Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Or did DPPT extend the deadline for their proposal to be accepted by the PRIME MINISTER from end of 2010 (or was it 2011?) to end of 23105?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
you're goading now alex, not very nice let's keep it respectful.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Sorry but what goes round comes round,its the MP that started all this.Now lets hope it is the end of it all and the Royal port of Dover can look ahead and move on with a D,H,B.inplace now knowing the port will stay within the Royel Charter.If that means that the D.H/B. will need new faces and some of the old ones to go without a big payday so be it.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Oh don't worry about that, Howard.
I've read the reply from the Department for Transport, that came to me the other day.
I did post an extract of it on this thread, between averted comas, on post somewhere or another on a previous page.
Precisely in reference to "local regeneration".
And I also mentioned on this thread another home truth that the DfT wrote to me: that local regeneration in Dover depends on the District Council and, perhaps, the County Council.
Fact is, no-one on this thread even bothered taking up the point.
Fact is, I have been writing this all along on the Forum, and it was always part of my representations to the DfT, that local regeneration depends on the Councils.
Fact is, I have been proven right, where-as DPPT have just gone on sounding off their usual stuff about meetings with the Government and every minister and civil servant in Whitehall.
But don't worry, Howard, the letter from the DfT states a few other things too, and I have not posted them on here!
Because from day 1 when DPPT declared themselves "a port", which was somewhere in August 2010 long after the Public Consultation had started, they have taken apart everything I ever wrote, and not only, but have actively lobbied at every conceivable place in London, with ministers and civil servants, to make any proposal for local regeneration in Dover and District impossible.
What they proposed, was nothing more and nothing less than what DHB proposed.
Howard: THERE WILL BE NO COMMUNITY REGENERATION IN DOVER OR DISTRICT
IT'S OVER!
The DfT have written it black on white!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
alex
community regeneration is not only about hand outs from dhb or dppt, it can come from central government or simply businesses that see dover as a place to put their money into once the port issue is resolved.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
It is resolved
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
resolved not.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Alexander D wrote:
Now hopefully the faithful few who hang on every word from you, I mean Jan, will not put their fingers in their ears and sing la la la la la
I certainly put my fingers in my ears and sing LA LA LA whenever you post and I suspect quite a few others do as well and I do not hang on ANY forum members posts as I prefer to think for myself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
I still find it rather amusing to think that the Government is confiding in a nobody, just as much as I am a nobody and most people on here are no-bodies !!
The only way I am going to believe anything Alexander says is if he posts a scan of the letter in full so we can all read it rather than his own interpretation of it. .....
Currently all I think when I read the posts is...... :
[URL][/URL]
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
While on the subject.......
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Yes I think that should be send out to Mr Wiggins and the Dover MP.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, you may have misunderstood what is written in post 104.
I'll complete the sentence:
THERE WILL BE NO COMMUNITY REGENERATION IN DOVER OR DISTRICT + from the Port.
And here is a repetition of what I posted on this thread on page 3 (or was it page 4?)
"The proposal from Dover Harbour Board included the establishment of a community trust should the transfer scheme be implemented. As the Minister rejected the transfer scheme, this means that ALL the features associated with the transfer scheme, including the community trust, will not proceed either".
Claro?
That is from DfT.
And whether or no you may wish to discuss what the DfT further wrote on regeneration, I'll type that out too word for word:
"In your letter to the Prime Minister, you also asked about regeneration to the Town of Dover; this is mainly a matter for Dover District Council and perhaps Kent County Council."
The question to the Prime Minister was, in fact, about regeneration coming from the Port.
Sorry Howard, there is no mention of DPPT; and as for DHB, please read the first paragraph in quotation marks, the one with "...ALL the features associated with the transfer scheme, including the community trust, will not proceed either".
So, in conclusion, any financial Community regeneration depends MAINLY on the two mentioned Councils, in particular DDC, but NOTHING to do with the Port.
There is mo regeneration plan for Dover, or District, from the Port.
IF some business, or the Government, decided to invest anything into Dover, as in your post 105, it will have naught to do with Port incomes.
And IF, as you state in post 105, they (NOT the Port) might decide to invest in Dover once the Port issue is solved, then please let me assure you, the Port issue IS solved as far as the Government is concerned, and only DPPT keep banging on that DHB will try - and keep trying - to privatise the Port every 5 years for the next 5,000 years.
In fact, I have asked the DfT to clarify on this aspect, whether it is so, that DHB can go on trying to privatise the Port of Dover. Once I receive the reply, I'll post it. It went by email last Friday night, the reply should come by email.
And finally, and here I mean really finally, IF anyone has to prove the opposite of this statement, it is not me, but DPPT.
They are the ones who have to give us a copy of their alleged and supposed "contacts" with "ministers, lords and civil servants" as of POST 21 December 2012.
They have been asked to do so on this thread, and have declined to.
Hopefully, this thread, as I stated at the beginning, will put an end to the whole fairy-tale of Community regeneration coming into Dover from the Port.
As you can all see, DPPT have posted NOTHING. Post 110 is all they managed to post to prove their supposed "contacts" with the Government and the civil servants.
And should all THIS still not suffice, then I can even copy in a few more lines from the DfT letter, which will explain that MOST DEFINITELY no port revenue of any kind will come to Dover under this Government.
And what DPPT do with their remaining share incomes which are supposed to be distributed to a charity, really does not bother me!
Guest 868- Registered: 25 Jan 2013
- Posts: 490
Alexander D wrote:So, in conclusion, any financial Community regeneration depends MAINLY on the two mentioned Councils, in particular DDC, but NOTHING to do with the Port.
You must be rather miffed that "your" idea of port tolls regenerating Dover and repairing the Western Heights has been rejected then !!
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Alexander - you are plain wrong about the DPPT and about what will happen with the port over the next year.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
The DPPT continues and will continue to work on delivering what we set out to do. I know who we have meetings with and when and, at the appropriate time, I am sure that there will be some consultation, which all interested parties will be able to partake in, with regard to the final outcome of our discussions with Govt and with the other major stakeholders. In the meantime I will be keeping the DPPT membership up to date with the latest developments when they occur.
You are still banging on about the end of the DHB plan and all its elements. We all know that the most recent proposal of the DHB was not approved by Government and that the DHB plan for its PDCT has gone with the rest of the DHB plan. You confuse what has happenned with the DHB private equity sale and what is going to happen over the next period of time whereby the Government's policy with regard to Trust Ports, Localism and Community Benefit agenda will be delivered.
Has the 1991 Ports Act been repealed? No? Then read it and you will have your answer on whether or not the DHB can propose another private equity sale should they so desire and believe that they can be successful.
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
Floging a dead horse comes to mine. MOVE ON PLEASE.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,883
Is #112 worth struggling through or shall I continue going la, la, la.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
For Dover and its royal port to move on, is we all move on to
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
What you have put in writing above clearly demonstrates that only if the port is communitised (becomes a People's Port) will a proportion of port revenues flow to regeneration activity in Dover and the surrounding district. Regeneration activity which, the DPPT has already made quite clear, will be carried out in cooperation with the DTC, DDC and KCC.
Thank you Alexander for laying out yet another case in favour of creating a people's port at Dover that will be of benefit to local people in perpetuity. It is quite unusual for someone so opposed to realistic and deliverable community benefit to have used already well known information to make such a strong case in favour of the very organisation that they are opposed to.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Mr Vic. DPPT has already moved on from the rejected DHB private equity sale and will try and ensure that this generation is the last one that has to oppose the sale of the port to remote private equity. We are already well into the next phase of trying to ensure that this will happen.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson