Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Sue, indeed. The port switches the lights when movement through the port to the berths is extra slow and the port's internal buffer zone is at capacity. From my perspective I see some advantage for the port in having those lights further up on the Courtwood interchange as having longer for released lorries to get down to the buffer zone gives longer for lorries already in the buffer zone to move forward a bit (not much longer, maybe a minute or two). Policing would be a bit trickier I would imagine and being outside the normal jurisdiction of the port police would fall to highways instead and I'd imagine that they'd have some push back unless there was some pretty compelling evidence that the current location is really damaging to health.
I did some work with the Town Council to get some noise and particulate monitors placed adjacent to the fence on the Aycliffe side there so that change could be driven from hard data about the harm being done that couldn't be denied or fobbed off as anecdotal - which is often what happens with verbal evidence. This was as part of the Traffic work stream for the Town's neighbourhood plan initiative. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown to me, the neighbourhood plan initiative stalled and the equipment didn't get deployed as a result.
Sue Nicholas- Location: river
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 6,025
Good response Garry .Just a little bit of forward thinking and peace for Aycliffe residents .
Captain Haddock
- Location: Marlinspike Hall
- Registered: 8 Oct 2012
- Posts: 8,101
"We are living in very strange times, and they are likely to get a lot stranger before we bottom out"
Dr. Hunter S Thompson
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
It is nice to hear from and get the comments Neil but sadly they really tell us very little we could not have guessed.
DHB still have control over what happens in the whole harbour area from East to West and will continue to do just as they please however adversely it affects the Dover residents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Pilot- Registered: 28 Jul 2018
- Posts: 346
Neil spins it very well. I am almost surprised he didn't get Charlie off the hook.
Gary39- Registered: 7 Jul 2017
- Posts: 451
"Policing would be a bit trickier I would imagine and being outside the normal jurisdiction of the the port police?"
Did they not make an exemption for Dover Tap.. so in theory and basically any lorries parked pass the layby are outside their jurisdiction..
Come on how far does the lorry queue go back .. often pass the Capel turn off. So that is another excuse I have heard before.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Bob, different project, different project manager. The port employs several project managers to cover the 120+ significant projects currently being undertaken by the port.
Jan, sorry that you feel that way about what the port does. The Board does devote specific and significant time to community issues now and there is regular discussion about how to mitigate potential adverse impacts of the port's development and on going business on a long term strategic basis.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Gary, I'm not making any excuses. I would like to see TAP start back at Courtwood well away from Aycliffe and have consistently argued for that since its inception. Its a statement of fact that policing of a TAP that starts at Courtwood would be outside the jurisdiction of the port police and would essentially fall 100% on highways to police. If someone in Government would be prepared to modify the jurisdiction limits and provide the additional resource for manpower, then that element of push back that we all currently experience from the various authorities involved would become, in reality, an 'excuse'. I'd personally rather the queue START at the Capel turn-off (Courtwood).
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
#13 The point I was making Neil (perhaps rather unclearly) is that there will be no fishing or other activity from the Admiralty all the while there is a cruise ship in dock. Is this the case, do you think?
#25 I'm struggling to understand why, as community director at DHB, you deemed it necessary to provide a character reference for our erstwhile MP in the same way as his estranged spouse, Roger Gale et al. Was this a necessary aspect of your role or did you have a personal connection with our now disgraced MP that motivated you? The Commons Standards Committee regarded this as an egregious attempts to influence legal proceedings. In what capacity did you decide to act?
The Gov likes this
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,879
Sorry Neil but it is not the port that actually does anything, it is those who run it namely Dover Harbour Board.
They can spend as much time as they like discussing strategy, impact and the community, ineffectual talk costs nothing and does nothing.
The Gov likes this
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Barrington
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 17 Dec 2014
- Posts: 3,257
ray hutstone wrote:#13 The point I was making Neil (perhaps rather unclearly) is that there will be no fishing or other activity from the Admiralty all the while there is a cruise ship in dock. Is this the case, do you think?
They have only ever closed it at the behest of Disney cruises(the port bends over backwards for Disney!) and I think one other cruise line that were concerned of a security threat. Why any terrorist would use the admiralty when you can freely access the cruise terminal building would be anyones guess?
The Gov likes this
Arte et Marte
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Ray, it isn't clear that that would always be the case. Possibly would happen should cruise vessels be on CT2, not so sure about CT1.
Re Charlie: the letter I wrote was at the request of his defense immediately after his conviction because I had worked closely with him on the campaign against privatisation of the port and some of my daughters had helped in his office as interns. It was written to go with letters from the probation service and others as a report to the judge for her to consider when making her decision on what sentence to pass after his conviction. This report is part of the legal process post conviction and is not normally made public. I wrote in a personal capacity from my and my family's experience and interactions with him.
After his conviction and sentencing, the judge was asked to make the contents of the report publicly available to the newspapers - including the names and letters of those who had written in about their own experiences with him. The judge had a hearing where she heard arguments both in favour and against publication. The 'egregious attempts to influence legal proceedings' that you refer to was in relation to letters written by Natalie, Roger Gale and other MPs requesting that the judge be prevailed upon not to allow publication of the letters in the report in order to protect their constituents' anonymity. I did not act in this at all in any capacity.
Button
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 22 Jul 2016
- Posts: 3,057
Neil.Wiggins wrote:Its a statement of fact that policing of a TAP that starts at Courtwood would be outside the jurisdiction of the port police and would essentially fall 100% on highways to police. If someone in Government would be prepared to modify the jurisdiction limits...
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/23/section/7 - s7(1) and s7(7)(f) any good?
(Not my real name.)
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#33 Hi Button, yes, am aware of that legislation. It doesn't change the fact that Courtwood is actually outside the jurisdiction of the port police and I have been told the the authority to act outside of their jurisdiction outlined in that piece legislation is not intended to regularise them doing so in the way that would have to be the case with TAP. Policing of a TAP that started at Courtwood would fall on Highways unless jurisdiction that far up were regularised.
Perhaps I was oversimplifying earlier - for which I apologise.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Further to #34 a part that I hadn't read to previously seems to indicate that an order under the Act to regularise port police actions outside their normal area of jurisdiction for specific purposes connected with the port could be made by the secretary of state or government minister, so that could be an avenue to look at, so thank you Button for highlighting a section I was familiar with for making me read the whole thing again.
ray hutstone- Registered: 1 Apr 2018
- Posts: 2,158
The Gov and Reginald Barrington like this
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#36, Ray. The proposal is for a trial opening day - already mentioned much earlier in the comments. The 'crippling costs' of this day will be borne by the port, the demands probably sit around safety and security and are set out for the trial day so that both the port management and the DSAA can learn from a live event what works/can work and what doesn't. After the trial day there are due to be further meetings and discussions using the lessons learnt from the trial day to hammer out a more permanent arrangement that does not involve crippling costs or unachievable demands but does discharge the port management's responsibilities and liabilities with regards to the safety and security of people on its estate and allows angling to continue.
The entire exercise is supposed to set a framework that allows both port management and DSAA to work together to deliver a long term and sustainable return for sea angling from the pier.
The Gov- Registered: 24 May 2020
- Posts: 151
Well by the look of it BIG brother has spoken
I myself was taken fishing as a lad along with my granddad and dad who are sadly are no longer with us. I used to take my son who is now a very good fisherman who would like to take his son and his dad to enjoy a days fishing summer or winter
Shame on DHB.
Don't hurry boys used to be the words they used. Being a Dover Lad born and bred it would be lovely to have the chance to do this with my kin.
Brian Dixon and Reginald Barrington like this
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
#38 The Gov, I also used to go fishing off the Admiralty when I was a teenager and in turn have taken my son and daughters fishing there. I'd like to take my grand sons and daughters too when they are big enough. Also born and bred here and I sincerely hope that the issues introduced by the modern safety and security environment can be addressed so that I can do so.
