behave as if physically segregated.

The walkway widths will not be increased. RAs make it clear that strategies will be employed to ensure that pedestrians do not enter the HDT corridor.


44

The strategies aim to keep the HDT and people separate. The walkways may be increased in width but only to accommodate the HDT: not users.

Omission of any reference to construction of future Sea Defences along the Promenade will further diminish the amenity of the walkway

No attention is drawn to the issue of sea defences (SD) which directly impact upon the application site and are being discussed by the DOI.

DBC, Environmental Services Committee meeting Minutes (14/10/15) concerns

the installation of a sea wall along Douglas Promenade. The Options Matrix presented refers to the plans in this Application as having a

40 year life and the two projects cannot be considered in isolation. A summary of the proposals shows the remaining width of the walkway corridor

to be only 2.4m and bollards separating the HDT from pedestrians.

DOI cannot make the claim that this is the only viable option for the Promenade (and that it will last over 40 years), whilst having knowledge that the SD

measures will involve digging up some part of the walkway area.

Street Furniture

PBCD refers only to the lack of information about street furniture. The spaces

will be further reduced by street lighting, bins and seating etc. Currently seats are located in the area which is proposed to become the HDT

corridor and clearly they will need to be relocated into the walkway corridor. Many objectors have raised concerns that the relocation of seats will impact upon

their view of the sea contrary to General Policy 2 (e). The application fails to achieve one of its key aims of delivering a high quality

public environment or to enhance the promenade for all users.

It is not user-friendly to have fewer seats; in a less sheltered position; on a more crowded area and bordered by a hazard in the form of the HDT.

Consideration of the Traffic measures/Car Parking

DOI has stated that some alternative plans would reduce the number of parking spaces and justifies the relocation of the horse trams on this basis.

Research carried out indicates that there were 485 empty car parking spaces in Chester Street car park at 11am on a Saturday in October (including 235 public

spaces) and 356 public spaces on a Monday. If a cohesive parking and transport strategy for Douglas was implemented it

would not need to use parking as an argument for this flawed plan.

Little weight should be given to the grounds that there is an economic justification to support local shops.

There are numerous other viable ways whereby parking can be addressed.

Road Crossings

The numerous ZCs will increase the stop-start nature of the traffic flow; increase

driver frustration and decrease pedestrian safety. Journey times along Blackpool Promenade have increased and there are also

difficulties of crossing the road as a pedestrian. DOI has stated that ‘Blackpool had failed to implement fully the shared space

concept and had introduced designated crossing points’.

The amended plans do exactly that by introducing numerous crossings. Additionally, unlike Blackpool, the majority of the free parking is sited on the

seaward side of the Promenade. This increases the number of pedestrian journeys across the road to reach the

main shopping area of the town.


45

UCs remain less safe for the visually impaired, the elderly and children.

Roundabouts

The roundabout at Broadway will create considerable difficulties for drivers wishing to turn right towards the ST against the flow of on-coming traffic.

This is contrary to policy TP4 and the roundabouts should be light controlled. With a light controlled roundabout the HDT could safely traverse junctions.

Comments on addendum HSD report (Doc 30)

Paragraph 10 sets out the TGN3A recommended “x” distances relating to pedestrian/cyclist crossings. The x value can vary between 4.0 and 1.0m.

Good design should not rely on the least possible visibility. Designers should err on the side of maximum possible visibility.

DOI proposes fencing between the MG crossings and the walkway.

This will mean users will have to turn through 2 sharp 90 degree bends. Paragraph 12 states that it is not possible to cycle through a cut through without

dismounting. The diagram provided by DOI shows that a person entering the crossing from the

MG path would not have to turn 2 sharp 90 degree bends.

A cyclist or skateboarder would be able to carry on with only a slight deviation and would not have to dismount to negotiate the barrier.

This means that the correct X value should be 2.5m as an acceptable distance if cyclists are using the crossing.

A skateboarder, scooter or Segway user would also not have to dismount. As they travel at an increased speed than a pedestrian the minimum proposed x

distance of 1.5m is insufficient and unsafe.

DOI normally does these calculations with roads but it should address the actual activities and behaviors of the walkway users.

At Granville and Howard Street the first barrier to be reached if approaching from the carriageway is even further back from the walkway.

At Granville Street it is located between the Manx stone pillars of the shelter.

The x distance cannot be altered since this would require alteration of the sunken MG walls which is not possible because of the Iris vents/lighting.

To widen the sunken MG openings would also have an adverse effect on the current flood defences and aesthetics.

DOI has erred in the calculations. The horse can move outside of the width of the

HDT. The calculations are based upon a car approaching a junction in which the driver

of the vehicle is positioned towards the centre of the junction. In the MG pedestrians will not approach the entrances dead centre due to

structures such as the stone pillars or toilet blocks or because of the barriers.

If the x is measured not from the centre point but from the edge of the barrier itself can the required y distance be achieved?

Paragraph 14 refers to the average speed of the horse trams being 6.5mph and that DBC will operate the horse trams at 7mph.

It is clear from the tracking data that the horse is capable of travelling at an

average speed of 10mph over the 1.6 mile track. This is an average speed and therefore the top speed must be in excess of this to

allow for a standing start. There are no speedometers, nor have DBC suggested their use. The driver will not know the tram speed and can only rely on guesstimates.

Paragraph 17. The maximum achievable x distance is 1.94m and each of the maximum x distances falls below.


46

‘x’ = 4.0m preferred distance (TA90/05) if cyclists are using the crossing ‘x’ = 2.5m acceptable distance (TA90/05) if cyclists are using the crossing

‘x’ = 2.0m acceptable min distance if cyclists are using crossing. Paragraph 18 does not take into account small children or wheelchair users

whose eye line will be at approximately 0.6m above the ground level. It does not take into account the fact that the MG paths are lower. Visibility splays should work both ways so that a pedestrian can see the HDT and

vice versa. The driver’s view of a small child will be obscured by the wall. The calculations are for 5 entrances. There are additional entrances such as

those adjacent to the TT café and near the fountain. Pedestrians/skateboarders can emerge from these points onto the walkway. For all road types within a development, visibility in the vertical plane should

normally be measured from a driver’s eye-height of no less than 1.05m above the road surface to a point no less than 0.6m above the surface.

103. Mr Bruce Hannay 209 * Former Director of Highways The gist of the case is as follows:

There was a lack of substantiation for the ‘reported views’ of the

hoteliers/shopkeepers that caused the Minister to change his preference. There was no investigation of alternative parking strategies, and no worked up

details of Option A. These which could have allowed discussion on how to overcome the ‘difficulties’

of providing the roundabouts. The DOI failed to indicate the conflict with the effect on the DPCA. Schemes are

only permitted if they preserve or enhance the DPCA.

Recommendations from the DOI Parking Policy Document (PPD-Doc 19) have not been followed.

The proposals are not in accordance with the ‘Central Douglas Masterplan’. DOI did not justify the extra £4m cost, which could maximise the use of Chester

Street Car Park or fund a new multi-storey car park.

This strategy could then make appropriate allowance for hotel guests/shop patrons, and leave the Promenade Walkway untouched as Open Space.

The extra distance for shoppers to walk (400 metres) is not sufficient reason to justify Option B over Option A.

The traffic model used by the DOI Consultant should only realistically be used to

forecast differences in travel times. The additional parking activity (e.g. waiting for spaces to be free) had not been

allowed for in the model. There were no details given of the increased wait times for traffic entering the

Promenade, or for traffic choosing to use other routes.

Forecasting a traffic flow/speed in 2028 is not realistic without making statistical allowance for a range of economic and planning factors.

Thus the traffic evidence should be discounted. No evidence was submitted on the enforcement of the ‘shared space’. The example of the North Quay in Douglas is not a through-route like the

Promenade, and the defined Pedestrian/Cycle areas are frequently blocked. Douglas Promenade is already a ‘shared space’ in the broadest sense.

It is not acceptable for the DOI, at the behest of commercial interests, to seek increased parking provision at the expense of amenity.

Minutes of a meeting (Doc 17) show that the threat of not running the HDTs for

5 years was the reason for DBC changing their support from Option A. MNH’s view that the only surviving example of a Victorian HDT can be moved

from the carriageway ‘as long as it runs from A to B’ is not accepted.


47

The HDT is unique. In the DPCA ‘special features’ should be protected. The cases made by other objectors on loss of Amenity and H&S (particularly that

of Mr Coates, the Island’s former Head of H&S) are supported. He stated that ‘children would be most at risk from the HDT on the walkway.

Mr Coates also advised the DOI to consult the Attorney General on the issue of liability for accidents arising from their proposals.

DOI should pursue the works under the provisions of the ‘Town and Country

Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (Schedule 2, Class 2), and not move the HDT on to the walkways.

Initial submissions stand. The uses are incompatible of uses on walkways Safety loss of amenity – included above.

Effect on specific events not considered (will be curtailed for TT) Mobility and Accessibility audit proposes 6mph speed (is this normal?) and

warning ‘hooter’ which could spook the horse. Lowering of walls for visibility (sunken MG) could lead to flooding Reduction in seating and repositioning are not acceptable.

Difficulty/hazard re service regular vehicles.

104. Mr David Quirk MHK 210 * Mr Quirk attended all sessions of the Inquiry and

put detailed questions to the main parties. Although a closing submission was not submitted it was evident that he shared others’ concerns relating to the effect on

amenity and safety. He submitted a copy of the Holmes Report on shared surfaces to PBCD at the time of the initial application. The gist of his initial statement is as follows:

The proposal is not acceptable due to loss of amenity and safety issues.

The SSC is ill-conceived and such schemes have proved problematic where trialled in other jurisdictions.

Risk assessments were not initially made available and those now submitted are incomplete and inadequate.

Removal of controlled crossings and merging walkways into the roadway is a

recipe for disaster. Without safe designated crossing points all people, including the disabled,

wheelchair users and young children are at risk. The proposal would detrimentally affect businesses by restricting access for

delivery vehicles.

The HDT on the walkways would be dangerous for all users and the implication that the MER could use the same tracks is very worrying.

Public space should be being increased, not decreased. The loss of the use of the space on the walkways is a major concern of those living on the along the various Promenades.

Submitted Document to PBCD: Accidents by Design. Holmes Report on Shared Space in the UK (All traffic types including Cars).

105. Mr T Knott 19 * The gist of his case is as follows: Douglas has the highest density of properties on the Island without gardens and

residents therefore use the promenade.

Alertness requirements for HDT would curtail safe use of walkways. Control of children and pets would be required.

There would be conflict of tracks and other users of wheels. Car parking on Loch Promenade limits its recreational use. The reduction in lawn (Queen’s Promenade) is harmful to DPCA.

Distances, paving and crossing points suggests segregation rather than a sharing of space along the walkways.

1998 Douglas Local Plan notes a lack of accessible public space.


48

The change of use of the DPCA is questioned. IOMSP (2007) stresses the importance of open space.

Risk Assessment inadequate e.g. no speeds given. Misleading comparisons – Disney (speed and area); Spain (between cars) ;

Manchester (collision detection, braking and ‘Skirts’)

106. Mr M Lambden 128 * Mr Lambden was responsible with others for the ‘Facebook’ campaign to prevent vehicles and the HDT from the walkways. The gist of

the case is as follows:

Background to commencement of the campaign

Gradual increase in number of days the walkway used for car parking up to 2013. Cars disrespectful to pedestrians.

Perception that DOI would continue to review promenade strategy until HDT

moved to walkway. Inadequacies of the October 2014 ‘Consultation’.

Car parking on walkway for 6 months from November 2014 when stated reason (replacing car parking during reconstruction) had been deferred.

Erection of unsightly barriers and ticket machines in DPCA and public open space

before period to object had expired. No acknowledgment of objections. Announcement that planning application including moving HDT to walkway.

Surprise decision by Douglas Borough Council to support HDT move.

Start of campaign

Campaign started 12 May in hope that HDT move would be withdrawn. There were 500 ‘likes’ on ‘Facebook’ page in first day (currently 3,322). Radio, newspaper and website features attracted further interest.

Encouraged supporters to contact politicians and in particular the MDOI. Exhibition at ST was of low quality and only staffed for four hours a week with

queues forming to ask questions of staff. Meeting with MDOI and officers on 26 May. MDOI denied that the DOI had ever

planned to use the walkway on northern end of walkway. Undertook to move

track inland near to Broadway.

Process of planning application

Planning application submitted on last day of old planning procedures on last working day before TT fortnight.

Despite exhibition of plans at ST, planning application submitted without any

changes to reflect protestors’ concerns. Additional stress caused to protestors when revised plans submitted as they

were unsure whether they had to submit further objections. MDOI said he was moving the HDT ‘back onto the roadway’ despite his denial

that the Department had ever planned to put them there.

Most inappropriate statements and actions

A tweet from IOMG saying the future of the Promenade was similar to Disney.

References to trams operating in city centres where trams were replacing cars not pedestrians.

A Newspaper survey revealed that only 1 in 7 residents wished to see the HDT

on the walkway, but it was stated that the wrong questions were asked. MDOI said: ‘The message I have received is that there is strong support for

relocating the HDT on to the Promenade Walkway and there would also be an opportunity to incorporate additional sea defences.


49

It was stated that ‘Horse trams and electric trams operate safely in heavily pedestrianized tourist destinations such as Disneyland in California and Port

Soller in Majorca. There is no reason we cannot make this work in the IOM’.

Loss of Amenity

DOI encouraged car parking on walkway for 6 months from Nov 2014 and failed to respond to objectors.

Oct 2014 sought opinion on Southern end only re location on walkway (decision

already taken to move Northern, most narrow sector) Sheltered panoramic views moved to exposed seaward side seating

Safety concerns – as other objections above

Alteration to Conservation Area and Visual Impact – as other objections above

Suitability of Shared Space for roadway – as other objections above

The Cultural Quarter is redundant and inferior to Villa Marina Gardens. With the MER use there is no mention of overhead power and intrusion.

107. Mr D Butt 300 * (Doc 27) Retired Detective Chief Inspector. Mr Butt did not submit any document prior to the opening of the Inquiry. He attended and put questions to the main parties before submitting this document. The DOI has responded

to the submission and rejects much of it as not being material to the application. I agree with their view and although the full document was accepted immaterial planning

considerations have not been part of my deliberations. The gist of the case is as follows:

History

Representations from railway enthusiasts believe that moving the HDT to a different location in effect ends the continuity of the history of the railway.

There have been modifications over the years, but these were very minor.

Safety of current tramway

Accidents involving the horse trams are rare. HSD did not have any statistics to show HDT interaction with traffic. There is no evidence to show that moving the HDT would be safer.

HDT running boards have sliced into the sides and wings of cars driven in a manner whereby the HDT driver could not possibly avoid them.

This sort of incident could also happen to an ‘inattentive pedestrian’ particularly if they are young, elderly or in any way disabled.

