Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
But if my alternative proposal as mentioned in the Decision Minister's letter is accepted, it would require an Act of Parliament to become legislation.
I have had contact with the highest Government Office on this matter, and with UKIP too.
But I've stressed that local regeneration through local Port revenues must be directed into creating employment for local residents. My guess is that this requires Britain leaving the EU in order to be free of EU employment (unemployment for Brits) laws.
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
The letter from the DfT rejecting the proposed DHB transfer scheme states:
"The Secretary of State has decided not to confirm the transfer scheme from the Board. He reached this conclusion taking into account his published policy. He concluded that the transfer scheme proposed would not ensure a sufficient level of enduring community participation in the port. 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."
The main objection is therefore to the insufficient level of enduring community participation. DPPT can be congratulated for introducing this element as it has not been taken in consideration in previous privatisations - for example, the ten ports owned by Sealink plus their entire fleet of ships were flogged off lock, stock and barrel for a fraction of their value to foreign buyers and there was certainly no consideration of community obligations.
The additional objection was to the entire premise behind DHB applying for the transfer in the first place, which was to access additional finance to build T2. The DfT states that there are other options available to secure this redevelopment. These include, inter alia, landlord tenant schemes whereby port operators lease areas of the port from DHB and pay for the developments themselves, or a special purpose vehicle company which would develop T2 as a separate enterprise.
The seemingly obvious option would be for DHB to fund T2 from its own resources. This was the expressed intention when T2 was initially proposed and remained so for a couple of years. It was only when anticipated costs rose from £300m to £400m that DHB said that they needed outside finance. This was to be able to build it in the timescale envisaged to accommodate the explosive growth in freight traffic being projected at the time. Then the recession hit and freight levels fell instead of growing exponentially. Any requirement for T2 receded into the distant future giving DHB all the time they needed to accumulate the additional funds required. To this end, they had already put by £60m at the time of the judgement.
Whilst all this has been dragging on, DHB has expended large sums on progressive development of the Eastern Docks, with all the piers being extended to accommodate the largest ferries in existence or contemplated. This future proofs the Eastern Docks for many years to come eliminating the need for T2 for another decade, if ever. The much larger ferries which have come into service in recent years reduce the number of ferry movements and solve one of the principal problems cited by DHB as necessitating construction of T2, that of the number of ferries that can swing off the end of the berths in the Eastern Docks in any given time scale.
The massive Traffic Management Improvement project currently under way, with the demolition of legacy passenger infrastructure from the heady days of Duty Free and replacement with additional traffic lanes and a temporary freight holding area will further facilitate the handling of outbound freight in the same way that the construction of the Dock Exit Road expedited the passage of inbound freight.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Richard
I do try to be constructive which isn't alwats easy with Alexander, but never the less I try to keep to the thread and answer or even give the views as I see them.
I remain unconvinced of the peoples port proposals(some) but even less convinced of Alexanders views that he is the only one being listened to by this govt.
Of course at this time the Govt is terrified of cocking it up like they did with the railways franchise, which is probably why they are stalling so much now!!!
But the other reason would be that they are also not sure on the way forward.
What does need to happen is the Govt make a decision to move this all forward, as even at this point in time, we are a long way off any final moves even if the govt decided today.
Dover needs a decision to move forward
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Basically, there were two issues to be confronted in the DHB privatisation scheme public consultation:
1) how to finance a future T2.
2) how to finance local regeneration from Port revenue.
A few further issues came up in the process:
3) how to finance the DHB pension pot.
4) how to motivate DHB staff with remuneration or wages.
The first two points were of essential interest to the Government-DfT.
I explained in my representations how both points 1 and 2 can be financed, and at the end of the day it means increasing charges on ferry tickets, but in all British ports, which would prevent traffic avoiding one port for another, and give all ports more financial income for development, as well as giving all port communities a financial revenue from port traffic and thus access to local regeneration through port revenues.
And I remained steadfast that this must NOT come about through debts and borrowing or through privatisation.
If DPPT claim to be a community port, their £400 million debt scheme would be a local public debt.
Equivalent to Britain taking on a £1 trillion public debt in addition to the one we already have.
If DPPT had been approved, please believe me, the people's port board would have been very soon BEGGING the Government to introduce additional port tolls to service their debt and pay it off.
Additional port tolls for all British ports would include road and rail freight, and would include a share to be given for LOCAL REGENERATION .
This share would be ENTIRELY independent and distinct from the share going to the ports for maintenance and expansion.
How else would, for example, DHB finance a new T2?
How would local regeneration for port communities otherwise be financed?
Keith, I am sure the Government have understood this, which is what counts, for all that I respect your views.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Also mentioned in my representations is that this would fit in with Localism, create local employment and would by far exceed the £1 million a year in dividends offered by either DHB or DPPT to the local communities of Dover AND Dover District.
In fact, how the people's port imagine that, after an initial one-off payment of £10 million, £1 million a year in dividends for the first five years from BORROWED money could "regenerate" Dover, Deal, Sandwich and the villages, goes beyond me.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander;
I also welcome your viewpoints, we may not agree but thats what the forum is about.
Let me tell you why i disagree;
Look at this as a Govt Minister with the need to make a decision,
He will be aware the DHB has lost the faith of local people, but theres a lot of revenue going through the port.
Nobody believes in top heavy govt(except the govts)
From the ministers point of view he has a number of options which include;
Selling the port off to a rich country(but the outrage would be a vote loser)
Listerning to your proposal but knowing there little of a business plan behind it
Looking at the peoples port proposal which has financial london backers, as well as some community support.
Now, I have some issues around the peoples port, but i dont see to much else out there at the mo
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Audere est facere.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all that progress and without having me on the board, well done dhb.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
surely the mayor of belgrave should be on the board
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
wouldn't credit it would you keith, thought bob would have put a word in for me in his resignation letter - must have slipped his mind.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
" as well as being an essential contributor to local growth and regeneration" is the key phrase here.
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
another point to note is the improved relationship with port users, dhb have frozen tariffs for 6 months but the dppt offer is for 5 years.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Yep thats how howard got his mayor of belgrave job
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
"Building on this, maintaining success in the future will require
all interested parties to work together, focussing on the key deliverables and
getting things done for the benefit of Port users and the local community. Working together in this way should ensure the Port continues to deliver as a key national economic asset as well as being an essential contributor to local growth and regeneration."
Key phrases emphasised by me.
There is a bit more to this statement than was published by DHB, one way of telling was the particularly poor cut and paste that was done on the post as it originally appeared on the DHB website (double pasting of two paragraphs). I'd love to see the full statement
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
There was me thinking that positive news would be well met
Audere est facere.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Martin
It's all positive, but I think we all need the govt to make a decision on the port and very soon
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Martin, there's lots of spin in that announcement which needs unravelling first.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Well the Under Secretary's letter does not appear to mention replacing DHB with DPPT.
That should finalise it!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, post 866:
you do not appear to be aware that the Decision Minister has already made the decision NOT to privatise the Port of Dover.
You must have missed out on some threads on the Forum around 22 December 2012 and missed the news in the local and national papers.
Perhaps someone can explain to you...
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Alexander
Believe im still in this world and fully aware
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS