The post you are reporting:
Alexander. The definition of Local Community that I used in the context of the Port of Dover is not my own, it is from the DCLG and DfT.
The amounts of money that I quote have been arrived at using the GOVERNMENT's calculator for community benefit (the larger sums above). The match funding that I speak about (the NW rule of thumb) is NOT imaginary and the levels of match and partner funding I have said are possible and HAVE been achieved elsewhere in this country.
DPPT will be running regeneration projects through Regenco in perpetuity (until He comes). I never put a time scale on over how long that money will be invested and reinvested, but the DCLG community benefit calculator churns out its numbers on the basis of community benefit over the course of 5 years. Note, this is the Government's own calculator, not mine, not DPPT's.
Do you not know how co-funding of projects works? Let me give you an example...an organisation agrees to undertake a project and seeks partners to carry it out, it finds the partners that it needs to make the project deliverable, let's say there are two other organisations who are prepared to back the project and jointly invest in it, the lead organisation that identified the project puts £10m on the table, one of the other partner organisations is prepared to match this pound for pound and the third organisation has £5m. Now we have a £25m project delivered at the cost of £10m to the lead organisation. See how it works yet? Simples. Very easily a series of investments in projects with partners turns £50m seed funding into between £125m and £150m of money jointly invested in the delivery of projects over all.
I've done this in the private sector all over the world in partnership with public and private partners. In the Philippines, in partnership with local and regional government, we delivered a $150m project between a mixture of public and private partners on an investment by my principals of $22m.
As you well know, only once the DHB request has been rejected by government can the long term future of the port as a community asset owned directly by an organisation representative of the local community in perpetuity be even considered. Then the matter will be decided by our democratically elected representatives in Parliament. At this juncture, when we have only personal funds available to us, no one in their right mind is going to spend the money required to take regeneration projects forward to the stage where they are ready for partner match funding contributions
As to 'area of benefit, I refer you to 1) the DPPT constitution and 2) the posts on this subject in March and April 2011 on this forum. Here it is clear that, as Dover Town suffers most detriment from port operations, the bulk of regeneration projects and therefore money for regeneration will be expended there, however, there is a recognition that other projects will arise elsewhere in the District, and maybe even further afield, which, if undertaken, will be of direct benefit to Dover and the surrounding area. After all people who work in jobs which rely on the port and its operations for their continued existence reside in Dover, Deal, Sandwich, Folkestone, Capel, Whitfield....... all over, we want them to come into Dover again (when they are not working) and spend their money there, we want them to see some of the benefits of regeneration in their own communities as well.
My earlier posting was describing the different types of regneration fund spending because your previous postings indicated that you had no understanding.
DPPT IS a charity, we are registered as such and it is clear from our constitution posted in full on page 13 of this thread that that is what the DPPT is.
I have been 100% open and frank with you and with everyone on this forum, and beyond, Alexander. Every statement that I have made has been backed by costed and research based evidence. DPPT's business plan has undergone audit and stress testing. Our investment strategy has been examined, and not found wanting, by major infrastructure funders, Business and Port professionals of international standing and I have personally invested the experience I have gained in nearly 30 years of involvement at all levels in the ports and maritime sector, the profits of my own successful business and an enourmous amount of time to ensure that everything put forward by DPPT is lawful, viable in the long term and deliverable.
Other communities, both port and other, are looking to what happens at Dover and many are preparing to emulate the DPPT model if it is allowed to proceed and prosper. The DPPT ownership and governance model is already being emulated and adapted for use in other business sectors and, as I communicate with and work more and more with the Government's Asset Transfer Unit, I can see the Locallism Act 2011 beginning to encourage community based charities to take on projects and assets large and small around the country. Of course, so far, none have an asset as large and with as much potential as the Port of Dover. Good luck to every one of them, the democratisation of capital which will develop over the coming years as a result has the potential to deliver a more common prosperity than was achieved through the ideologically driven Nationalisation agenda or the equally driven privatisation agenda which followed.