Cyclists have crashed when their cycle wheels get caught in the rails and this is a

reasonably frequent occurrence. There have also been some instances where a horse has ‘bolted’ and on one

occasion caused injuries to passengers. The most common injury to passengers was when passengers (often involving

alcohol) jumped off the moving tram and stumbled on to the road.

Overall the HDT in its current position is accident free as far as the pedestrian and passenger is concerned, because of the expertise and practices of DBC.

Options

Leave the rails where they are: DOI are opposed to this. This option does not seem to have been explored at all by DOI.

One single rail in the roadway. In the very busy tourist years, there were numerous horse trams on the lines at the same time, going both ways.

The use has fallen off to an extent that a single line (as proposed in the


50

application) would satisfy the running needs of the trams. The DOI states that the single rail in the centre of the road is not viable and has

used the effect of oncoming traffic on the horses as a reason. Experienced drivers and managers do not consider that the horses would have a

problem. The problem was the behaviour of motorists. There are no statistics to show that boarding and alighting in the road is unsafe

and the DOI has not made a serious attempt to examine this.

Option A: This was a design worked up and approved by the DOI DT, and endorsed by the then MDOI, Mr. David Cretney.

This was the option of moving the rails to the seaward side of the road on LP and then using the Walkway from the War Memorial onwards.

This had been accepted by all involved but still needed planning approval.

There was then a change of Minister and Mr. Cretney was replaced by Mr. Skelly. He did not change the acceptance of Option A.

There was then a few months later, another change of Minister and Mr. Skelly was replaced by Mr. Phil Gawne.

From the evidence given, Mr Gawne decided to pursue other options because of

lobbying from hoteliers and shopkeepers. DOI maintained that Option B was chosen because it would be better for the SSC

area at Greensills but a SSC was not part of the original options. Option B was not chosen because it made better use of the shared space. The

decision was made only on the basis of the reduction of parking. When the MDOI and CEO appeared before the I&E Scrutiny Committee issues

were raised relating to moving the HDT.

Consultation on Option A and Option B

Option A and B were put forward and the options of leaving the rails as they

were or a single line were stated not to be options. Voting on the options was very close and non-votes (90) were not counted.

Shared Space

The SSC is supported but it has been changed and extra crossings put in place and kerb edges re-instated.

If the trams can be moved to operate in place of what was the pavement and associated areas on CP and QP, the same can be done on LP and HP.

The walkway should not be used. The trams should run on the seaward side of

LP and HP and continue on the proposed new routes along CP and QP.

Parking

There are 187 spaces for cars on the between the WM and the TT Kiosk. The spaces provide two hours of free parking. They are important to the traders

and it is understandable that their loss could impact on trade.

Behind Strand Street and Chester Street is a seven storey multi storey car park (CSCP). The top two levels are reserved parking spaces.

The other storeys are pay and display, at the rate of £2.60 for two hours. There are always about 300 empty spaces in the CSCP in the pay and display

area, and about 75 empty spaces in the reserved area.

If the HDT was placed on the seaward side of LP and the 187 places lost, they could easily be accommodated in the CSCP.

The CSCP is nearer the shops than the seaward side of the Promenade. People would not have to cross the road to get to the shops.

The CSCP is about 200 yards from the main shops in the area of Marks and

Spencer and much closer to shops in Castle Street.


51

There would be no loss of revenue for the CSCP, as under occupancy means that they are not receiving the revenue anyway.

The Park is owned by the DOI though leased to the DBC. At present DBC are offering free parking after 3.00pm.

Flood issues

In recent years there has been an increase in the severity of storms and flooding events on the Island, including on Douglas Promenade.

In 2006 IOMG was told that extreme events which were ‘1 in 50’ are now down to ‘1 in 7” and recently Mr. Gawne has stated that the risk may now be ‘1 in 3’ .

As a result there is action being taken to improve flood defences. One of the plans is to put a new flood wall on the seaside of the walkways.

There may be no plans to do this in the next five years, but it will happen.

A DOI official stated that if a flood defence wall had been part of the scheme, the tramway would have to be moved closer to the roadway.

Risks and use of Walkway

At present there is no risk. The HDT will introduce a risk including horses weighing about six tons.

The brakes are vintage and stopping instantly is not an option. Presently the movement of vehicles alongside the trams is predictable.

The behaviour of many people using the Walkway will be less predictable. At present children can safely ride bicycles along the walkway with little

supervision. That will not be the case if the HDT is present.

Loss of amenity

The elderly use the Walkway for ‘Walk and Talk’ sessions.

There are strategies to promote sport, activity and to reduce obesity. There is an excellent National Sports Centre, which is well used, but there is a

cost to use it. The promenade walkways are free and well used. In 2011 the IOM was honoured to host the Commonwealth Youth Games and a

cycling race was held along the full length of the Promenade walkways.

Similarly the walkways have been used to host Island Games cycle races. The introduction of the HDT into that area would probably prevent such

prestigious events taking place there. It is hoped that mini-gyms will be set up on the walkways but they would require

some space, which would be restricted because of the HDT.

Many ‘Parish Walk’ competitors use the walkways to train. DOI has not done any survey of the use or numbers of users.

DOI appears to give more priority to the interests of businesses rather than to the interests of the thousands who use the Walkway for recreation.

108. Mrs G Churcher 4 * and Mr D Churcher 5 *

The gist of their case is as follows: The proposal has a number of significant drawbacks, the principal one being that

it appears to be mainly premised on safeguarding car parking. This is a very strange priority given that many towns and cities now try to reduce

the number of cars driving into their central areas.

Other drawbacks include the HDT terminating further away from the ST and operating a much-shortened route when the TT funfair is in operation.

All of the above issues could be overcome by adopting Option A and erecting removable barriers between the tram track and the carriageway.

This alternative would also have the advantage of not requiring the HDT to be

suspended for a long period while construction is underway.


52

Douglas has the highest density of properties without gardens and its residents use the Promenade walkways.

HDT – space reduction is contrary to Policy D/OS/P5 (DLPWS 1998). Tramline area unusable – difficult to hear/anticipate.

Freedom of movement curtailed (children). Tramlines a continuing hazard to all other wheeled users. No provision in scheme for cyclists.

DOI recent allocation of car parking at LP reduced its use. The removal of the safe cycle route is contrary to DOI Cycling Strategy.

Tram lines run through lawn on Queens Promenade and reduce amenity.

109. Mr J Pennington 12 * Retired Engineer: There are several submissions and Mr Pennington attended the Inquiry and put questions to the main parties. He also

commented on the PBCD addendum statement (Doc 47) and the IR Statement (Doc 37.3). The gist of the case is as follows:

This current scheme has been arrived at, despite the 'public consultation'. There has been no presentation or systematic comparison of the merits and

drawbacks of feasible options.

There are issues with the roundels traffic flows and delays. The SiAS Traffic Modelling Report (para 4.1.1) of May 2015 has had to make very

optimistic assumptions re driver behaviour, in order to avoid congestion. Mr Allen accepted that ‘fiddle factors’ would be necessary to make the roundels

work and made reference to 'SSC’ which is no longer applicable. It is not prudent to incorporate minor amendments to the street-scape, so that

2-lane entry and possible signal control could be added if needed.

If the roundels are modelled with conventional roundabout behaviour, what effect does this have on the traffic capacity, delays and queue lengths?

How are drivers expected to know that they should behave in accordance with the above para 4.1.1? No white lines? Any traffic signs?

How is this covered in the IOM Highway Code? How are visitors expected to

cope with this innovative change to priorities and behaviour? It is not clear whether design and check certificates been completed itemising

those parts of the DMRB which are relevant to the scheme design. It is not clear which aspects of the scheme are covered by the DMRB; whether

desirable or absolute minimum standards have been applied and whether there

any departures or relaxations from standards. The ORR Tramway Technical Guidance Note 2 on Pedestrian Safety states on

page 4 (para 1a) that 'Managing safety should start at the beginning of the design process for revising an existing tramway or planning a new one.’

Little consideration appears to have given to safety before autumn 2014. There

are concerns about the brevity of the report, ‘Tramway Provision on the Promenade and Promenade Walkways’ of November 2014 (Doc 8).

There is also a lack of information on the H & S Railway Inspector's recommendations, and the ORR's Tramway Guidance.

It is a serious concern that the DOI is continuing to issue risk assessments at

this late stage. Their very belated ‘number crunching’ approach to risk makes it difficult for objectors to respond in time.

One assumption that the worst result of accident would be 'major injury or illness’ is more likely to be a ‘fatality or disabling injury’.

The HDT is almost unique, and it would be prudent to compare it with the safety

provisions required where modern skirted trams mix with pedestrians. Clearly, more onerous requirements are required for horses drawing unskirted

tramcars, and similar provision would be required if the HDT were to be replaced


53

in the future by unskirted MER. It is the responsibility of the DOI to demonstrate safety convincingly. Without

such a safety case, then it would be imprudent to give consent.

There appear to be no known accidents due to the long-established operation of

the HDT in the centre of the carriageway, where it could safely remain.

From earlier correspondence

8m (one lane each direction) effective carriageway – easily blocked. DOI acknowledges ‘conflict’ between HDT, pedestrians and cyclists.

Option B offers more space for segregation, but walkway is worryingly narrow- especially if safety requires a barrier.

DOI (radio) ‘moving from the middle of the road is not a safety thing’ so why

move – reduce to single rail.

May 2015 (attachment A)

Consultations - inadequate comparative information (advantages and disadvantages) e.g. estimated costs; traffic and safety studies.

Questions when safety audit commissioned within decision process.

Notes MDOI concern (May 2015) re special measures needed during TT.

June 2015

Road Safety Audit Stage 1, May 2015 – an afterthought - no Stage 2 Audit.

Sept 2015

No statistics provided re safety of current operation.

Misleading comparison Disneyland horse walking – IOM trotting. Nov 2014 date suggests BSA brief report written without observing HDT.

Oct 2015 Re attending Inquiry

Appends extract from DSD/05 – Designer’s Risk Assessment.

Notes at 3 and 3A ‘Very likely major injury (4x4=16) without control measures and 3x4= 12 (medium risk) with measures in place’.

Questions level of injury (4) optimistic – 5 more likely = 15 (borderline high)

110. Anne-Marie Rivers 165 * Ms Rivers has made comments on the DBC RA (RA3 Doc 32) and also on the PBCD Addendum report (Doc 29). The RA comments are

included in Appendix 1 and comments on the PBCD addendum report at Doc 48. The gist of the case is as follows:

Safety issues: refers to accidents with HDTs in Sydney Australia and Leeds

Disney context is very different. Lists events affected e.g. charitable walks.

Limiting exercise increases obesity. Damage to natural beauty. Effect on social; physical and emotional (heightened awareness ) character.

Concerned by lack of risk assessment. In UK, requirement to consider at design stage see: Office of Rail Regulation

Railway Safety Publication 2.

Comments on PBCD Addendum Report

The form and function of the Promenade will be affected in a negative way.

There will be no overall ‘community gain’ from the proposal. It is easier to quantify ‘community loss’ through the effect on loss of open space

of the walkways.


54

The HDT is not a recreational facility. When operating it runs for 63 hours per week and it appears that there is an intention to increase evening use.

The walkway would be affected for its full length and not just narrow areas. In 1890 photographs indicate trams on the road and people on the walkways.

111. Miss P Newton 207 * Ms Newton attended the Inquiry and put questions to

the main parties. She also submitted comments on the PBCD addendum report (Doc 29); the addendum HSD Report (Doc 30) and the Risk Assessments (Doc 34.3 and

Appendix 2). The gist of the case is as follows:

The existence of the HDT and its continued operation is supported. The Promenades have to be reconstructed not just resurfaced and it is necessary

to lift the existing HDT tracks as part of this exercise. The relocation of the HDT on to the walkways is totally unacceptable.

The application is incomplete and, in effect, is a Reserved Matter application even though an approval in principle was never sought.

As a major transport development it should have had the equivalent of an Environmental Impact Assessment considering all options publicly.

A leaflet questionnaire (Doc 8) handed out to residents only showed options for

the relocation of the tramway from the ST to the War Memorial. These were entitled on the reverse side of the leaflet, Option A Horse tram at

edge of carriageway; Option B on walkway. The leaflet did not made clear that both options were to carry on along the

walkway; the title of Option A as above does not match with this intention.

Residents were not consulted to the same extent as businesses. Businesses, Hoteliers, Chamber of Commerce and others had had full meetings

with the DOI over the whole optional routes. Due to unevidenced concerns about car parking the DOI was persuaded to go for

Option B even though they had previously preferred Option A.

There is no overwhelming evidence in favour of Option B, which with its continuation to Derbycastle is essentially the same as the application route.

No survey of car parking has been submitted albeit one had apparently been done some time ago.

This area is served by multi-storey car parks. An independent survey indicates

these have plenty of spare capacity. Parking on the HP and LP is generally restricted to overnight and 2 hour time

slots apart from Sundays. Loss of parking on these two promenades is therefore not a sustainable reason

for not keeping the HDT on the carriageway.

The different environment provided by the walkway with inherent different risks the HDT will be unlikely to maintain its current 20 minute schedule.

The DOI is still working out a method statement for phasing of the work.

Comments on Addendum HSD Report

The walkway is regularly used by various service vehicles Good design should not rely on the minimum necessary visibility

The proposed barriers (kissing gates) will not prevent children from rushing on to the walkway from the gardens

There is insufficient space for ramps where the barriers would be positioned

There is no surety that the HDT drivers would be able to see over the walls. The proposals should comply with the UK Government Inclusive Mobility

Document in relation to locomotion; seeing; hearing; reaching, stretching and dexterity and learning disability (see Doc 30.1).


55

This being the case, it does not suggest that reconstruction as per existing alignment or alternative would not be possible or that it would have to take the

HDT out of operation for the 5 years previously advised.

Other points and queries

Why move tracks – for resurfacing? Extent to which the trams enjoyed at present not considered What causes road congestion – parked cars?

How has the existing walkway been appraised or valued? What effect will two sided chevron parking have on congestion?

Other than a resurfaced road, what will the scheme achieve?

Addendum PBCD Report

Both DBC and MNH stated it was very important to maintain the HDT route and

operations as a link from the ST to Derbycastle and the MER. This reflects its history albeit the ST buildings have changed.

Rail/tram enthusiasts expect to see the HDTon exiting the ST. No evidence has been produced to as to why the HDT cannot be reconstructed

on its present alignment or in the centre of the carriageway.

In the context of DPCA, the HDT current alignment is a prime feature linking all the different sections of promenade.

The proposal side-lines it by reducing its importance and further breaking the connections to the harbour/ST.

The CDMP was stated by PBCD to be a material consideration. Policy TP4 (referred to in Para 2.2.17 of DOI planning application statement of case) ‘Utilising Living Prom’ concerns improving environment for existing users which

on the walkway are stated to be cyclists, walkers, children and visitors. The HDT is not mentioned and should not be part of the definition.

MS1 referred to in Para 2.3.6 of DOI planning application statement of case indicates ‘Cyclists should generally be accommodated in carriageway’.

In areas of LSS there should be little need for dedicated cycle infrastructure.

MS1 also states the propensity to walk is influenced not only by distance but by the quality of the walking experience.

Introduction of the HDT will make the environment insecure and unsafe for all users contrary to the principles of MS1 and IOMSP policies TP4 and TP6.

If the Promenade's emphasis is Recreation then it should not be so openly

encouraging to public car parking especially as alternatives are available. Public transport is far more sustainable and its availability is one of the criteria

given emphasis in the IOMSP 2007 when assessing developments. The inclusion of the roundabout beside the ‘Culture Quarter’ is essentially what is

preventing the HDT from continuing in a position on the carriageway.

The present arrangement is satisfactory and is certainly no more ‘risky’ than having a HDT moving along the edge of QP in a contraflow situation.

The proposed design will detract from the setting of the Gaiety Theatre – a conversion by renowned by theatre architect Frank Matcham.

The views of the PBCD with regard to the colour treatment on the Promenade

walkways are shared.

112. Mr G Cregeen MHK 211 * The gist of the case is as follows:

Concerns about safety of pedestrians, particularly children, on walkways. Running the MER along the walkway is not feasible. There would be a much greater risk than at present for children and others.

The shared space concept has been ill-conceived.


56

Other jurisdictions have trialled such concepts only to have reinstated controlled areas and crossings.

Children, disabled people, wheelchair users would all be at greater risk of being injured if there are not designated safe crossing areas.

The proposal is contrary to the Department of Education Childrens’ Strategy in that it would result in a loss of recreation space.

Public open space should be being increased, not decreased by this use of the

walkways for the HDT use.

113. Mr W Coates 227 * Retired Chief H&S Officer. The gist of the case is:

Concern about significant increase in risk of serious accident by proposed sharing by different users including trams

Legal responsibility for accidents could fall on those who allow this increase in

risk and the result could be enforcement against use of the HDT. Asks for advice from Attorney General’s Chamber.

Asks for Inspector of Railways appointment and recommendations Concern about significant increase in risk of serious accident by proposed

sharing by different users including trams

Even now people walking on the Promenade have to avoid dogs and bicycles and even cars at times.

The introduction of the HDT will exacerbate the situation and those most at risk will be children and the elderly.

114. Christine Pritchard 194 * The gist of the case is: Major concerns regarding safety and amenity issues. Congestion is caused by motorists hovering to use free parking spaces

The ambition to replace with MER would be a greater hazard risk. The HDT should be located on the seaward side of the road.

The displayed plans were unhelpful – critical dimensions omitted. The use of geometric shapes inlaid in the Promenade Walkway date back to at

least the 1930s and should be retained.

They are part of the character of the Promenade. A book written to commemorate the centenary of DBC makes reference to the

coloured tarmac in ‘the 1930's’. It would be fair to assume that it formed part of the scheme in the 1930's, and

as such, therefore, an important part of the ‘heritage’ in this area.

King Edward Road (London) is not a good example of a shared space and bears no comparison with the Promenade as an open leisure space.

The pedestrian area has not been reduced. The kerb has been replaced by ridged paving to demarcate the ‘pavement’.

Basically, this means that there is a section of the pavement on which it is very

uncomfortable to walk, and, therefore, to a certain extent ‘unusable’. Neither motorists nor pedestrians have actually gained or lost space.

If this proposal goes ahead there will be no barrier to the DOI, to utilise the track for other forms of transport, eg, the MER and/or a modern tramcar.

The risks of having such vehicles would be greater than those for the HDT.

There is no compelling evidence to justify the location of the HDT anywhere on the walkway and/or slicing off part of Queen's Gardens.

One reason cited for not putting a single track in the centre of the road was that the horses would be facing oncoming traffic. But that situation frequently happens today.

The safety, comfort, and convenience of passengers, the driver, conductor, and, of course, the horses, is paramount.


57

The safety, comfort, and convenience of pedestrians using the walkways is likewise of paramount importance.

If it is intended that there would be a joint use of both bus and tram stops passengers will be sited on the side of the road, so anyone wanting a tram is

going to have to negotiate, for example, a way through the MG.

115. RA and SV Hamilton (18) The gist of the case is as follows: The tramway tracks should be on the seaward side of the carriageway.

The walkway should be retained so that people can promenade in safety. Throughout the world safe waterside walkways have been provided.

The existing walkway is a valuable asset for residents and visitors. The case for its retention as only is stronger than ever. It would be a retrograde step to lose the use of the space for so many users.

The mixing of horses with walkers, the elderly and children is dangerous and unhealthy. It is illegal for dogs to foul footways and should be for horses.

The shared space will not work and images produced are inaccurate. The financial advantages of the scheme are a red herring. Improvements are

needed but not to the extent proposed.

116. Andrew Cairns (45) The gist of the case is as follows: The Promenade is a public amenity in use 365 days a year and the proposal will

substantially reduce its area as well as posing a significant safety risk. As well as the tram tracks the new street furniture will also reduce space.

The loss of space is contrary to policy D/OS/P5 of the DLPWS 1998. Due to wind and sea noise the trams will not be heard. Tram tracks are dangerous for cyclists and other users anything with wheels.

The document in support of trams on the walkway is inadequate. In the whole of the RSPG2 document there are only three references to Horse

Trams and these are in the Heritage section. What is being proposed is a HDT with no modern failsafe system or pedestrian

protection devices being provided.

A combined weight of horse and fully loaded tram is 4500kg and this is the equivalent to 3 family saloons and significantly dangerous.

The examples of trams in other towns and cities cannot be compared to the proposed shared usage of the whole of the walkway.

Attention is brought to fatalities and accidents elsewhere and the majority have

taken place in ‘line of sight areas’ with speeds of around 10mph. The proposal goes against the public consultations of 2010.

117. D N P Harding (71) The gist of the case is as follows: The proposal will curtail the use of the Promenade as a walkway and will severely

limit it as a safe area for use by the public.

The HDT operation makes a considerable loss and is a burden to rate payers. The suggestion that relocation will increase the use is wishful thinking.

The HDT have come to the end of their useful life. If the HDT are to be retained parking spaces need not be lost. Moving the trams is not the only way to save parking spaces.

The comparison with Disneyland is naïve at best and inappropriate. Relocating the tramway to the walkway is unsafe and a recipe for disaster

considering its use by children, the elderly, visually impaired etc. Fencing off of the tramway from the walkway is not practicable. There is a hygiene issue regarding horse excrement.

The loss of open space is contrary to the Local Plan. Open space and the safe Promenade walkway is part of our heritage and it should remain as existing.


58

119. G A Halsall (200) The gist of the case is as follows:

The horse trams should remain untouched because of their importance as a world heritage facility.

The scheme is too costly and would only have a life of around 20 years.

The relocation is blatantly and obviously unsafe and dangerous and the shared space concept is the wrong solution.

The space outside of the Sefton is unnecessary and the roundabout will require peak hour traffic lights.

The proposed diagonal parking will increase congestion.

A ‘plane and overlay’ procedure would be considerably cheaper.

120. Michael G Poole (265) The gist of the case is as follows:

Any investor in the Island will realise that the car will still dominate. Many places abroad are looking to car sharing, free public transport, Park and

Ride schemes, electric hire cars etc.

There are some 60000 cars on the Island plus those of visitors which is far higher than in the UK as a proportion of the population.

The moving of the HDT gives the impression that our heritage is not valued. The HDT should be treated as an asset as it would be in other countries.

The HDT acts as a traffic calming measure. The terminus is in the wrong place and should be at the ST. The route could be safeguarded by battery or hydrogen powered trams and a

Park and Ride scheme at the Summerland would reduce car movements.

118. Mrs P Quayle De Haven (173) The gist of the case is as follows: The RAs do nothing to allay the safety fears raised in earlier submissions. The beautiful green Queens Gardens will be sliced through and trees will be lost

and so much will be gone forever. Significant loss of amenity and open space.

Praises some ideas in Douglas 2000 Promenade Development Study Booklet. In favour of generally increasing traffic free areas and relocating car parking.

Prefers single HDT on seaside of road. LP could be pedestrianised as Manx Culture Quarter. Options for a world class heritage site should be explored.

Notes deterioration in sea wall and walkway which will be exacerbated by addition of heavy trams.

Attached Independent article (RIBA and healthy cities)- see submission. No published, adequate H&S appraisal. This is essential as CEO, DBC refers to -no true comparator systems in the world.

Purpose appears to be 187 car parking spaces on promenade. Questions uptake of 343 spaces in Chester Street.

Promenade parking is not as convenient as Chester Street for retail purposes Suggests increasing and upgrading Chester Street and other new facilities.

Response to PBCD Addendum Report (Doc 45)

The new improved roadway giving greater priority to pedestrians will result in the sacrifice of a glorious and unique open space: the Promenade walkway.

There is no justification in removal of part of the Queens Gardens and the loss of the palm trees.

The plan to regenerate the Promenade walkway should include preserving the

trees and the attractive Queens Gardens.


59

The core double track should be retained and if it is a single track more than one passing place would be required.

A more thorough whole Island analysis of car usage is required.

121. Debra Berry 33 * The gist of the case is as follows:

Previous objections reiterated to this nonsensical scheme. Nothing allays fears regarding the running of HDT on walkways. This would not improve the current situation.

The DOI has bowed to hotelier and business pressures at the expense of the greater Manx public losing the wonderfully wide and safe open spaces.

There are many flaws and loopholes in the scheme including no flood risk assessment and unknown tram stopping distances.

122. Vanda Murray 35 * The gist of the case is as follows:

A tram is a vehicle and should be on the road. It was a very fast decision to change from Option A to Option B.

Decision based entirely on 2 groups of people [hoteliers and retailers] Unfounded belief that parking would be greatly reduced with Option A. The parking would be similar to existing; only swapping sides of the road.

Additional desirable parking not explored; eg Market Street and Walpole Avenue. [Fort Street mentioned, but not Walpole Avenue].

NB Both above sites are on the town side of the promenade, thus removing the need to cross the traffic and disrupt the flow.

PLAN A could allow for a removable pavement between tram and road, therefore permitting more parking space when trams are not running.

PLAN A described on leaflet ‘’Horse Tram Adjacent to Highway’ only shows from

TT café to WM. This gives a false impression that the tram travels on the road for the length of the promenade.

PLAN A should continue to the end of the BNCP to be nearer the ST. It should not be compromised, and should retain its integrity.

PLAN B cannot ever address all of the constant changing mix of hazards. [viz: Mr

Balmer’s own personal comment that he would avoid certain areas of the promenade with his two small children].

The Castle Mona passing place will impinge on road and walkway. Have RAs been done on other SSCs? Has it been done for the combined PLAN B

and shared space for the promenade?

There is no provision for cyclists either on the walkway or road. The integrity of the promenade is compromised with the introduction of much

clutter, colourful tactile tiles contrasting with black tarmac on our walkway.

123. The list of objections in the following table is from individuals who attended the Inquiry and/or spoke at the Inquiry. The numbers to the left relate to the

representation reference and an asterisk (*) next to the name indicates that the individual spoke at the Inquiry and/or put questions to the parties. Many repeat most

of the points made above but summarise the concerns of the individuals who have made representations. The gist of the points is as follows and the full representations are in Docs 20 and 21.

30 Mrs Vivien Woolf * Loss of amenity

Contrary to IOM Physical Activity Strategy 2011

Limited recreational space in Douglas

Safety concerns Incompatible with current users

Failed experiment of shared space – parking


60

on Loch promenade

Competing for reduced walkway space dangerous

Risk of HDT collision – unpredictable braking

and stopping distance; unpredictable horses; poor visibility from sunken gardens

Incompatible wheels and track Alterations to Conservation Area Trams ; tracks; signage and marking

87 Mr D M Schuster * Loss of amenity – included above

Safety – included above Alterations to Conservation Area – included

above In favour of single track within roadway

113 Mr Barry Edwards *

Loss of amenity – included above Safety concerns – included above

Alterations to Conservation Area – included above

Shared Spaces along Promenade roadway – doubts motorists’ willingness to slow down and give way

Supports single track with 3 passing places in roadway – many precedents for successful

combination of trams and vehicular traffic Introduction of 3 pedestrian crossings in 2

miles not adequate

139 Mr M Newby * Questions Risk Assessments Suggest one way traffic (as during TT) and 2

way only at rush hour with trams suspended

162 Mr Kevin Graham

*

Supports seaward kerb location

Trams will separate sunken gardens from walkway and Loch Promenade

Now a coherent tranquil space Risks to variety of users e.g. cable dog

leashes across tracks

Suggests single tram track

201

51

Mr Mike Fayle *

Mrs V Fayle

Question efficacy of consultation

Suggests previous scheme Option in road was fully endorsed by DOI as ‘the right answer’?

Asks for publication of supporting evidence so as not entering into ‘pure experiment with live samples’

206 Mrs Janet Hannay Points above re loss of amenity and safety reiterated and

Highway code says “you must not take a horse on a pavement”

212 Mr Jack Murphy Brief reiteration of main points above Are tram rails being moved simply to make

resurfacing easier?

253 Mr Chris M Cale Loss of amenity – included above


61

That concludes the table of objections.

See below for brief explanation of Risk assessment Report

Risk Assessments

124. There were four risk assessments submitted to the Inquiry. The first is the DOI

Designer’s Risk Assessment - RA1 (Doc 33.1). The second is the Designer’s

Summary of Significant Hazards and Risks by Burroughs Stewart Associates (BSA) - RA2 (Doc 33.2). The third is Risk Assessment: Tramway Operation

Douglas Borough Council - RA3 (Doc 33.3) and the fourth is Douglas Promenade

– Horse Drawn Track Works, Risk profiling register – last updated 30 November 2015 - Safety Management Services (IoM) Limited, Planning Supervisor

Services RA4 (Doc 33.4). My own full analyses of each RA are set out in Appendix 1. Objectors’ comments on the RAs are set out in Appendix 2. The

DOI response to the Objectors’ comments on RAs is in Appendix 3. There is a separate section in my Assessment and Conclusions.

My assessment and conclusions follow on the next page

Manx Port and

recreation

Safety- included above

Alterations to Conservation Area and Visual Impact – included above and

Suggests alternative parking e.g.

Summerland and Park and Ride

264 Deirdre Murphy Objects briefly and generally on amenity and

safety

267 Mrs Marie

Lambden

Loss of amenity- include above

Safety – included above Alterations to Conservation Area and Visual

Impact – included above

271

Mr Michael A

Jones

No precedent – even Manchester differs (as

above) Original Objectives of the Promenade

Refurbishment Scheme state “essential that

the promenade attracts and sustains pedestrian presence”

Reason for relocation - trams delay traffic – but proposal is for generous ‘coloured’ median strip dividing two single track

roadways Revised plans show angled car parking –

reducing carriageway width.


62

ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

The Main Issues/Considerations

125. The main issues/considerations are as follows: Whether or not the principle of the proposals is acceptable.

The effect of the proposals on public amenity and open space. The effect on the character and appearance of the DPCA. The effect on highway performance and safety.

The effect on pedestrian safety on the walkways. The effects on the Registered Buildings

Introduction

The Statutory Position

126. In reaching a decision on these applications regard must be had to the statutory

requirements set out in sections 10(4); 16(3) and 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (The Act). The provisions of the relevant policies of the development

plan (The IOMSP and relevant Area Plans) are the starting point and the overall decision must be made in accordance with those provisions, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In reaching my conclusions and my

recommendation, I have had regard to the development plan and to all of the relevant policies, guidance, documents and plans referred to and submitted to the Inquiry and

to what I saw during the course of my various site visits.

The Applications, their consideration and objections

127. As stressed by DOI, this planning application (PA) and the two Registered Building Consent (RBC) applications are for a set of specific proposals (Option B), aimed at regenerating the full length and breadth of the Douglas Promenade highway

and walkway sections. The applications are not for any alternative scheme and, particularly, not for one relating to where might be the best location for the HDT. The

main question with regard to the HDT is whether or not its proposed re-positioning would be acceptable on planning grounds. The DOI accepts that references back to how the application scheme was eventually arrived at are material and I agree with

their view. Phases 1 and 2 of the Promenade works are part of the planning history to this Phase 3 scheme. In order for my report to stand alone and for it to be fully

understood without reference to any other information, it has been necessary to report the full submissions including those which refer to the other options and how the decision was made to proceed with this proposal.

128. The process of determining the content of the applications included various rounds of public consultation. Although many objectors are clearly dissatisfied and

aggrieved at how the decision was reached and consider that the process was flawed, a decision was made by MDOI and this became the DOI preferred scheme. This was a political decision and it is not appropriate for the planning process to question such a

conclusion.

129. Many objectors have also submitted evidence referring, in their view, to the

inappropriateness and excessive costs of the proposal but, again, these are not material planning considerations in relation to the decision(s) to be made. Clearly there are many objections which do go to the heart of the planning merits of the scheme and

there is no doubt that this is one of the most controversial applications that the Island has experienced. However, where the submissions have deviated from the material

planning merits of the scheme I have not afforded them any weight in my assessment and deliberations.


63

130. My own conclusions are based upon the planning merits of this overall scheme and I do not consider that any weight should be given to whether or not there is a

better or more appropriate solution to the scheme that has been chosen by DOI. Considering the space available along the length of the Promenade, there may well be

other alternative schemes which could be made to work but these were not before the Inquiry.

131. This overall proposal must succeed or fall on the basis of its planning merits,

having regard to all of the relevant policies, guidance and other material considerations. What must be fully and thoroughly assessed is whether or not the

proposed scheme to provide both a low-speed streetscape and a walkway that is shared between current users and the HDT is acceptable as a whole.

The need for regeneration

132. There is no dispute that, apart from the recently completed short Phase 1 section, the whole of the Promenade is in dire need of regeneration. Both highways and

walkway sections are in extremely poor condition with regard to surface finishes, sub-structure and services. Patchy repairs over the years have resulted in what can only be described as a ‘hotchpotch’ of inappropriate surface finishes, infrastructure and street

furniture.

133. No major works have been carried out for many years and this is most

noticeable. I agree with the DOI, PBCD, DBC and others that this poor quality streetscape has reached the end of its useful life in highway terms and that it detracts

markedly from the character and appearance of this gateway feature to Douglas and the Island and the DPCA.

134. In visual terms and in the interests of highway safety, there is a definite need to

improve the whole of the environment along the Promenade. Phase 1 has set the scene and has greatly improved the small section between the ST and Regent Street.

The re-positioning of the Jubilee Clock has added to the attractive appearance of the southern section of the LP and it is clearly imperative that improvement works are carried out along the rest of the length of the Promenade, both to the highways parts

and the four walkway sections.

135. The latter do not appear to be as obviously ‘run-down’ as the former but that is

only due to their more generally open appearance and lack of clutter in the form of street lighting, signage and plethora of other street furniture items which are most noticeable along the highway. However, in terms of their basic infrastructure and

surface finishes, the walkways are equally in need of a thorough overhaul and refurbishment.

136. The principle of refurbishment of the whole of the Promenade is accepted by all parties although some objectors are opposed to the principle of providing roundabouts and others question the overall extent, costs and need for the works involved. Whilst

some of the points made relating to how the highways will operate can be relevant, the matter of overall cost and the extent to which works are actually required are matters

for DOI as the applicant.

The proposals, land use designations and the principle of development

137. The proposals include major changes to all four sections of the Promenade. The

works involve alterations to the full public highway (carriageways and footways on either side) to create a low speed streetscape (LSS); works to the Promenade

walkways and the relocation of HDT tracks from the central road carriageway way on to the various sections of the Promenade walkway. The works to the walkways which would incorporate the HDT is referred to as a shared surface concept (SSC).


64

138. The overall scheme, therefore, is somewhat of a hybrid; being part LSS and part SSC. I do not consider that it can be directly compared with any of the schemes which

are relied upon in support of the proposal (see later for detail). The schemes at Poynton, London and elsewhere are shared in the sense that pedestrians and vehicles

share the same streetscape surfaces and there are no distinctions in relation to what constitutes the highway and where pedestrians are meant to walk. Initially the highways part of the application scheme was designed as a true shared surface but,

following consultations, the scheme was amended to re-introduce kerbs and more crossings over the highway sections.

139. Other HDT examples are also quoted in support of this part of the proposed scheme but, again, I find that none is directly comparable with the situation which would pertain along the Douglas Promenade walkways if approval for the scheme is

granted. I return to these matters in more detail below.

Land use designations

140. The highways sections and the LP walkway comprise different land use designations in the DLPO. The highways part is designated as ‘Principal Traffic Route’ and the LP is designated as ‘Public Open Space’ on Map 1 of the DLPO. Although Map 2

does not specifically designate the HP, CP and QP walkways as ‘Public Open Space’, it was agreed by both DOI and PBCD that the lawful use of these promenades seems to

have always been (and still is) ‘Public Open Space’. I consider, therefore, that the starting point for consideration of the applications in relation to land use designation is

that all of the walkways constitute ‘Public Open Space’.

141. As indicated in the Addendum PBCD report (Doc 29), the relevant policy with regard to any effect on open space is RP2 of the IOMSP. In the report the PBCD officer

concludes that the HDT use is a recreational rather than a transport use and on that basis it is argued that its use along the walkways ‘is not in itself contrary to the

planning designation’.

142. However, I disagree with the conclusion that the HDT is a ‘recreational use’ and that the use of the HDT on the walkways accords with the policy. Although it is used

for recreation purposes by Islanders and visitors alike, as a matter of fact, it is a means of transport and has been so since Victorian times. It is not a recreational theme park

ride. Today it still performs alongside the other two Island heritage railways, the MER and the Steam Railway (SR) albeit that all are limited to certain times of operation during the year. When the HDT is in operation it is a true heritage tramway which

transports people from one end of the Promenade to the other and in accordance with the necessary safety standards which must be approved by the IR.

143. Despite its seasonal use, in my view the HDT is clearly as much of a transport facility as the MER and the SR. Its introduction on to the walkways would constitute a change of use from ‘Public Open Space’ (recreational) land to a mixed use of land used

as public open space (recreational land) and land used as a transport corridor. The fact that the IR is involved; that an advisor from ORR has been appointed and that the

design team has gone to great lengths to consider the risks involved, all reinforce my view that the HDT is a transport use, rather than merely a recreational ride along the Promenade.

144. The introduction of the HDT on to the walkways and the works involved constitute development and such development should be carried out in accordance with the

development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policy RP2 seeks to ensure that development does not ‘adversely affect or result in the loss of open space or a recreational facility that is, or has the potential to be, of recreational or

amenity value to the community’.


65

145. The questions to be considered, therefore, are firstly whether or not the use of the HDT on the walkways would be harmful to the open space by reason of the

different character of usage and/or any the loss of open space and, secondly, whether the use would impact on the walkways as a recreational facility in themselves. The

walkways already provide the main open space within central Douglas and its various sections are used extensively by residents and visitors for recreational purposes. Even if the HDT were to be classified as a recreational use, the development carried out

would still have to be considered in the light of any effect on the open space and whether or not it accorded with all aspects of policy RP2.

The principle of development - works to the highway

146. Taken separately, the works to the highways section of the Promenades accord with the land use designation. Like Phase 1, these works relate to alterations and

improvements to the ‘Principal Traffic Route’ into and out of Douglas. The principle of development for these works is, therefore, acceptable in my view and I agree with

PBCD and others that the proposals to reconstruct the highway should be welcomed.

The principle of development – works to the walkways

147. The situation regarding the principle of development on the walkways, however, is

not as straightforward. For the reasons set above, I do not consider that the proposed shared use of the LP, HP, CP and QP walkways with the HDT accords with the land use

designation. In the first report (Doc 1) PBCD indicated that any loss of space could depend on whether the HDT is considered to be a form of transport or a recreation

facility in itself.

148. My own conclusion is that it has been treated by all concerned in the application as a repositioning of the existing tramway and that it is, indeed, a transport use. This

is contrary to the land use designation.

149. That does not mean, however, that this part of the proposals must necessarily be

found to be unacceptable. As indicated by PBCD (Doc 1), if it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policy RP2 in principle (and there is a negative effect on the open space), if the criteria as listed within RP2 (a) and (b) are met, then the proposal

could be acceptable. I deal with these criteria in more detail below when considering the effect of this part of the scheme on the open spaces and the character and

appearance of the four walkways.

The effect on public amenity and open space

Effect of the works on the highways and on the Registered Buildings

150. The proposed works within the highway clearly would not physically impact on any designated ‘Public Open Space’. The highway is a main arterial route and the

footways would be used by the public as part of the new LSS. Although the carriageway sections are adjacent to the various sections of the walkways they are perceived as being completely separate entities and the elements of the sunken

gardens and Queens Gardens reinforce this perception by separating the different parts. Even along the CP (the narrowest section) the highway and the walkway are

clearly separated by the raised kerbed footway which also houses the street lighting standards.

151. The proposed carriageways would cater for traffic within a new LSS and this

would provide a much safer and much improved environment for road users and pedestrians. Overall there would be significant benefits, therefore, in terms of public

amenity. The highways part of the streetscape would be significantly improved in terms of its character and appearance and the proposals would be continuing the


66

concept which was instigated at the Phase 1 stage of the Promenade redevelopment. Overall, therefore, I considered that in terms of the effect on public amenity and open

space within the highway sections, the proposals accord with the relevant policies of the IOMSP.

152. I also consider that the proposed works adjacent to the Registered Buildings would be a significant improvement on the existing unsightly concrete footways. The new finishes will enhance the frontages to both buildings and the open spaces adjacent.

I also consider, therefore that both proposals for RBC comply with the relevant IOMSP policies.

Effect of the works on amenity and the open space of the four walkway sections

153. Turning to the effect of the scheme on the walkways, however, again the situation is not as straightforward. The introduction of the HDT would have specific

effects on the open spaces of these sections of the Promenade and how they are currently used.

154. The four walkway sections have different spatial qualities. The LP and the HP are the most spacious sections, with those along the CP and the QP being much narrower. However, even at their narrowest points, the walkways are perceived as being open

and uncluttered. Apart from some street furniture such as benching and rubbish bins, all of the walkways provide what is clearly true ‘Public Open Space’.

155. Whilst accepting that some service vehicles are allowed on these sections, their day-to-day use provides Islanders and visitors with wide, open, and safe spaces to

promenade (and to carry out many other recreational activities). This has been the case since Victorian times and the safety and spaciousness of the walkways along the Douglas Promenade have clearly been appreciated and acknowledged by all over the

years. Photographic evidence indicates how these areas were heavily used in the past and there is no dispute between DOI and objectors to the proposals that the walkways

still provide important and essential recreational open space.

The DOI stance

156. It is the view of DOI that the proposal will retain the ‘status quo’ in terms of the

use of these open spaces that there would be no loss of open space. It is contended that because the walkway areas will be shared by the HDT, the situation would not

change. Furthermore, it is argued that the overall scheme will result in an increase of around 2700m² in terms of the resulting open space which would be available on the shared walkways.

157. This figure is mainly based on the fact that, along parts of the CP walkway, the HDT track will straddle and make use of the space currently occupied by the raised

kerb footway (with existing lamp standards) which separates the walkway from the carriageway. In terms of the overall area of the proposed ‘shared space’ this cannot be disputed since, along this particular section (CP), what is currently kerbed footway

would physically become part of the walkway which would be shared by the HDT corridor.

Objectors’ position

158. Objectors, however, do not accept the above arguments and contend that the SSC for the walkways is ill-conceived. It is considered that any sharing of these areas,

with the HDT use, would result in a significant loss of usable open space. It is argued that the open space taken up by the HDT corridor would detrimentally erode, prevent

and/or hinder the continued current level of recreational uses of the available ‘Public Open Space’. This view is predicated on the basis that although the space is physically


67

present in terms of the walkway areas, it would not be fully usable as ‘Public Open Space’. For practical reasons (set out in their detailed objections) it is stressed that the

HDT corridor cannot be fully ‘shared’ in the true meaning of the word, with traditional users of the walkways.

159. Having assessed all of the evidence I share the concerns of objectors with regard to the effect that the HDT would have on the open nature, character and usage of the walkways. I acknowledge that there would be a net gain of overall space but the

issues, in my view, revolve around how the open space would be perceived and more importantly how, in effect, it would be used if the HDT is transferred to the walkways

as proposed. Thus it is the HDT element of the proposals which is critical.

160. In theory there is sufficient physical space for the walkways (particularly on the LP and the HP) to accommodate both the HDT and its current users. However, the way

in which it is proposed to provide the ‘shared’ space would, in my view, have a significant impact on how the walkways would be perceived and how they would be

able to be used as ‘Public Open Space’.

161. The HDT would be within the proposed red tarmac–coloured 3.7m wide transport corridor. Together with the rails and the proposed textured edging, this would

discourage other users from encroaching on to the corridor and particularly when the HDT is moving along the walkways. The mitigation measures set out in the risk

assessments (RAs) are clearly aimed at ensuring that all users are aware of the trams and that everything possible is done to keep the users out of the corridor during

operations. Actual physical barriers have been discounted (see later RA section) but the proposals would clearly affect how users would be able to use the open space of the walkways.

