Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
The point I'm making Howard is whichever way they go , they have the potential for JR. I been convinced for a long time that is the reason for delay.
After the West rail franchise debacle it will be even more cautious.
Simon Burns the decision Minister is not known as a prevaricator.
Watty
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you wrote the following:
"The project is Dover's new Maritime Training Centre and it is massively good news for our town and District achieved through the commitment and altruism of a private individual heading up a separate private, family owned, business."
That is a point I've been wondering on for some time, that DPPT is resembling a private business, hence your comparison above to planned DPPT projects.
There are enough questions to be raised about the rights of local citizens in the participation of Community projects in their area, as to make DPPT the object of a very long debate were it ever put forward to public consultation.
There is still no answer as to how much money of the proposed £50 million of borrowed money would be invested in Dover, and how much in Deal and how much in Sandwich, and how much for the parish communities in the District.
Without an answer to this question, DPPT has blocked itself.
You simply cannot ignore this question, Neil, it needs answering, with precise figures.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
To be fair to Neil as much of the question has been answered.
I'm still interested to know what alternative plans you have to run the port, costings. how profits would be spent
maybe thats enough for starters
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
it's all in the wording kieth.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
the proposed maritime centre is multi agency i believe, there are many strands to it all dependent on each other.
a recruitment agency is heavily involved and i understand that richard of "ss dover" fame is closely connected with the project.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
I'd give up answering Neil, just like the now closed Heights thread whatever you say will be turned around, mi-interpreted or ignored....
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 776- Registered: 1 Oct 2012
- Posts: 95
Shame it is up at Whitfield tho'.
It would have been good to have been around the Town/Port with the additional push of the History of the Port. Like Southampton and Portsmouth have done, with a sense of pride.
Dover, however, is never lucky enough to have some imagination and flair behind anything
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, I have no plans to run the Port, nor to set up a a regeneration fund that excludes the Community from having a say in where local money should be invested.
I'm afraid to have to inform you that a constitutional boundary may be broken with the DPPT project, hence it could never be put up for public consultation without the Office of the Communities Secretary being involved.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Christine, DHB decided they didn't want to cooperate, instead they advertised a rival centre that they wanted to set up. Their advertised plan though was basically a reproduction of the notes that their representative took at the initial stakeholder meetings.
Alexander - absolutely hilarious.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, I would have thought you'd have explained how much of that £50 million is planned for Dover regeneration, and how much of the following £1 million a year for 5 years, as regeneration in Dover was an essential part of the Public Consultation.
My representation to the Department for Transport explains clearly how much should go to Dover Town.
DPPT has categorically avoided any presentation of figures for regeneration in Dover.
Unless you have exact figures, your plan has failed the mark of the Public Consultation, including that of the revised criteria for the DHB bid.
Try rereading the wording for the revised criteria! The local Community is Dover, and you have not any plan as to what local regeneration would go on in Dover, not having presented any specific figures.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander, according to the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, the local community is the communities of Dover and the surrounding area as described by the boundaries of the Dover District Council, the definition of local community is not included in the criteria, your definition is your own.
DPPT has defined exactly how much will be available as seed funding for regeneration within this area - £50m. This amount of money is not what will be spent on regeneration as a result of this amount of money being allocated. If we use the DCLG community benefit calculator, then £50m seed funding will bring in between £270m and £316m of community benefit including match funds. If we use the NW rule of thumb, then £50m seed funding will be able to draw an additional £75m-£100m in match funding for actual spend on regeneration. How many times do you have to be told - the initial £50m is SEED FUNDING, it is not to be broken out and allocated to individual towns and villages. What happens in Dover has an impact in Dover, Deal, Whitfield, Lydden, Eastry, Eythorne, Ash, Nonnington, Studdal, Guston, Elvington, Northbourne, Sholden, etc. Equally projects that involve physical investment in Shepherdswell have an impact in Dover, Deal, and so on. Your thinking is demonstrated as 100% silo by your question.
Your request for exact amounts to be spent individually in Dover, Deal, Sandwich and the surrounding villages demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge about regeneration, area of benefit, spending and funding. Some of the projects envisaged will run over many years, some will be short term, some will be non-revenue earning, some will generate an on-going revenue stream for re-investment. Do you think that £50m is all there is? That's it, never any revenue generation, blow it all on 3 or 4 give aways?!!!!
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, there is a difference between structural regeneration and economic regeneration, and I gave examples of both concerning Dover in my rep to the DfT.
Some forms of structural regeneration require an investment but will not bring a profit. Other forms of economic investment would be financially profitable.
But it's clear to see that DPPT make no distinction between Dover and the District, and your above interpretation of local community is your own. The term, referring to the District, should be communities, using the plural.
