Planning Application 16/00379/B 1st April 2016 Douglas Promenade from Sea Terminal, Loch Promenade and Harris Promenade, Douglas.
1. The Manx Electric Railway Society objects to the above planning application upon the following grounds;
1.1. If this application is permitted the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway will be cut off from the Sea Terminal, unseen by arriving visitors and is likely to die altogether; it will be a line from “Nowhere to Nowhere”. When the Isle of Man Railway line to Port Erin was cut back the costs of running it were not proportionally reduced and the impact on receipts was severe. The same thing occurred when the MER was cut back to Laxey. The same thing can therefore be expected if the horse line is truncated and this will put it in greater jeopardy than it is now. 1.2. The Douglas Promenades Conservation Order 2002 designates the entire length of Douglas Promenade as a Conservation Area. Plainly this includes the double track horse tramway which, it is clear is to be abandoned and removed if this application is permitted to proceed.
1.2.1. If this development is permitted the very nature of the Promenade will be transformed beyond recognition; the removal of the horse tramway will involve a detrimental material change for the worse which is un-necessary and in clear contradiction of the purpose of the Conservation Order.
1.2.2. In referring to Conservation Areas, pursuant to section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 “Special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act”.
1.2.3. It is submitted that the tramway is covered by the expression “or other land in the area” and that in wiping out the tramway in the area the subject of this application the proposal flies in the face of the provision encapsulated in section 18.
1.2.4. The rationale behind this proposal radically to alter a key heritage asset in a Conservation Area appears to be the provision of parking spaces in substitution for the heritage asset.
1.2.4.1. Additional cars parked in the area will further reduce the quality of the Conservation Area.
1.2.4.2. The Douglas Bay Horse Tramway runs only in the Summer and when it runs could be used constructively to help alleviate any perceived parking problem. There is ample spare parking space at the Chester Street Car Park and it would be entirely feasible to incorporate a “park and ride” arrangement using the horse tramway to link with the part of the Promenade the subject of this application, thus retaining this unique asset.
1.3. The proposed development would reduce a prime tourist asset, the 139 year old Douglas Bay Horse Tramway to a truncated and unrecognisable route with consequences to tourism and public amenity which do not appear to have been costed or thought through. This would be done to the only surviving municipal horse tramway in the world. It flies in the face of a duty to conserve embodied in the Conservation Order and the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.
1.3.1. The applicant has recently taken over the running of the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway pending a decision as to the future of the line. Since no decision has been reached the
application is to say the least premature given that this is development within a Conservation Area and the consequences of any grant of permission would be far reaching in many ways. 1.4. Appended are documents demonstrating the success of two petitions run by our Society to obtain support for the preservation of the Horse Tramway, together with the comments of people from all over the world in support of the line.
1.5. The present application is for remodelling of only a part of the promenade and as such if permitted would result in a slewed, partial approach to development, modernistic at one end and unchanged at the other. We submit that for it to be successful the planning scheme should be in the context of the Promenade as a whole.
1.6. Much within the proposed scheme is designed to calm traffic; these traffic calming measures do not sit comfortably with the Conservation Area and would be un-necessary if the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway is maintained. It was acknowledged in the last report that the tramway has a traffic calming effect.
1.6.1. It is submitted that (as was put forward on behalf of Douglas Corporation with regard to the last planning application), the horse tramway has an “exemplary safety record” with the line in the middle of the promenade. There are numerous examples around the world of trams running in the middle of the road and the system is acknowledged as being safe, given the care taken by experienced staff.
1.7. Given that the MERS has been assured by officers of the Department responsible for this planning application that the Steam Railway, Manx Electric Railway and Manx National Heritage have all recently been demonstrated to be net contributors to the Manx Economy (no figures exist for the Horse Tramway), it is likely that as a heritage asset the Horse Tramway is a net contributor too. This application is therefore precipitate; it should not be considered without clear supporting figures as to the impact upon the Manx Economy, both in terms of attracting visitors in general, as a unique icon and as an integral part of the
Island’s unique vintage transport network. Before taking such a step an impact study needs to be carried out. The Department’s own figures show that the other vintage lines bring in £11,000,000 a year; this is not chickenfeed and this issue is of importance to the economy as a whole.
1.8. Presently there is a pleasant, easy short walk between the Southern End of the Douglas Bay Horse Tramway and the Steam Railway Station. If this application is permitted someone wishing to travel from one end of the Island to the other will be obliged to walk the length of Strand Street in addition. A vital link in the vintage transport infrastructure will have been permanently broken.
1.9. The Manx Electric Railway, a vintage tramway, unique in the world and upon the word of the Applicants a substantial net contributor to the Manx Economy will be deprived of an important heritage feeder for its services. Untold financial damage will be incurred to this unique and priceless survivor from the past. All this without an impact study.
1.10. 1998 DOUGLAS LOCAL PLAN P28 “ADDITIONAL POLICIES” ‘5.16 DTLR/P8 The area centred on the Villa Marina and the Gaiety Theatre area is a prime tourist resource of National Status. The creation of a conservation area centred on these facilities should be pursued in recognition of the importance of that area.” The proposed removal of the horse tramway from the "area centred on the Villa Marina and the Gaiety Theatre area” flies in the face of 1998 DOUGLAS LOCAL PLAN P28 “ADDITIONAL POLICIES” ‘5.16 DTLR/P8.
1.11. INSPECTOR’S REPORT 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
(explanatory note; this was a report by an Independent Planning Inspector rejecting an earlier application by the Department of Infrastructure to re-style the Douglas promenades and move the horse tramway onto a new route on the public walkway on the seaward side of the promenades)
PAGE 35 (Summarising Manx National Heritage statement) "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. " Here Manx National Heritage can be seen to support retention of the full linear length of the Douglas Bay Tramway. Whilst the Independent Inspector rejected that submission, effectively saying it did not go far enough (see below) it is submitted on behalf of the MERS that Manx National Heritage identified the retention of the full length of the route as important and welcomed it.
1.12. INSPECTOR’S REPORT 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 Pages 68- Page 73 are relied upon by the MERS in making our submissions for the retention of the Douglas Bay tramway (emphasis has been added in to the inspector’s wording in order to highlight the parts particularly relied upon by the Manx Electric Railway Society in our submissions); "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 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 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 tranquility (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.
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 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.
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 ‘postrationalised’ 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."
MERS SUBMISSION: The Independent Inspector has acknowledged (see the words in bold above) the importance of the Horse Tramway to the Conservation Area, going so far as to reject the (then) Manx National Heritage submission that so long as the line remained running from one end of the Promenade to another the precise route did not matter; in fact he concluded that changing the route of the tramway would "impact on the character of the Promenade as a whole”. The present application is to remove the route altogether on a substantial part of the Promenade and it is submitted that this could only have a greater "impact on the character of the Promenade as a whole”.
MERS SUBMISSION: The assertion of the Applicants (Executive Summary and Recommendation at ES4 that “In his assessment of
PA 15/00594/B, the Independent Inspector considered that the proposals for the highway part of the scheme proposed under PA. 15/00594/B section of the Promenade accord with the land use designation should be taken in the context of a clear conclusion from the Independent Inspector that the horse tramway should be retained on the roadway. It is therefore submitted that this is a disingenuous application.
Our submissions are available to download by clicking HERE.