Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
It doesn't have to be a fight, Howard, that would not be in the best interests of Dover.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
I did not know it was a fight if that be the case I will take the gloves off not on.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
The goverment will not take anynotice of what the man in the street has to say only if it is done in the 10000s or even more,they will not take notice of my letters etc or anyones,only if the letters as I said come in there door at no10 in their 1000s,anyone who thinks they do are not living in the real world,I done it just to make me feel better and say well I try. yes they get someone to write one back to you but it means nothing,unless the person sending it is (1) the MP, or high up the ladder which I am not.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Quite a turn around Howard,
now let me try to understand this if i can,
Let me first say I have put on here i have my own reservations about the peoples port proposals, so im coming from no bias.
Over the many posts I believe the peoples port has set out it's stall, explaining fully the route it wishes to take, and explaining it has big buisiness behind it.
All I can take from Alexanders postings is that hes saying he doesn't need support(quite a strange comment) presume that means hope the govt gets it right not a route i would want to leave it all in.
There has only been 2 strong opinions on here in support of new moves(if you exclude the 2 posters who feel everything will be left as it is(it wont be)
so we have
1; the peoples port
2;Alexanders unknown proposals
think thats it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
keith
no representations to the department for transport are in the public domain.
re; 1 and 2 there are likely to be others keeping a very keen eye on the situation and will have representations ready if invited to bid.
quite an impressive property portfolio there, not all around the seafront either.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Howard
without trying to defend the peoples port, they have without doubt set out there stall on this forum,
Im sure they are fully aware of not being alone in there bids for the future
Im sure there are many multi national companies out there waiting in the wings.
So no, it won't be all plain sailing.
On the other hand Alexander needs no support??? hasn't set out any stall presumed by the little he has said hes leaving it to a govt minister(he has more faith than me in them lol)
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
no keith, setting out one's stall is a very different thing to a representation, neil has made quite clear that on certain things commercial confidentiality stops him from answering certain questions.
alex is right in that the only people that matter are the department for transport who have already made one decision as we know and will make at least one more in the future.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Well I think we are all aware of the route the peoples port wish to take(whether or not we agree with them)
on alexanders non support proposal I have no idea
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
no one has kieth,its like playing your cards close to your chest.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
I do read all the posts/threads and find this to be incorrect a number of posts outline the peoples port proposals/ideas
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, you should read the Decision Minister's public letter of 20th December 2012 to Dover Harbour Board.
Here's the link.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49017/dover-harbour-board-transfer-20121220.pdf
If you scroll down to:
"Alternative options"
you'll find where my proposal stands.
This should complete the cycle of your seemingly never-ending speculation about secret conspiracies and hidden secrets.
The relevant part of my representation is in fact in public domain, so I needn't publish anything else in endless repetition.
It comes under "alternative options", and now Amen, Keith
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
In order for that to fly, Alex, you would have to provide a fully argued case explaining how the legal constraints could be overcome and how it would not affect Dover's competitive position. Additionally you would have to show what the money would be used for, and put in place the bodies needed to administer your schemes for the community regeneration. Nobody else is going to do that for you but if it were not done, and if your levy were to be implemented, the money would just disappear into the maw of central or local government.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Yes Peter, you are right.
Following up my representation in its mentioned relevant part, I've proposed how the legal constraints could be overcome, and how it would not negatively affect Dover's competitive position.
And also some viable examples on what the money would be used for.
The bodies needed to administer the schemes for Community regeneration, however, may possibly need the consent of Local Government too, as these bodies would have to respond to one or another governing Authority and be accountable at all times for their conduct.
They would need a clear definition from the start, a plan, a regular auditing process on their accounts, and would need to adhere to existing regulations, be it health and safety or whatever.
At this point, it is not up to me to go any further, as the final decision making has to depend on the Government, or relevant Secretary of State, and any related Ministry.
I strongly dispute that any money committed to Dover and District from Port revenues would disappear into the maw of Central or Local Government, as the needs of Dover's regeneration, some of which I've outlined to the DfT, would not be financially covered if this happened.
In other words, once it is agreed that a stream of financial income from the Port is committed to Community regeneration, it cannot be diverted for other purposes.
But obviously, once the Government makes the decision to accept my proposal, it will be up to the Authorities to make legal arrangements, which is why I do not contact financial institutions or other persons or offices who are in no position to make decisions on how a revenue should be invested here.
Most importantly of all, my proposal has nothing to do with borrowing money or placing the Port in a debt situation to finance either Port expansion, Port maintenance or Town and District investment.
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
As I read it the Ministers letter refers to letters that were sent to them, they in no way endorse them just acknowledge them.
Audere est facere.
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
Exactly Martin, there were 730 representations from 630 individuals or organisations, the alternative options section mentions just those that were outside the main consideration, a requirement of the process not an endorsement.
The fact that Alex's proposal got it's own unique mention is probably because he was the only suggesting it, make what you will of that.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Martin, you would need to read the writing:
Decision Minister's letter
December 20th 2012
"He also concluded that in so far as the Board made the application in order to be able to obtain the additional finance necessary to undertake the proposed redevelopment of the Western Docks, there were other options available to secure that redevelopment."
This is Kent:
January 8th 2013
"Earlier this month the Department of Transport said it was looking at tolling schemes to fund "new capacity" in limited circumstances."
Looks more like my proposal was accepted.
In particular considering that "new capacity" is related to road facilities.
I pointed this out to the DfT in January 2013, that a new ferry terminal at Western Docks is a road facility.
See also form This is Kent 8th January '13
"This autumn George Osborne announced that a feasibility study would be carried out by the DfT to explore how new road-building projects could be funded."
Unless anyone can prove otherwise, the Government accepted my proposal to fund Port expansion through tolling and so-by rejected the DHB privatisation bid.
My belief is, only the Government - or competent Department thereof - could explain to me that this was not the case, and that tolling, as currently being considered by the DfT and the Chancellor, does not refer also to Western Docks.
Only if the DfT informed me so themselves, would I believe it.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
No Alex, it would be up to YOU to make the arrangements, otherwise your proposal has no follow-through.
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
the toll concept has been discussed since i moved here and probably much earlier than that, do we know of good examples where toll charges are ringfenced for a particular business?
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Probably not, Howard. Tolling is a new idea the Government is considering introducing, as I've just pointed out above.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Peter, when the DfT reply, they will let me know if and what I need to do.
First they need to confirm that my general proposal has been accepted.