Your interpretation of "seed money" is your way of describing a one-off sum of borrowed money, nothing more, nothing less.
Your reference to match funding bears no proof or evidence, nor any example. It is misleading.
Do you have any offers for match funding from anyone to support your claim?
In practice, DPPT are claiming that the whole of Dover District would receive hundreds of millions of pounds, as written in your above post, but this is sheer fantasy! DHB's revised bid offered something along similar lines, although on a smaller scale. And they too offered £1 million a year dividends for the first five years.
I'm afraid to say, Neil, the Port of Dover cannot cater for the sums of money - the hundreds of millions of pounds in local regeneration - which you are claiming. Not even through imaginary match funding.
A charity organisation is one thing, but by believing that DPPT will pass off as a charity and can claim match funding, the DPPT "Eight Directors" would set of a nest of hornets, as any community in Britain could then claim to have the right to set up a communal charity, borrow £50 million and transform it through match-funding and miraculous calculations into hundreds of millions of pounds.
Tada Neil!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
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.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, apart from the fact that borrowed money - £50 million - cannot generate into hundreds of millions of pounds, especially when deducting from that sum the costs for structural regeneration with no profit, there is also the fact that the DPPT proposal makes no allowance for the required £85m investment in the Eastern Docks or the £250m needed to build a new terminal.
DPPT would have to borrow at least £600 million, 250 for T2, 85 for Eastern Docks, 200 for the Treasury, 50 for the District.
I cannot see a Charity obtaining Port ownership and permission to borrow money for local regeneration.
These things simply do not function under a charity.
The only way forward is through a continuous Port Revenue for local communities in all British ports, This would put the local Community in a position to finance local regeneration and to contribute to the maintenance and expansion of its port structure.
I'm afraid the realistic figures as to what DPPT would have to borrow are those I mentioned in paragraph 2, in order to be able to run the Port, as the Government has given DHB the go-ahead for the construction of a T2.
I know Peter, as a DPPT director, has stated in the past that there is no real need for a T2, but actually there is!
If DPPT want to go along the road of borrowing money and getting the Port in debt, at least state realistic figures and keep in line with requirements for Port expansion (T2) as required by the Department for Transport.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I may add that if you are thinking of match funding for Port maintenance and expansion, such as a T2, Neil, then I wish your charity all the best. Please don't forget to turn the lights out, though, when the Port should close down!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
After all that Neil has stated (time and again) Alexander, you still don't believe him.
Neil works/has worked, in the real world and has knowledge and experience on all this; it is frustrating for us reading your posts that you won't accept what he is saying, it must be so much worse for Neil.
If anypone has any doubts about the plausability of DPPT, I'm sure you have helped dispel them.
Many people have likened you to a brick-layer telling a brain-surgeon how to operate; would you as a painter and decorator, tell someone how to rewire a house - or do you know all about that as well ?
Neil - my £10 is on its way.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Roger
in part i agree, but alexander has a view, in my view is misguided, but its still a view.
The peoples port is one of many options for the future
At this time those that have opposed the D.H.B. route we should all be rallying to make sure they don't slip in by the back door whilst all the factions argue(recall the hospistal fiasco????? lets not repeat it here)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Keith, the People's Port is one of the options IF DHB are refused permission to sell to the private sector. No argument there. I've just been answering untruths written by Alexander about DPPT. He has his own view about what he wants to see for the future of the port, there is no call for him to support that view by writing what is not true.
Thankyou Roger.
Alexander, you have ignored previous postings on this subject where the investment in the port has been dealt with specifically. Let me put it simply to you. The audited and tested DPPT business plan provides for the purchase of the port and all its assets on debt funding of a minimum of £200m net and investment of £100m in the T1 project and catch-up maintenance over the first 5 years from existing cashflow, no further borrowing required. T2 will NOT be required in the form currently envisaged by the DHB, the form that the Western side of the port eventually takes will be decided by a full review of the 30yr Masterplan, monies required for the developments that will be required on the Western side of the port can be raised ad hoc initially, but will be backed by infrastructure bonds in the long term, the DPPT business plan calculates that the initial bond issue will be in tranches with different maturity rates and that a 10 year bond tranche can be paid down in time to re-issue as a 40yr ticket and provide the long term low interest funding to underwrite the more significant changes that will be required on the Wesrtern side in due course.
The £50m seed funding will be raised as part of the initial fund raising and then endowed to Regenco. Note that I clearly wrote IF we use the DCLG calculator then IT churns out those higher numbers. I am not working on or making any commitments with regard to the DCLG calculator's figures. I am clear that match and partner funding could raise the initial amount investmented in regeneration from a seed of £50m to between £125 and £150m.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Neil, I admire and applaud your patience.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
