The Steam Packet’s new ferry terminal is part of the development which the United Nations cited as a reason for revoking Liverpool’s UNESCO world heritage status.

The planned ferry terminal (currently budgeted for £38m) at Princes Half Tide Dock is located within the land of the Liverpool Waters development, which the Peel Land and Property company hopes will transform Liverpool’s docklands.

However, in justifying its decision the U.N. said the developer’s £5.5bn project had resulted in ’serious deterioration and irreversible loss’ to the dockland area’s outstanding universal value along with ’significant loss to its authenticity and integrity’.

Originally planned to be completed this February, delays meant that it is now due to be finished next year.

Pictures taken at the terminal construction site this week show that little progress has been made so far, with no significant structures yet to be seen.

A large construction crane was however at work at the site.

Last week Infrastructure Minister Tim Baker put forward a motion for Tynwald to approve a further £13,800,000 from the Capital Transactions Account to fund the terminal.

He said this was to ’address the financial impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic’ and the ’additional site remediation and quay wall protection works required’.

Ramsey MHK Lawrie Hooper circulated an amendment to not discuss the motion at this sitting, but to take it at a later date.

Mr Hooper called on the minister to provide more information so that Tynwald could best make a decision on the motion, arguing that he had not given the court enough notice before asking for the extra funds.

He explained that members had last week only been given a short briefing about the project from the Department of Infrastructure, and that no ’supporting evidence’ had been given to justify the request for funds.

’Government shouldn’t be allowed to come to this honourable court at exceptionally short notice, provide these honourable members and the public with such a dearth of information, and expect us to support £14m of additional expenditure’.

He described it as a ’completely inappropriate way’ to treat Tynwald.

Tynwald then decided that based on Mr Hooper’s amendment, the question would not be debated at that time.

Now, unless Mr Baker calls an emergency sitting soon, the issue will be brought back for the next government to debate when Tynwald reconvenes in September, after the general election.