A report into the Douglas promenade regeneration scheme has criticised the Department of Infrastructure for its lack of awareness of the work’s impact on businesses.

The first report of the environment and infrastructure policy review committee makes for grim reading for Infrastructure Minister Ray Harmer, who is singled out for his lack of familiarity with the project impact assessment.

The report, which is due to be presented to Tynwald next week, includes evidence from business owners who say the DoI provided a lack of support during the works.

surprising

In their report, Douglas East MHKs Clare Barber (nee Bettison) and Christ Robertshaw said that they found it ’very surprising that the Minister and the chief executive of the DoI did not appear to be familiar with the project impact assessment’.

The report added: ’This is a telling indication of the lack of importance given by the DoI to the impact of the project on businesses.’

Businesses felt measures introduced by the DoI to lessen the impact of the works had ’not yet been implemented to a satisfactory standard or, in some cases, at all’.

And the report added: ’Furthermore, we believe that these mitigation measures are inadequate for dealing with the issues at hand.’

In July, the committee asked business owners how successful they felt the measures taken to lessen the impact of the loss of parking had been.

The consensus from businesses is that: ’The signage was very general and lacked useful information, leading to businesses creating their own signage; communication with businesses has not been proactive; there has been no information provided about how to apply for rates rebates; there has been no proactive discussion with businesses about loading bays; there was no evidence of longer working hours.’

A decision to speed up the scheme from three years to two years was explained to Tynwald members in an email from Mr Harmer in which he said that the DoI ’had listened to the wishes of members and the public who have said that they want the work completed in the shortest possible period of time and shorter than the three years previously identified’.

He added: ’To maximise the opportunity for the contractors to speed up delivery, the department has sought to minimise the number of constraints under which the work is to be delivered and these will be built into the contractual arrangements.’

But Mr Harmer also recognised that ’maximising the contractor’s opportunity to complete the work quickly by minimising constraints will most likely increase disruption in the short term during the construction period’.

He commented: ’There will be complaints from some and pressure to change the constraints on the contractor; however, if we further constrict the contractor during the contract period it will cost additional time and money, which we would all wish to avoid.’

The committee said: ’Unlike many other aspects of the project to refurbish the promenade, this policy decision was not brought to Tynwald for debate and approval.

’We find this highly unusual.’

The report also to looks at the role of the Council of Ministers in the formation of an impact assessment, noting that previous attempts to ensure any major infrastructure project should be accompanied by wider economic impact assessment, as recommended in the committee’s report into the regional sewage treatment strategy, were rejected.

It added: ’This recommendation was rejected by the Council of Ministers on the grounds that the impact assessment undertaken through the planning process and the business case is sufficient; Tynwald agreed with the Council of Ministers.

’The failures of the Douglas Promenade refurbishment project clearly demonstrate once again that the current process is not adequate for identifying potential problems for the island’s businesses and economy.’

However, the committee has welcomed Treasury Minister Alfred Cannan’s proposals for a centralised unit that will deal with future infrastructure projects at a national level.