Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#19, Alex, thank you for your advice. At the next board meeting of DPPT I shall bring your comments to the attention of my colleagues and I am sure we shall all be trembling in our boots.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Reluctantly posting on a political thread - DPPT is a community interest organisation. It was incorporated on 23rd August 2010, which meant that it made its first corporate submission on the consultation over the port during the consultation period called for by the government in July/August 2010.
For the first consultation period in Feb/March 2010, DPPT was unincorporated. But as has been said many times, both in writing and verbally, on this forum, in the press and at public meetings, the concept, ideas and thinking behind DPPT were born out of the first consultation period, out of what the public and other stakeholders expressed during that consultation and from submissions made by many individuals (including me) and stakeholder groups.
DPPT was born out of consultation and informed by the latest international thinking around port ownership and governance, the implementation of best practice in port-city relationships and the knowledge that a community cooperative type organisation could constitute to be fully accountable to the local community, prevent sale and on-sale of the port and yet gain access to the private capital markets to fund investment for growth and development in a way that we were told neither a Trust port or a Local Government body can.
As DPPT is a democratic organisation, is partaking fully in the Democratic and consultative process, is apolitical (I can't believe that, despite people of all political colours and none being openly and publicly involved in DPPT from grass roots to Board level, a reasonable person could still be suggesting that DPPT is a politically motivated or controlled organisation) and has actively, through a free and open democratic vote, sought the opinion of the population with regard to the future of the port, I really look forward to your legal and constitutional challenges Alex. Your supporting documentation will doubtless make very interesting reading matter. as do many of your posts.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
One question for you Alex, what benefit from DHB in its present form are you most anxious to preserve?
Your posts would indicate that you are opposed to the DPPT proposal, that you wish DHB to remain a 'State Asset' and that you do not want any change. From that we have to assume that you are seeing some huge benefit from the current structure that most of us are missing. Please do share it with us.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Chris,
I don't think 'State Asset' comes into it.
As firmly described at the recent DHB consultative meeting the Port is [currently]a DHB asset.
The ownership is DHB's unless legislation changes that.
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
The original charter is clear. DHB owns the port as trustee not as beneficial owner. The Public Bodies Act 2011 further clarifies the position.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
is that the original charter peter and can you explain the difference between trustee and beneficial owner in lay terms?
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
So Peter is it a 'State Assset' as described by Alex ?
I don't think so in technical terms.
I think despite reference to clarification it is still not absolute but optional.
Watty
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
It is a Public Body as defined in the 2011 Act.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
I was using the terms from post 19 in order to make it clear on what basis I was asking the question. (hence the inverted comma's)
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
Indeed Chris & I used your quoted words.
So what does that mean Peter?
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all as clear as mud chaps i shall have to ask alex to clarify the position.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
To start with, Chris is wrong in supposing I do not want any changes regards the Port of Dover.
Possibly the fact that the copies of the relevant representations in the ORIGINAL public consultation (p/c), when sent by the Department for Transport (DT) to all the participants for examination (second and third phases of the p/c), did not have the names of their authors attached, made it unclear to Chris which representation was mine.
This leads Chris to assume I have not asked for changes.
However, I took part in all three phases of the original p/c., and the first reply sent to me from the DT in March 2009 clearly assesses in their own words the proposals I made, which are three, and confirms that these will be taken into consideration.
This should detract value from Peter and Barry's posts 21 and 22, which do no justice to the democratic process of p/c in our Country, but rather infer a mockery of a citizen's participation in public consultation.
Continues...
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
So tell us what you want Alex, instead of lurking behind veiled references to what you have told the government.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
This forum is full of people telling us what they don't want. Let's have a few threads where people tell us what they DO want.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Correcting March 2009 to March 2010, apologies.
In continuation: The term "State asset" to describe Dover Harbour Board has been used by Charlie Elphicke during his pre-election campaign in 2009, and also by PaulB on the Forum, and so, even if the term needs some technical explanation, we can assume that "State asset" is the meaning generally referred to with the DHB charter.
In fact, the DHB was created in 1606 to replace the Cinque Ports status of the Port of Dover. Under the Cinque Ports system, Dover as a port-town had clear advantages from port revenues. The need to remove shingle from the harbour through the creation of piers led to the idea of a harbour board that keeps all port revenues in order to invest these in port and harbour maintenance.
Incidentally, it was the Cinque Ports who sent me a copy of the public consultation offer made by the Government in 2009/2010 and strongly advised me to participate in it. I followed their advice.
Continues...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
My three main points, as assessed by the DT, are that the port should pass from the current board to either the Dover Town Council or the Dover District Council.
The introduction of a port-service toll (to be distributed among the three local councils - DTC, DDC and KCC - and the State Treasury).
This port toll would be introduced in all British ports, and be an equivalent to European road tolls.
The use of the railway line into the Western Docks for freight to reduce the impact on Dover and the level of carbon emissions.
Continues...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Since this representation of mine, KCC has proposed a port toll in Dover to contribute to road maintenance, and I did inform KCC at the time this news came out in the local press of my representation proposals, and they replied to me favourably and explained to me their further requests to the Government, which includes a limit on how much petrol a foreign truck can bring into Britain.
Therefore, there is a good case for port tolls, and it so happens that KCC is one of the local councils that I mentioned in my representation. In this sense, I believe the DT may well be taking into consideration my port toll proposal, as it is - practically - backed up by KCC, at least to some extent.
The rail link proposal is meant clearly to reduce the impact on Dover of even more lorries that would be transiting from a new T2 through Snargate St. or Townwall St.
I believe there is a good case that this proposal too is being taken into consideration, as it is clearly in the best interests of Dover, and in line with Britain's national carbon emissions goals, which is to reduce carbon emissions over the coming years, and not to increase them.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Finally, I cannot believe that the Port of Dover and the various assets belonging to DHB, such as the promenade and various buildings, pass to a private trust (DPPT) rather than to a local council.
Subordinate to this, I could imagine (as also mentioned by me in a later phase of the p/c), that DHB remain in its current status, but on the condition that port toll revenues go to the said councils and National Treasury, and the rail link be introduced.
I am not aware of any proposals from DPPT that are beneficial to Dover, and do not recognise DPPT as anything other than a private trust that has political connections in Parliament.
A transfer scheme of DHB to a local council would mean a transfer of a State asset from one State institution (charter board) to another (local government), and would not require any sell-off or privatisation, therefore the State Treasury could not expect to receive a lump sum of £200 million from any investor/buyer.
Indeed there would be neither investor nor buyer.
Both the DHB and DPPT proposals envisage inflicting an enormous debt on the Port of Dover, usually mentioned in the region of £400 million. A private owner would first of all try to get back their invested money with a profit (DHB plan). An investor would try to get back their lent money with the interest (DPPT plan).
Ultimately, I cannot see DPPT getting anywhere unless they physically transfer my proposals over in bloc to their own baggage, but of-course I will challenge this too, as their proposals should have been made in 2010.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
Alex the case against the railway was very well made on your own blog site and you chose to ignore it then so I won't bother with it here. The Idea of DTC, DDC or KCC running the port is obviously too absurd to mention, there is no experience or expertise for such a job in any of them.
It does, however, leave the question unanswered, what is it that you find so beneficial to Dover that you wish to preserve?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