162. Clearly pedestrians could walk along the HDT corridor between the times of trams and obviously during the whole of the out-of-season times. However, anyone using

wheels of any kind (cyclists, pram-users, skateboarders) would have to keep clear of the rails at all times, not just when the HDT was operating. The textured edging to the corridor is also aimed at defining the route and ensuring that other users are aware of

the HDT and that they must keep clear of the trams. During the course of the Inquiry the question of warning signage was also raised alongside the need to provide barriers

between the sunken garden and the LP.

163. Having walked the full length of the Promenade walkways and noted the marked positions of the HDT tracks, I consider that the proposal would result in a significant

perception that the nature and usage of the open space had been notably eroded. This would particularly be the case during the HDT operation periods. What is currently and

simply ‘Public Open Space’ would be seen as being part open space and part transport route.

164. Even when not in operation the presence of the corridor would severely restrict

the use of the shared open space by many users. Mitigation measures such as the infilling of rails during the off-season would only go some way to overcome the issue.

In any case the textured edging would still discourage cyclists and any other ‘wheel-users’ from straying across this different textured surface finish and on to the proposed red tarmac corridor.

165. I have already concluded that, in principle, there would be a loss of ‘Public Open Space’ due to the introduction of the HDT as a transport use and thus a mixed use of

the walkways. For the reasons set out above I also consider that there would also be a marked perception that the open space along the walkways had been significantly eroded in comparison to the current use. This loss and the altered perception of the


68

use of the walkways would also have an impact on the character and appearance of the DPCA and in particular that of the LP and the QP.

166. It follows in my view that the overall proposal would adversely affect, and result in the loss of, the open space along all sections of the walkways. The walkways are of

significant amenity value to the community and Policy RP2 seeks to avoid such loss of space. I now turn, therefore to whether or not the criteria set out in RP2 (a) and (b) are met so as to constitute the circumstances whereby such a loss could be considered

to be acceptable.

167. The first criterion (a) allows a loss of open space ‘Where alternative provision of

equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available’. This would normally mean that where there was an obvious loss of community open space, provision of equivalent benefit (normally alternative space)

could be made available elsewhere. From what is being proposed, however, this criterion does not assist.

168. The second criterion (b), however, could apply. This states that a loss of open

space could be permitted ‘Where there would be an overall community gain from the

development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no

significant unacceptable effect on local open space of recreation provision or on the character or

amenity of the area’. Clearly a comprehensive and acceptable refurbishment of the whole of the

Promenade would be a significant community gain and in such circumstances the proposal would

satisfy the first part of this criterion.

169. To satisfy the second part, the advantages of any overall community gain would have to be outweighed by both the effect of the loss of the open space of the walkways and any other unacceptable effects on the character or amenity of the area. In this case that means the character and appearance of the DPCA. This particular aspect of the assessment, therefore, needs to be considered in relation to the overall planning balance of the scheme and I deal with this below having covered the rest of the main issues.

The effects on the character and appearance of the DPCA

Statutory position and relevant policies

170. In reaching my conclusions I have had regard to the duty set out in section 18(4)

of The Act. This states that ‘where an area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its

character or appearance, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act.

171. Policy EP35 of the IOMSP states: ’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 PPS1/01, policy CA/2 also states that ‘When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or

buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application’.

Introduction

172. The DPCA is unique in that it stretches for around 1.5 miles along the eastern

seaboard of the Island’s capital. In terms of its special character and appearance and in relation to why it was designated as such, its contribution to the special appearance of Douglas commenced prior to the Victorian era. However, it was during this period

that the HDT was introduced and it provided the main public transport system along


69

the Promenade for many years. It has thus become part of the defining fabric of the conservation area.

173. The DPCACA describes the Promenade as ‘a continuous edge of built form’ and that it is; ‘one of the most distinguished and notable elements of townscape in the

Island and elegantly defines the margin where town meets the sea’. It is indicated that there are local variations in character within the DPCA and that the concept and form of the Promenades owes much to the Victorian period with some of the earlier elements

retaining their Late-Georgian and Regency elegance.

174. The earliest sections are Strathallan Crescent and Clarence Terrace, The

Esplanade and Derby Terrace. These latter terraces were completed as a Promenade with the construction of the CP in 1896. Prior to that, the other three sections of Promenade were completed in 1864-the HP; 1875-the LP and 1890-the QP.

175. The DPCACA sets the scene in defining the essential character and townscape and also indicates that ‘synonymous with the image of the Promenades -as they became

known when the tourist industry was at its height (from the latter years of the Nineteenth Century until the 1950s – is the unique system of horse trams which runs the entire length during the summer months. The document then goes on to indicate

that ‘It is judged that this feature makes an important contribution to the special character of the area’. There can be no dispute that this is the case.

Present character and appearance

176. Most of the submissions to the Inquiry referred to the DPCA as one entity which it

is, in terms of its designation. However, due to the detailed history; the manner in which it has been developed and used over the years and the different physical features and dimensions, the four sections possess different characteristics and

particularly the walkways. The main elements of the highway and the walkways still unify and define the linear nature and continuity of the Promenades. However, the

walkways all contribute to the overall character and appearance of the DPCA in different ways.

177. Before being able to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the whole of the

DPCA is preserved or enhanced by the proposed scheme it is necessary, therefore, to assess how each part of the highways and the walkways sections of the works would

affect the existing situation.

Effect on the character and appearance of the highways sections

178. The proposed refurbishment and up-grading of the carriageways and footways

would significantly improve the character and appearance of the full length of the Promenade. It is clear that the finishes to surfaces will not all be to the same high

standard set by the Phase 1 development. However, the provision of narrower carriageways; better footways; appropriate crossings and a more co-ordinated approach overall to the streetscape design, would result in a most attractive and

pedestrian-friendly route along the length of the Promenade highway.

179. The proposed works to the ‘Cultural Quarter’ (in front of The Sefton Hotel), and

the pedestrian links across Church Road to Castle Street would also greatly improve and add positively to the appearance of this part of Douglas. Between the SH and the VMG the streetscape would be significantly improved and it would be much easier and

safer for pedestrians to cross from the HP walkway on to the landward side of the highway.

180. Similarly the proposed works adjacent to the Broadway and Summerhill roundabouts would improve the appearance of the streetscape. Overall, therefore, I


70

consider that the proposed works to the highways and footways would enhance and preserve the character and appearance of the DPCA and that, in this respect, the

proposal accords with policy EP35 of the IOMSP and policy CA/2 of PPS1/01

Effect on the character and appearance of the LP walkway

181. I have concluded above that the introduction of the HDT on to the walkways generally would result in a loss of open space. The LP is the most spacious of the walkways and is one of the most noticeably open promenades in Great Britain. It has

been referred to as a unique feature in terms of its spaciousness and has been used by citizens and visitors as a wide, open and uncluttered open space since it was completed

in 1875.

182. Because of its overall width and the position of the Marine Gardens (between the walkway and the highway), anyone walking, running or cycling along its length hardly

notices the major arterial traffic route just a few metres to the west. Its spaciousness and openness, therefore, contribute significantly to its defining character and

appearance and to the enjoyment and tranquillity (other than when there are very rough seas) of its use as ‘Public Open Space’. Any operational development, or change in land use along its length (such as parking, fun fairs, street furniture), is bound to

have some effect on these characteristics and visual qualities.

183. Clearly a lot of the uses, to which the LP has been put in the past, have been of a

temporary nature which has not required planning approval for various reasons. For short periods these have been considered acceptable. However, the proposal to re-

locate the HDT on to the LP walkway would be an operational development (rails, surfacing signage etc) as well as a permanent change of use of the land. This change of use is one that is most unlikely to be able to be reversed once carried out.

184. Having walked the LP many times and in all seasons (not just during the site visits relating to the applications), it is my view that the spacious character would be

eroded by the proposed shared use with the HDT. Whilst accepting that there would be no loss of physical space and even a gain if the 2700m² is taken into account, I have referred above to both the perceived loss of open space and the practical loss of space

which would be caused by locating the HDT on the walkways. I consider that the introduction of a vehicular means of transport, such as the HDT, albeit for only a

limited part of the year, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of this part of the DPCA within the LP walkway.

185. My view that the introduction of the HDT would detrimentally affect the

appearance of the LP walkway is reinforced by the obvious necessary operational development which would be carried out. In the reports (Docs 1 and 29) PBCD refer to

the proposed surface treatments. They indicate that ‘for much of the scheme… along the whole of the Promenade Walkway and large parts of the road, the surface treatment is poor, with large areas to be blacktop tarmac’.

186. It is stated that this ‘dark, utilitarian surface would not be aesthetically pleasing and would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area. The current surface of the

Promenade Walkway is a pale concrete with a simple pattern that helps, a little, to prevent the area being too bland’.

187. PBCD indicates that these inappropriate and visually harmful surfaces could be

dealt with by the imposition of conditions. I disagree. I consider that whatever colouring or pattern changes were made to the proposed surface finishes, due to the

introduction of the red tarmac HDT corridor, alongside any other coloured surface, the overall character of the LP walkway would still be significantly and detrimentally changed. It would take on the appearance of some form of shared carriageway.


71

188. Furthermore, it is acknowledged by DOI and PBCD that further approvals would be required for possible necessary and street furniture. In fact, for some Transport Act

related signage, planning approval would not be required. Furthermore, the RAs rely heavily on as yet unknown signage in terms of mitigation measures. The uncertainties

about these elements, which do not form part of the application, reinforce my concerns that the open nature of the LP would be further eroded if approval is granted to transfer the HDT on to the walkway.

189. Overall, therefore, it is my view that instead of being perceived as an open and spacious walkway, or even a ‘shared’ walkway, this part of the LP would take on the

appearance and character of part of the highway. In my view this would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of this part of the DPCA. The definition and distinction marking the physical differences between the LP highway and

the LP walkway would be significantly blurred.

190. The relocation of the HDT into the walkway would be seen as transferring part of

the highway into the open space of this part of the Promenade.

Effect on the character and appearance of the HP walkway

191. The HP walkway is different in character to that of the LP. It is more open and

not as well defined because there is no ‘sunken garden’ separating it from the highway. The first part of the HDT route would run diagonally from the end of the LP walkway

towards the seaward edge of the carriageway. It would then straighten out before passing the WM and following the edge of the carriageways, past the Broadway

roundabout and on to the CP section, the narrowest part of the Promenade walkway.

192. Because of its physical relationship with the highway and the lack of any significant enclosure, I do not consider that this section of HDT track would be seen as

significantly encroaching into ‘Public Open Space’. Clearly the HDT corridor would be taking up part of the walkway section but the sense of openness would, in my view,

remain. I have already found the highway section of the HP to be a positive improvement and, in terms of its physical appearance (as opposed to pedestrian safety) and I consider that the proposals in this section would preserve the character

and appearance of this part of the DPCA.

Effect on the character and appearance of the CP walkway

193. Putting aside safety issues, I do not consider that this long section of walkway would be significantly changed in character or appearance by the proposals. The HDT corridor would be adjacent to the new footway section of the highway and, in terms of

the existing walkway; any perceived loss of space would be minimal.

194. In part the HDT tracks would straddle what is now the line of the raised kerb

footway which houses the street lighting standards. Clearly the removal of the lighting will have an effect on the appearance of the CP walkway and it is unfortunate that the replacement lighting scheme is still at an early design stage. This makes it difficult to

assess the impact that the final scheme might have on the character and appearance of this part of the DPCA.

195. Nevertheless, that does not alter my conclusion that what is proposed for this section is acceptable in principle and that it would preserve the character and general appearance of the HP.

Effect on the character and appearance of the QP walkway and the gardens

196. However, in my view, this cannot be said of that part of the scheme which affects

Queens Gardens. I find this part of the proposed development to be the most harmful in terms of its impact on the DPCA. The HDT corridor would swing away from the


72

walkway section at the south west point and run towards the carriageway. This in itself would be an advantage in that the section of walkway on the seaward side of the

gardens would remain as existing.

197. However, instead of being assimilated into part of the highway it is proposed that

the HDT route would literally ‘slice off’ part of this historic garden which provides the most significant ‘green’ landscaped section along the whole length of the Promenade. Not only would this result in the removal of the existing metal railings and part of the

grassed surface, it would necessitate the felling of several of the famous palm trees on the north eastern side of the gardens, as well as probably affecting the root system of

many others.

198. I acknowledge that DBC could carry out re-planting to overcome the loss of the Palm Trees but these have been described as being part of the distinctive Island

landscape, similar to others at the airport and the ST. A wide green swathe of grass would also be lost and, on a Promenade with so little soft landscaping, this seems

somewhat perverse and irrational. I find, therefore, that the loss of part of the gardens and the likely effect on the landscape overall would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of this part of the DCPA and that it is contrary to relevant

policies.

The HDT and the DPCA

199. There is no dispute that the HDT makes an important contribution to the special character of the DPCA and this is recognised in the DPCACA. Since Victorian times it

has operated within the highway, similar to other tramways in historic resorts such as Blackpool.

200. MNH argues that, as long as the HDT continues to provide transport from one end

of the Promenade to the other, then its important historic and cultural importance will not be detrimentally affected. MNH is also of the view that there is little intrinsic value

in its precise location and that, as long as the archaeological conditions are met, the re-positioning is acceptable in terms of the preservation and conservation of the Promenade.

201. I do not share this view. Along the length of the Promenades the HDT route has always been read as a coherent and logical whole, providing a transport facility, within

the highway, from one end to the other. The relationships of buildings - to highway (including the HDT)- to the promenade walkways - to the sea walls and finally to the beach have remained constant over the years. The re-positioning of the HDT route will

significantly alter this recognised historic relationship.

202. Instead of the historical and straightforward route, there would be a variety of

different relationships of highway walkways and HDT route between the buildings and the sea wall/beach. This convoluted and seemingly ‘forced’ route would, in my view, result in a significant disruption of the coherent understanding of the historic route of

the vintage HDT. Although the basic appearance of the HDT running along the Promenade would be the same, it would be in a noticeably different position and as a

result its overall character would be affected. In my view, this would impact on the character of the Promenade as a whole.

203. If re-positioned, the first section of the HDT (running south to north) would run

along the Marine Garden edge of the LP. The second sections (the HP and the CP) would alter the alignment by first of all cutting diagonally across the HP before running

parallel to the CP between the walkway and the highway. Finally there would be another change at the QP, where the proposal is to cut into the edge of the gardens and follow a line parallel to the highway.


73

204. This still achieves the result of getting the HDT from the ST to Strathallan Crescent but, in my view, it does so in a most haphazard way. It seems as though the

route has had to be ‘post-rationalised’ on the basis of the initial decision to opt for Option B which placed the HDT in the LP walkway. Whilst accepting that the different

sections could not all be seen at the same time it is my view that the proposed new route of the HDT is contorted and that overall the re-positioning of the HDT as proposed would detract from the uniqueness of the tramway in itself as well as

detracting from the character of the DPCA.

Overall conclusions on the effects of the proposal on the DPCA

205. I have referred above to the proposal being somewhat of a hybrid scheme with a LSS in the highway and a SSC along most of the walkways. I have concluded that the LSS would both enhance and preserve the character and appearance of the DPCA.

However, I have also concluded that in two sections (the LP and the QP) the character and appearance would be harmed and neither preserved nor enhanced.

206. PBCD considers that overall the advantages of the scheme outweigh any detrimental visual effect on the DPCA and in any case consider that conditions can overcome such effects. For the reasons set out above I disagree with their conclusion

and also question their overall approach to assessing the impact of the scheme on the DPCA.

207. Any assessment of a proposal within a conservation area must take into account whether or not its special features will be preserved or enhanced. In this case there is

a very large conservation area with different characteristics along different parts of the Promenade. The duty set out in the Act and the relevant policies must be applied to the conservation area as a whole. Thus whilst accepting that major elements of the

proposed works would be more than acceptable, other elements, in my view, would be significantly harmful.

208. I do not consider that the benefits of the acceptable parts of the scheme can outweigh the disbenefits to the DPCA which I have identified. A conservation area is either preserved or enhanced by a scheme or it is not. For a particular proposal within

a conservation area, I do not consider that a decision-maker should be selective and conclude that part enhances or preserves whilst other parts do not. If parts are found

to be harmful and neither preserve nor enhance the conservation area, then the character and appearance of the area as a whole is affected. In this case, I do not consider that the proposal as a whole accords with the relevant policies which seek to

protect the DPCA. I do not consider that all of the other positive material considerations can be allowed to overcome the harm which would be caused to the

character and appearance of the LP and the QP sections of the DCPA.

The effect on highway performance and safety

General points

209. Having considered the detailed proposals for the LSS, I consider that the highways part of the proposals are a most thorough and professional approach to how

the traffic could be managed along this main arterial route. It may not be ideal in places but I do not share objectors’ views that parts of the layouts (for example the roundabouts and crossings) are unacceptable, inefficient or unsafe.

210. It is clear that the aim is to rectify the failing infrastructure by reconstruction and strengthening and to accommodate future traffic demands. I agree with DOI that, as

designed, the LSS scheme will generally improve the efficiency and flow of traffic at the major junctions at Greensill's Corner, Broadway and Summerhill Road. I also agree that the proposals will revitalise the operation and appearance of the Promenade


74

highways by removing the inefficient signal controlled crossings to reduce the 'stop-start' effect on vehicle movements and to significantly improve the environment for

road users and pedestrians alike.

The Scheme design

211. I find that the design principles and standards set out by the DT (Doc 14) to be acceptable and note that appropriate changes were made to the highways design following the responses to the initial application. These changes included a

reconsideration and increase in number and types of the proposed crossings and the introduction of distinguishable kerbs. In a response to the Quality Audit (see Docs 12.3

and 14) suggestions relating to the road geometry; pedestrian crossings; use by cyclists; access to side roads; parking; drainage and lighting and bus and taxi stops/locations were all incorporated into the scheme by the DT.

212. The highways part of the scheme follows the key recommendations of the guidance in MS1 by giving ‘increased consideration to the ‘place and function of

streets’. I agree that, in itself, the proposed works to the highway and footways are of good design and that the MS1 (and MS2) outline guidance for carriageways (including recommended speeds, junctions, crossings, accesses, highway visibility, on-street

parking and servicing) have all clearly been followed. Overall I consider that this part of the scheme would result in a safe highway environment for both road users and

pedestrians.

213. I acknowledge that the highways part of the proposals avoids the negative effects

of poor parking and that what is proposed to be delivered answers the DOI brief in relation to parking. I also agree with DOI that what would be perceived on the highway would be a scheme that was of a total street design concept, rather than just being un-

coordinated components. My only question relates to the overall sustainability of the scheme and I refer to this point below.

214. In terms of the need to improve the appearance of the streetscape; to deal with traffic volumes/flows and to improve the safety and general environment for pedestrians I consider, therefore, that the DT has professionally and competently met

its brief. Putting aside the HDT issues, an LSS design such as this would maintain a balance between significantly improving this part of the public realm, whilst maximising

the economic advantages of a high quality attractive town centre arterial road with the need for continuous and efficient traffic movement.

215. I find no reason to question the Traffic modelling results and although this shows

that the proposal would result in an increase in average journey times at both AM and PM peak periods, it also clearly shows that there would be an improvement in the

current stop-start traffic behaviour, as well as resulting in a more consistent lower speed along the Promenade. It follows, as indicated by HSD officers, that this would significantly improve the pedestrian environment making it safer and friendlier, thereby

reducing the potential for, and severity of, accidents.

216. The Traffic modelling was, of course, carried out on the basis of the application

scheme including the proposal that the HDT would be re-located on to the walkways for most of the length of its route. No other options, either existing or proposed, other than what had been applied for, were tested. The modelling was only based on what I

have referred to above as the combined ‘hybrid’ scheme of the LSS (on the highway sections) and SSC (on the walkways) as in the application.

217. Clearly, if the HDT had remained in the carriageway as existing, or even as proposed in Option A (single track on the seaward side of the carriageway), the modelling results would change. One of the main reasons given for re-positioning the


75

HDT was to improve traffic flows along this arterial route. Thus, in considering the application, the advantages and benefits of the highways proposals and indeed those of

the scheme as a whole are a significant material consideration in assessing the overall planning balance.

The effect on pedestrian and others’ user safety on the walkways

Introduction

218. Given the space and dimensions of the walkways (particularly of the LP) it cannot

be disputed that, in physical terms alone, there would be sufficient space to accommodate both a HDT corridor and user/cycle routes along any of the sections. The

existing dimensions of the four walkways have been set out by the DOI (Doc 57) and it is clear that the HDT could, physically be re-located as indicated on the application drawings

219. However, most of the written objections to the scheme relate to this part of the proposals. These objections are considerable and the many detailed submissions,

questions and concerns relating to the effect of the scheme focus on the potential safety issues. It is acknowledged by all parties that the number of objections is significant and the scale of representations is unprecedented. With such a controversial

scheme, which is at the heart of the Island’s capital, it is inevitable that there are going to be disagreements about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal to re-

locate the HDT as proposed. But, the fundamental question is whether or not the shared walkway environment would be safe and practicable for all users.

The Risk Assessments (RAs)

220. The DT indicates that it has recognised the safety concerns from the commencement of the project and both DOI and DBC have submitted details of RAs

(Docs 33.1, 33.2, 33.3 and 33.4). Objectors have responded critically and in some detail (Docs 34.1, 34.2, 34.3 and Appendix 2). The DOI response to these is set out in

Appendix 3. I have précised the documents (see below) and have set out a fuller analysis in Appendix 1. It is clear that both DOI and DBC consider that there are significant risks attached to the mixed use. A wide range of mitigation measures were

considered, covering operational matters as well as measures required during construction.

221. The RAs were not submitted with the initial application, prompting some objectors to write to PBCD to request the information. The DT and the PM (BBA) indicated that RAs had been commenced at the start of the project in line with standard design and

construction practice. However, these were not released for public consideration until after the amended scheme had been submitted. The Operator’s RA by DBC was not

issued until after the Inquiry was opened. Thus the objectors were given the opportunity to comment (Appendix 2).

222. I accept the points made by on behalf of the DOI that, with all projects, it is

inevitable that changes will have an impact on the local environment during the construction, engineering works and operations of a development. It is also the case

that in such circumstances there is a need for stakeholders affected by such change to modify their acceptance and responsible actions relating to Health and Safety (HS). I also accept that key HS concerns have been focused on pedestrian movement

(inclusive of visually impaired and non-ambulant persons); cyclists; children; perambulators; dogs and seasonal attractions (TT MGP and Funfair).

223. The DT and PM (DOI and BSA) have identified foreseeable hazards involved in the HDT works and its future operation and DBC has contributed to the design proposals. The references to ‘Zero Risk Tolerance in the real world’ are relevant and it is generally


76

accepted that everybody is surrounded by hazards, many of which are suitably controlled to prevent harm and damage from being caused.

224. It is accepted by DOI that the relocation of the HDT and its operation will present residual risk. But it is their view that the implementation of risk control measures as set

out in the RAs, combined with behavioural attitude and responsibility of all stakeholders will assist in the minimisation of risk. The question is, however, is that minimisation of risk, in the context of this proposal, adequate to safeguard pedestrian and other user

safety on the shared walkway? I now turn briefly, therefore, to the contents of each RA (See Appendix 1 for detail).

Précis and comment on RA1: DOI Designer’s Risk Assessment (Doc 33.1)

225. This RA identifies risks under 5 categories: 1. HDT on walkway between TT cafe and WM, adjacent to live traffic.

2. HDT on the walkway between the WM and Strathallan Crescent, adjacent to live vehicular traffic.

3. HDT on the walkway as a shared space with casual/leisure users. 4. Live traffic on the walkway as a shared space with casual/leisure users. 5. Pedestrian routes across tram tracks.

226. For categories 1, 2, and 4 the proposed mitigation is primarily by the imposition of distinct and separate operating hours to segregate traffic types, as well as limiting

speed. For 3 and 5 a range of potential mitigating measures are suggested and a selection is identified as appropriate. However, measures that are shown to reduce the

potential for collision more effectively than those selected are ruled out. These include legislating to keep users (walker, cyclists) off the tram way; prohibiting dog walking; and continuous fencing. These are not judged as appropriate and the latter is deemed

to create other hazards such as entrapment between the tram and any barrier.

227. The proposals call for and rely upon ensuring good visibility and the co-operation

of users. In addition reference is made to employing signage, groundscape treatments and some barriers restricting the crossing of the HDT tracks to right angle pedestrian flows to make the occurrence of major injury unlikely.

Précis and comment on RA2: DT summary of significant hazards and risks (Doc 33.2)

228. This report less differs from RAs 1,3 and 4, in that the hazards under

consideration are not as fully described; the assessment of risk level is given in general terms only; and exactly which of the possible controlling measures suggested would have to be adopted, in order to meet the reduced risk assessment standard, remains

open to question. Also, the link between the hazard descriptor and control measures can be difficult to follow e.g. the hazard at Item 12 is ‘Poor visibility of HDT operations

by patrons of the promenade walkway’. This seems very different from Item 7 ‘Speeding vehicles’, but the measures proposed are almost identical.

229. Furthermore, this RA alone introduces proposals for use of the HDT corridor by

the MER electric trams and refers to a new sea defence wall, thereby expanding on the extent of the risk assessment remit, but does not address the further issues that would

arise such as faster trams and less available space. Measures proposed to control HDT interaction with walkway patrons include those put forward in RA1. In addition, this RA proposes that bollards and fencing for the length of the HDT radii and fencing for

events be considered.

230. The RA also recognizes that, in limiting available space for patrons, fixed

structures could contribute to the risks. Specifically, it states that bottle-necking is to be avoided although no space standards are referred to, as guidance in design, for what constitutes a bottle-neck. To further maintain clear space, it calls for a reduction


77

in street furniture and is concerned that, whilst buffers could stop a runaway tram, they could also cause entrapment and crushing. It is suggested that parked cars should also

be assessed against the risk of entrapment.

231. This RA recognizes that the behaviour of all concerned will be critical. It suggests

that rules of conduct are displayed and enforced, within a regime of supervision. For the tram operators (DBC), safety measures include training and supervision. Maintenance and inspection are also seen to be vital, especially given the age of the

trams themselves. Horse behaviour is considered and careful management proposed. However, it is recommended that crowds be avoided. Clearly this would be difficult to o

predict or police, particularly when considering the variety of users and events which take place throughout the year on the walkways.

232. The report emphasises that safety depends on encouraging greater vigilance and

awareness, but also acknowledges that behaviour remains uncertain e.g. uncontrolled animals/pets and children, speeding cyclists. This appears to acknowledge that some

users may continue to be unaware of HDT operations; that HDT passengers may disobey instructions; that some may not be aware of the ‘rules’ and that unpredictable actions could still be common.

Précis and comment on RA3: Tramway Operation DBC (Doc 33.3)

233. This RA relates to the operation of the trams themselves. It does not make

proposals in terms of the walkway scheme design, but it refers to demarcation by coloured and textured groundscape and to necessary signage. The change in location

is acknowledged to require familiarization: test runs for the operators and an ongoing programme to enhance public awareness.

234. In operation, appropriate ‘rules’ would be enforced for operators and passengers

and speed limits are imposed. Emphasis is placed on competence, experience, inspection, maintenance and effective supervision: requiring good communications

between drivers and supervisors. Monitoring is also seen as critical: not least in recording and reacting to incidents so as to minimise any re-occurrence. Warning bells on trams are recommended as are whistles and shouting in emergency situations. The

use of Mobile Phones was also referred to during the course of the Inquiry.

Précis and comment on RA4: HDT Risk Profiling Register – last updated 30/11/2015

(Doc 33.4) Safety Management Services (IOM) Limited, Planning Supervisor Services

235. This report differs from the others in that no revised risk assessment level is given as a result of implementing any or all of the mitigation measures. This

information can be found for Items 45-66 only in RA3. When queried during the Inquiry the answer was that the RA had been produced in accordance with the Safety

Management Services (IOM) Limited. And that this was their standard layout for RAs.

236. Mitigation measures include those summarized under RA3 above. It also includes proposals for the physical characteristics of the walkway. These are generally in line

with the proposals set out in RAs 1 and 2 i.e. variation in coloured surfaces to distinguish track from walkway (with additional surface treatment for the visually

impaired); tactile paving at designated crossing places; and adequate sight lines. In addition, it proposes a ‘kissing gate’ at the sunken garden entry point as well as fencing (location and extent not given) and necessary signage.

Overall assessment of the risk assessments

237. The most recent RA (RA4, updated 30 November 2015) incorporates RA3, which

is written from the point of view of the tram operators DBC. The remainder of RA4, RA2 and RA1 all include suggested mitigation measures in terms of physical design


78

features. However, what is not clear, is the relative status of these three reports and, therefore, exactly which of the measures are being proposed. However, one would

assume that RA4 (last updated on 30 November 2015, after the Inquiry was adjourned) is the definitive RA. The DT explained, in any case, that the RA overall was a ‘living

document’ that was being continuously up-dated.

238. A common theme runs through the RAs. On the one hand they are concerned with the need to segregate the HDTs from the other users of the walkway. On the

other they recognise the need to maintain adequate space between the different users (dog walkers; cyclists; families with prams and so on). The need for segregation

recognises both the vulnerability of the users and their unpredictability. It is acknowledged by the DT that continuous fencing or selective prohibition of users could reduce the risk of major injury from collision most effectively. However, these

measures are considered to conflict with the requirement for openness and maximizing usage, as well as creating new possible hazards.

239. As a result, the preferred option includes the creation of a clear demarcation between tramway and remaining walkway by means of distinctively coloured and textured surface and the insertion of ‘kissing gates’. Whilst the former imposes a lesser

physical subdivision of the space, it does however effectively impact upon the space available for the current range of usage. The need to keep this remaining useable

space to a maximum is seen as important in terms of safety. In particular, bottle-necking is highlighted as an issue. However, no information is offered to enable a

judgement to be made about the width at which bottlenecking might be deemed to occur.

240. The level of risk relates to two factors: the likelihood of occurrence (ranging from

almost impossible to almost certain) and the severity of outcome (ranging from no injury to fatality). Only the DOI Designer’s Risk Assessment (RA1) identifies the

relationship between these factors in assessing risk and equates numerical risk levels with descriptors. This understanding forms a background for interpreting the other risk assessment documents. For consistency of understanding, Appendix 1 (my detailed

analysis of RAs) shows risk levels in both word and numerical format.

241. A comparison of risk level, before and after the proposed measures, have been

applied. This shows that whilst the likelihood of risk can be reduced, the severity of the outcome cannot. Almost universally, the severity of outcome remains as major injury or fatality. The only scenario where potential injury is estimated to be less than major

is where pedestrians trip or get entrapped in the rails out of season.

242. Typically, the measures proposed reduce likelihood to ‘unlikely’. However, the

text often points out that the ‘unlikely’ remains possible where any one of the parties deliberately or accidentally flouts the operational rules/procedures e.g. crossing the tram tracks at an angle, without looking effectively; a loose dog or child paying no

attention to coloured and texture paving; an incapacitated (through illness) or inattentive HDT driver; persons with hearing difficulties and so on.

243. Having considered all of the RAs, I share many of the concerns set out by objectors in their submissions and assessments. These do not need to be set out again in detail here, but I am not convinced that the overall measures proposed are sufficient

to mitigate some of the main considerable risks including the following: The unpredictability of user actions (mainly children, dogs and cyclists).

Human factors including errors contributing to hazards (by inappropriate or accidental actions by the public or by DBC staff).


79

The potential for unpredictable consequences (out of control dogs; unsupervised children; loose items such as footballs, skateboards on the corridor; a bolting or

distressed horse and inattentive or aurally impaired users of the walkways. The vintage equipment and braking systems of the trams.

Some inter-visibility between HDT corridor and the sunken gardens (see Sight lines and visibility below).

The involvement of the IOM Inspector of Railways (IR) and the ORR

244. Linked to my concerns about some of inadequacies of the mitigation measures, is the fact that the IR has not yet made a final assessment in relation to the safety of the

proposed shared walkways. So far he has been included in just three meetings with the DT and the PM. Future meetings are still to be held and the appointed Inspector from ORR (IORR) has not reached a conclusion on the design and operating procedures

of the scheme. Considering the belated submission of RA3 this is not surprising.

245. Without that the IORR report and conclusions, the IR is unable to reach a view on

whether the scheme is in compliance with UK guidance for tramways. All parties agree that, although this guidance does not apply directly to the IOM, the overall aim is to meet the UK standards and that it would be foolhardy not to apply the standards.

246. The IR letter/statement (Doc 36) makes it clear that some issues remain unresolved and it is evident that the final control measures for some risks still need to

be agreed (paragraph 7, criteria a. to f.). Some of these are straightforward and relate to road/tramway crossings and points (a. and b.) and two specifically relate to horse

training and behaviour (c. and f.). However, criteria d. and e. concern the interface between trams and children on the south end of the Promenade (presumably including between the sunken gardens and the walkway) and the interface between trams and

children exiting vehicles adjacent to the highway at Queens Gardens. The required details of these points are not clarified.

247. I consider that, in the absence of a full approval from the IR it would not be appropriate or reasonable for the DOI to granted approval for the scheme as a whole. It may well be that IR approval is eventually granted but it is also possible that

additional mitigation measures could be required by the IR on recommendation of the IORR. These could include the necessity to include a barrier of some sort between the

walkway sections and the tram corridor (See Comparison with other schemes below). This, as outlined in the RAs, would have other implications on the safety of usage of the shared areas as well as impacting further on the character and appearance of the

walkways and the DPCA.

248. The onus is on the DOI to prove, as far as is practically and reasonably possible,

that the proposed scheme would not be harmful to highway and pedestrian safety. I have concluded above that in relation to the use of the highway and footways that the scheme would indeed be safe. However, I do not consider that the same can be said of

the shared use of the walkway with the HDT. There are, in my view, still too many unknown factors, risks and unpredictable situations that have not be fully considered.

249. In paragraph 8 of the letter the IR indicates that his objective must be to ensure that there will be no net increase in risk as a consequence of the new tram layout. At this stage there is insufficient evidence, in my view, to indicate that the proposed

mitigation measures achieve that objective. As it stands I do not consider that DOI has shown, on the balance of probabilities, that there would be no net increase in risk. My

own conclusion is that there would be considerable unacceptable risks remaining if the scheme is allowed to proceed as applied for.


80

250. I also have concerns relating to whether or not the HDT can comply with the UK Guidance in ORR RSP2 and TG3A (Doc 49). Of major concern, must be the vintage

nature of the HDT tramcars and their braking system. This Victorian mechanism cannot be compared to the fail-safe devices used on modern-day trams. The

antiquated braking system also gives rise to questions of stopping distances for the HDT. Although figures relating to speeds have been submitted by DOI (Doc 52) there are no comprehensive stopping distances provided. These distances could be critical,

especially in the areas where the sunken gardens meet the walkways (see below).

251. If the IORR decide that (as is most likely), in the interests of safety, the HDT

must comply with all relevant safety standards contained in the ORR guidance (even for a Vintage tram system), then I agree with some objectors that it is unlikely that the current scheme will comply with those standards. If the proposal was for a new modern

tram route, the regulations would have to be met in full and I do not consider that there can be any justification in reducing the required safety standards for a re-located

tramway.

Visibility between the HDT corridor and the sunken gardens

252. HSD has set out visibility information/splays (Doc 50) and these are covered in

detail in the HSD addendum report (Doc 30). These indicate that, in terms of normal visibility as assessed on the highway, the required distances for the ‘x’ and ‘y’

dimensions can be met. However, this is not a straightforward highway situation whereby motorists are requiring the necessary visibility to join, or be seen joining, one

road to/from another.

253. This is a different situation whereby mainly pedestrians, including children, will be leaving the sunken gardens to join the walkway. The first part of the walkway to be

encountered will be the HDT corridor and because of the changes in level (at least 600mm), as well as some of the sunken garden wall and pillar structures, some inter-

visibility between the driver and pedestrians (particularly children) would be lost.

254. I acknowledge that the ‘kissing gates’ will assist in achieving a safer exit from the gardens but there will, in my view, still be a significant risk of injury due to the

unpredictability of the situations and the physical nature of the walkways, boundary walls and entrances/exits to the gardens.

255. It cannot be guaranteed that the HDT drivers will be able to see all of the potential hazards. Although DBC referred to the conductors being able to assist there is still likely to be a delay in reacting to any emergency situation. Along the length of the LP

the driver’s view to the side could be partially obscured by the stone walls; the Iris Scheme vents/lighting columns and the shelters. It has also been noted by one

objector that not all of links between the gardens and the LP walkway have been covered by the HSD report. One of these is adjacent to the fountain and is particularly narrow with poor inter-visibility.

256. I also consider that there could be issues at the proposed southern terminus of the HDT, adjacent to the TT café and the WCs. With all these facilities, including

outside tabling and chairs, this is already a crowded and congested part of the LP during busy periods. Whilst acknowledging the skills and experience of drivers in carrying out the ‘change-over’, again the unpredictability factors referred to above

could well impact upon the safety of users. The introduction of such a manoeuvre, where inattentive children and loose dogs might be present, is a major risk to user

safety and one that has not been adequately dealt with in terms of mitigation. In such a scenario the only fool-proof mitigation measure would be to exclude horses from this busy part of the LP walkway.


81

Overall conclusion on the safety of the HDT on the walkways

257. It is evident that the DOI as applicant and HSD as highway authority, have

carefully considered the risks to users of the walkways by the introduction of the HDT on to the proposed shared space. Many alternative mitigation proposals have been

considered and a conclusion reached on what, in their view and based on the current scheme, would result in a safe environment. However, for the reasons set out above and in agreement with many of the objectors’ views relating to usage and safety, I

disagree that the walkways would be safe places if shared with the HDT.

Other Matters

Comparisons with other schemes

258. As indicated, above I do not consider that this hybrid proposal can be directly compared with any of the other tramway schemes referred to by the DOI. In this case

the HDT would be sharing the walkway surface for a continuous length of more than a mile. There would only be a textured strip separating the HDT corridor from the

walking, running and cycling surface for most of the route. In my experience this would be unprecedented for any tramway system, old or new.

259. In Blackpool, although there are areas where trams and pedestrians share

surfaces, these are mainly related to accessing and exiting the vehicles. For most of the route the trams are in the carriageway and considerable lengths, particularly where

the trams run adjacent to the northern promenades, are fenced off or completely separated by kerbs and landscaping. In Manchester, Sheffield, Edinburgh and Croydon

again the main shared areas relate to the tram stops and again the routes follow the carriageways.

260. Poynton is of course a true shared surface, where pedestrians and cars mix on

paved areas without kerbs or barriers. However, its overall length is considerably less than the Douglas Promenade in that it is restricted to a small section of the village

centre. None of the examples referred to share a surface for such a long and continuous route as the length of the Promenade walkways.

261. Furthermore, if the MER was extended and was required to use the length of the

walkway along the CP and the LP, I consider that the ORR regulations would more than likely require the tram corridor and the walkways to be separated by some form of

physical barrier for much of their length. This would have implications for the effect on the character and appearance of the Promenade, as would of course, the necessity to provide overhead cabling.

262. To compare the proposal with what happens at Disneyland is also inappropriate. The Horse Tram there is merely a theme park ride which travels at much lower speeds

(walking speed) and in an environment where dogs, cyclists and skateboarders are prohibited. The Douglas HDT is a fully fledged heritage Transport system which is subject to the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and most of the requirements

associated with public service vehicles.

Dogs on the walkways

263. During the course of the Inquiry and in answer to queries about the control of dogs on the Promenade walkways, the Douglas Dog Control Byelaws, SD2015/0253 (Doc 9) were referred to by DBC. The Promenade walkways are not included in the

open spaces where dogs are prohibited or even required to be on a lead although they must be on a lead if within the sunken Marine Gardens. On the walkways, dogs are

allowed without a lead as long as they are under the ‘effective control’ of a person aged ten years or older.


82

264. This clearly has implications in relation to how some dogs might react to the horses and vice-versa and in my view adds significantly to the concerns around

‘unpredictable’ scenarios. Although not a reason in itself to rule out the proposed shared use it does, in my view, reinforce concerns for this particular risk. The DT

clearly considered that dogs would be a risk and rely on mitigation measures that would require dog owners to be in control of their animals at all times. This could be said to be being unduly optimistic if animals do not need to be a lead. Thus, under

certain circumstances, I consider that the presence of loose dogs would be a significant safety hazard.

The reasons behind the DOI decision to position the HDT on the walkways

265. As indicated at the start of this assessment, the precise details of the application were matters for the MDOI and DOI to consider. The decision in this case must be

made on the merits of the scheme which they chose to submit and which they consider meets all parts of their brief. In reaching that decision the DOI, however, makes it

quite clear that there were several main reasons why this particular option was chosen and this is material in that it is part of the planning history of the scheme.

266. The first of these related to a desire not to lose significant areas of parking along

the LP and other parts of the Promenade. In this respect they have the support of businesses and hoteliers in the town centre as well as that of the Chamber of

Commerce (Doc 28). The overall scheme has been shown to retain all but around 10% of the existing parking available along the length of the Promenade.

267. A second reason stated related to concerns about the safety of the continued use of the HDT in the carriageway. In particular there was concern about the interaction of HDT passengers and highway users at the points where the trams were accessed and

exited. No analysis of safety issues or accidents has been submitted but accidents are said to be rare. But both DOI and PBCD share concerns about the safety of the HDT in

the highway and that its current operational location has become more hazardous and, therefore, more difficult to defend.

268. The third main reason is that the removal of the HDT from its current position

gives an opportunity to improve traffic flows along the arterial route. Clearly without the HDT having an impact on traffic in the highway, the traffic flows along the LSS will

be as the traffic modelling predicts.

269. All of these, in themselves, could be sound reasons, to re-locate the HDT on to the walkway but some comments by objectors are also valid in planning terms. It has

been shown that there could be other options to provide the necessary car-parking requirements in the town centre at the under-used Chester Street car park, amongst

other places.

270. It is also the stressed by objectors that no attempts have been made to make safe the retention of the HDT use in its current position (either as dual or single tracks).

It is indicated that if major cities such as Edinburgh and Manchester can operate safe systems (with more complicated modern trams) in the highway and can provide safe

places to access and exit the trams, then it should be perfectly possible to provide such safe facilities at the tram stops along the Douglas Promenade carriageways.

271. The question of the sustainability of the scheme has also been questioned by

many objectors. In particular it is considered by some that the DOI should be trying to discourage the use of the car; that park and ride schemes should be provided and that

the use of public transport encouraged. Concern has been expressed about the numbers of vehicles still using the arterial route and the associated increase in pollution.


83

272. In short it is contended that the scheme overall is contrary to the overarching Strategic Aim of the IOMSP in that it does not have sufficient regard to the principles of

sustainability. In terms of transport policies it is considered that, although there are economic advantages the scheme does not accord with policy SP 10 in that it would not

promote a more integrated transport network and nor would it minimise journeys by car.

273. I agree with most of the sustainability and environmental points made relating to

reliance on the car, but again one must return to the fact that the proposed scheme should be considered on its overall merits. Although there are clear sustainability

issues which would conflict with some of the sustainability aims of the IOMSP, these disadvantages must be weighed against all of the advantages of the proposal and the basis on which it was chosen by the DOI. I have dealt with sustainability in more detail

in the planning balance below.

The effects on the Registered Buildings

274. Having assessed the proposals on the basis of the submitted drawings (Plans J and K) and having inspected the footway areas outside of both of the RBs, I consider that there would be significant improvements to the settings of these historic buildings.

The existing concrete finishes detract markedly from the attractive appearance of the buildings.

275. Outside the Gaiety Theatre the poor quality concrete surface finishes to the footway detract from the historic and architectural features of the columns to the

canopy, as well as from the appearance of the front steps and doors. At Castle Mona Colonnade the surface finishes are harmful to the columns and the attractive shop fronts.

276. The proposed new Kellen Paving will provide a simple and elegant pavement frontage to both buildings and, having seen this type of paving used elsewhere, I

consider that the resulting streetscape on these two sections of the Promenade will preserve the character of the RBs, their settings and their special architectural and historic features. It follows that the proposed works would also preserve and enhance

these particular parts of the DPCA.

The Planning Balance

277. I have concluded above that the highway sections of the proposals are acceptable in both design and operational terms. I consider that the proposed LSS scheme would achieve the objectives of significantly improving the appearance of the Promenade;

ensuring a safe environment for both road users and pedestrians; generally improving traffic flows along this arterial route and improving the footways in front of the two

RBs. In my view these parts of the works accord with the relevant strategic, environmental and traffic policies of the IOMSP. They also accord with policy GP2, criteria (b), (c), (g), (h) and (i) and policy EP43, in that it would clearly regenerate this

‘run-down’ urban thoroughfare. These parts of the scheme would also preserve and enhance the appearance of the highway sections of the DPCA and thus accord with

policy EP35 and PPS 1/01 (policies CA/2 and RB/3).

278. Against these positive findings, however, I have also concluded that the re-location of the HDT on to the walkways would be significantly harmful to amenity (loss

of open space); the character and appearance of the LP and QP sections of the Promenade and to pedestrian and other users’ safety.

279. On the amenity point this brings me back to criterion (b) of policy RP2. For any loss of open space to be acceptable, the advantages of any overall community gain (the

other benefits of the scheme) would have to outweigh both the effect of the loss of the


84

open space of the walkways and any other unacceptable effects on the character or amenity of the area.

280. I consider the opposite to be the case and that the combined detrimental effect

on open space plus the impact on the character and appearance of the DPCA far outweigh any community benefit provided by the highways scheme. Although there

would a ‘community gain’ with regard to one part of the proposal, there would a significant ‘community loss’ caused by the re-location of the HDT. I find the proposal

to be contrary to policy RP2. I do not agree with PBCD that the circumstances (criterion (a) and criterion (b)), as listed in the policy, are met. They cannot, therefore be stated to overcome the concern relating to the loss of, and effects on, the public

open space.

281. Because this part of the scheme would be visually harmful to the LP and QP parts of the Promenade, their character and appearance would neither be preserve nor

enhanced. I find the walkways part of the proposals to be contrary to policy EP35 and not in accordance with PPS 1/01 (policies CA/2 and RB/3).

282. Turning to policy GP2, because of the impact on two major parts of the walkway (LP and QP), I do not consider that the requirements of criteria (b), (c) or (g) are met.

The proposal does not respect these parts of the site in terms of layout, design and landscaping. It adversely affects the character of these sections of the Promenade as

well as the general amenity of residents through loss of use of public open space.

283. With regard to transport policies the proposals for the walkways do not fully comply with TP2 in that inadequate provisions are made for existing cycle routes. Also,

because of the contorted route proposed for the HDT, I do not consider that the proposal can be said to fully accord with TP3. This requires that development around rail routes should not compromise their attraction as tourism and leisure facilities or

their potential for, amongst other things cycle routes. In this case not only would the historic significance of the HDT route be lost, the scheme would not provide a suitable

and safe cycle route. The supporting information in 11.2.5 of the IOMSP refers to the historic vintage rail network which includes the HDT.

284. The highways part of the scheme clearly accords with TP6 since pedestrians in that case have been afforded similar, if not more weight to the needs of other road

users. But the opposite is the case with regard to the walkway proposals. In my view the needs of pedestrians and other users of the walkways would not be given similar

weight to the other use: the use of the HDT corridor. At 11.4.1 of the IOMSP it is stated that ‘walking is also an important means of travel in its own right or as part of most

journeys’. It goes on to say ‘all pedestrians need safe and convenient means of crossing and passing along roads’.

285. Whilst this requirement is met in the highways sections it would not be met along the HDT corridor. Neither would the requirements of policy GP2 (h) be fully met. I do

not consider that this part of the proposal would provide ‘satisfactory amenity standards, in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all

highway users’.

286. Overall I consider that the highways advantages of the proposal are outweighed by the harm which would be caused should the HDT be re-located on to the walkway

sections of the Promenade.


85

Overall Conclusions

The Planning Application

287. My overall conclusion, therefore, is that planning approval should not be granted for the scheme as submitted. In my view, the decision to place the HDT on to the

walkways was ill-considered and it seems to me that that undue emphasis was placed upon resolving parking and highway matters first and foremost, rather than equally taking into account the amenity and safety of all users of the walkways.

288. The implications of the effect on the safety of walkway users and on the character and appearance of the DCPA have not been fully considered in my view. Whilst the

scheme would clearly solve major issues in terms of highway improvements; parking; traffic flows and safety along the arterial route, it would do so at the expense and safety of the wide variety of users of the iconic Promenade walkways. Once the

decision was made to give LP parking priority over use of the HDT in the carriageway, it appears to me that the DT placed itself in a position whereby they had to post-

rationalise that decision.

289. In rejecting the initial proposal to keep the HDT in the carriageway the reasons/arguments tabled in support of re-location rely significantly on the issues of

parking (related to business need) rather than on issues of safety or traffic flows. There does not appear to have been any detailed comparison of the respective safety of

the Options A and B. In fact there was no RA of the existing operation and, although a RA was commenced at the start of the design process for the chosen scheme, it was

only much later in the process when the detailed mitigation measures and RAs came to the fore.

The Registered Building Applications

290. As indicated above these two applications were made separately and were intended to be dealt with by the written representation method. The proposed works

are quite clear from the submitted drawings and are separable from the planning application. I have found them to be acceptable and that they accord with the relevant development plan policies and guidance on the historic environment of the Island. I

consider, therefore, that Registered Building Consent should be granted for both of the proposals on the basis of the separate applications as made.

291. It is may well be that DOI would not wish to carry out these works in isolation. However, there is no reason to withhold consent and if granted at this stage then further applications will not have to be made in future (subject to normal 4 year

commencement requirement).

Proposed conditions

292. I have considered the proposed conditions but, in the light of my conclusions relating to harm to the DPCA and safety on the walkway, I do not consider that the conditions would overcome the harm caused. In any case, although a general

landscaping condition (No 2); details of street furniture (No 3) and the ‘Cultural’ area (No 5) would be appropriate, I do not consider that No 4 would mitigate the harm

caused by reason of inappropriate hard surfaces on the walkways. This condition simply requires samples to be approved but these samples can only be as specified on the submitted drawings.

293. With regard to the RBC applications I consider that the only necessary conditions are those relating to the normal time limit and that the works be carried out in

accordance with the approved drawings.


86

The situation regarding the DBC decision on the operation of the HDT

294. As indicated above, I have added an addendum report to this main report. This

refers to certain options that COMIN may wish to consider in the light of the DBC decision and the future of the HDT. But, for the reasons set out above, I make my

recommendations below on the planning merits of the overall scheme which is the subject of the Planning and the two Registered Building Consent applications submitted by DOI.

RECOMMENDATIONS

295. I recommend that Planning approval be not granted for:

‘Re-construction of the highway and footways to create low speed streetscape, re-location of horse tram tracks on to the promenade walkway, re-surfacing the promenade walkway and creation of a cultural quarter near the Gaiety Theatre,

Douglas Promenade, (from Peveril Square to Strathallan Crescent Douglas)’ (Application No 15/00594/B).

296. I recommend that Registered Building Consent be granted for: ‘Change of surface to external footway at Registered Building No 200, The Gaiety Theatre, Harris Promenade, Douglas’, subject to the normal time-limiting

condition and a condition requiring that the works be carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings.

297. I recommend that Registered Building Consent be granted for: ‘Change of surface to external footway at Registered Building No 82, Castle Mona

Colonnade, Central Promenade Douglas’, subject to the normal time-limiting condition and a condition requiring that the works be carried out in accordance with the submitted drawings.

Anthony J Wharton BArch RIBA RIAS MRTPI

Independent Inspector


87

APPEARANCES

Those who attended and spoke at the Inquiry

For full attendance records see Lists for each day (Docs A1 to A4)

For the Applicant: Department of Infrastructure, Highways Services Division

(DOI):

Mr K Ryzner Mr A Burroughs

Mr J Davidson Mr P Barnett

Mr A Thompson Mr R Allan Mr R Cyples

Mr S Yellop (also rep DBC) Mr J Robinson

For Douglas Borough Council (DBC): Ms K Rice Mrs S Harrison

Mr I Alder Mr P Cannon

Mr M Crellin Mr S Yellop (see above)

For the Planning & Building Control Directorate (PBCD):

Ms J Chance Mr C Balmer

For the Highways Services Division (HSD:

Mr K Almond

For Manx National Heritage (MNH):

Mr A Johnson

For Objectors to the Proposal:

Numbers relate to initial written submissions

Mr B Hannay 209

Mrs M Bridson 213

Mr S D A Bridson 213

Mr D Quirke MHK 210

Mr M Lambden 128

Mrs M Lambden 267

Mr D Butt 300

Mr T Knott 19

Miss P Newton 207

Mr D M Shewster 87

Mr C Cale 253

Mr A Cairns 45

Mr K Graham 162

Mr M Newby 139

Ms AM Rivers 165

Mr M Jones 271


88

Mr M Fayle 201

Mrs V Fayle 51

Mr J Pennington 12

Mr A Irvine -

Mr D Churcher 5

Mrs G Churcher 4

Mr G Cregeen MHK 211

Mr B Edwards 113

Mrs V Murray 35

Mrs P Q DeHaven 173

Mr J Murphy 212

Mrs D Murphy 264

Mrs V Woolf 30

Mr B Coates 227

Miss C Pritchard 194

Also see attendance lists A1 to A4 for each of the Inquiry sessions


89

DOCUMENTS

A1 Attendance List 25 November 2015

A2 Attendance List 25 November 2015 Evening Session



1 Planning Building Control Directorate Initial Inquiry Statement

1.1 Planning Building Control Directorate RBC (GT) Statement

1.2 Planning Building Control Directorate RBC (CMC) Statement

2 Highways Services Division Initial Application Report

3 Manx Utilities Statement

4 Manx National Heritage Inquiry Statement

5 Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Services Statement

6 Douglas Borough Council Initial Statements

7 Douglas Promenade Conservation Area Character Appraisal

8 Douglas Promenade Highway Improvement leaflet Options 2014

9 Douglas Dog Control Byelaws 2015

10 Planning Statement of Case DOI

11 Supplementary Planning Statement of Case DOI

12 Planning Application Reports DOI

12.1 Environmental Impact Assessment DOI

12.2 Desk Based Assessment Report (Oxford Archaeology North)

12.3 Functionality and Visual Appearance Audit (Phil Jones Assoc)

12.4 Mobility and Accessibility Audit (TMS)

12.5 Noise Assessment (Xodus)

12.6 Road Safety Audit Stage 1 (TMS)

12.7 Douglas Promenade Phase 2 Modelling (SIAS)

12.8 Tramway Provision on the Promenade Walkway

12.9 Draft Supplement to Planning Statement (Hamilton- Baillie)

12.10 Modus Statement RBC Application - GT Footway

12.11 Modus Statement RBC Application – CMC Footway

12.12 KP Supplementary Planning Information DOI

13 Inquiry Statement Introduction (KR) DOI

14 Inquiry Summary Statements – DOI

14.1 Mr A Burroughs, Burroughs Stewart Associates, Project Manager

14.2 Mr K Podmore, Department of Infrastructure, Design Team leader

14.3 Mr A Thomson, BCA Landscape, Streetscape Planning

14.4 Mr R Allan, SIAS Limited, Transport Planner

14.5 Mr R Cyples, TMS Consultancy, Road Safety Auditor

15 Statement by Mr Jim Davidson, Project Coordinator, DI HSD

16 Statement by Stan Yellop, Safety Management Services (IoM) Ltd

17 Agenda DBC Executive Committee (14.11.2014)

18 Douglas Promenade Issues & Options DI (11.2010)

19 Douglas Town Centre Parking – Policy Development Options DI (11.2013)

20 Representations received after initial application


90

21 Representations received after amendments to scheme

22 List of those making representations and attending the Inquiry

23 Submissions from Mr SDA Bridson

24 Submissions from Mr B Hannay

25 Submissions from Mr M Lambden

26 Submissions form Mr D Quirk

27 Submissions from Mr D Butt

28 Response from Jane Dellar IOM Chamber of Commerce

29 Addendum Planning Statement PBCD

30 Addendum HSD Statement

30.1 Response to HSD Addendum Statement by Mrs AM Rivers

30.2 Response to HSD Addendum Statement by Mrs M Bridson

31 Guidance on Tramways ORR

32 Policy & Guidance – Conservation of Historic Environment IOM

33.1 Risk Assessment 1 Designers DOI

33.2 Risk Assessment 2 Burroughs Stewart Associates

33.3 Risk Assessment 3 DBC Operators RA (Pegasus)

33.4 Risk Assessment 4 Combined (30.11.2015) RA2 and RA3

34.1 Comments on RAs by Mrs M Bridson

34.2 Comments on RAs by Mrs AM Rivers

34.3 Comments on RAs by Mr R Halsall

35 Cabinet Office request for Report from Inspector of Railways Mr B Warden

36 IOM Inspector of Railways (IR) response/statement

36.1 Notes on Discussions with IOM IR by Mr A Burroughs

37.1 Response to the Inspector of Railways by Mrs P Q DeHaven

37.2 Response to the Inspector of Railways by Mr J Pennington

38 IOM Cabinet Office Requirement and Timetable for Further Submissions

38.1 IoM Cabinet Office Request for Summary from Mr J Davidson DI HSD

39 Spare

40 DOI Responses to Addendum to Planning Statement; List of

Conditions; Objector’s Closing Statements

41 DOI Comments on Statement from Inspector of Railways

42 DOI Comments on Addendum to Highways Report

43 DOI Comments on Objectors’ Comments on Risk Assessments

44 Response to PBCD’s Addendum Report by Mrs M Bridson

45 Response to PBCD’s Addendum Report by Mrs P Q DeHaven

46 Response to PBCD’s Addendum Report by Mrs P Newton

47 Response to PBCD’s Addendum Report by Mr J Pennington

48 Response to PBCD’s Addendum Report by Mrs AM Rivers

49 Segregated Tramway Crossings Guidance – UK Tram

50 Visibility Distances – Mr P Barnet, DI Highways Services

51 Increased Promenade Area Plan

52 Horse Drawn Tram Speed Data

53 IoM Sea Defence Options JBA Consulting for DI

54 Climate Change Adaption, DI Highways Services

55 Climate Change Adaption Executive Summary


91

56 Spare

57 Existing Promenade Dimension Plan

58 Spare

59 Spare

60 Cabinet Office Formal Closure of Enquiry Notice

61 Letter from BSA re DBC decision to discontinue HDT operation

PLANS

A Initial Application Plans (set of 26) AO Size

B Amended Application Plans (set of 26 Revision A) AO Size

C Amended Application Drawings (A3 Size)

D Phase 1 Plans (A3 Size) As carried out

E Phase 2 Plans (A3 Size) Not carried out

F Option A (A3 Size) Consultation Plans

G Option G (A3 Size) Consultation Plans

H Douglas Local Plan Order Map No 1

I Douglas Local Plan Order Map No 2

J RBC GT Application Plans

K RBC CMC Application Plans