Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
having seen the poor take up of tenners from locals i have to again ask the question, where are the books going to balance?
where is all the dosh coming from?
will whoever gives the lion share realy give local people teeth to have a say
not just turning up at the AGM have there say then forgotten
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Pay your tenner, turn up at the AGM and you will get to see the accounts.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
oesn't answer the question posed
but never expected it to be replied to
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
From what I remember this question has been answered many times by the DPPT. Amazed that you haven't signed up Kieth! I'm also amazed that you are so sceptical about potentially the best thing that ever to happen to Dover.
Never give up...
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
why would i sign up to something that i have no idea what the outcomes will be
where money coming from
who financing it
powers
and lots of questions
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Keith, your bosom buddy Gordon is on the board of DPPT. Why not ask him?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Keith, tonight I'l be putting up an important post with information regards the Port of Dover.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Can't wait.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
The last reply I received from the Department for Transport includes the following phrase:
"The issues you raise along with all relevant representations received by the Secretary of State will be fully taken into account when any decision is made on the proposal by Dover Harbour Board for a transfer scheme.
The sale of the port will go ahead only if the transfer scheme is agreed."
It is dated 15th November.
With this, we should take into account that DPPT is not the only alternative to the DHB privatisation proposal, we have it officially. All my replies from the Department for Transport are available for view in photo-copy form should the request arise, the originals consigned to a place "somewhere in England".
I am not sure at the moment which representations are not relevant, but mine certainly is.
I understand DPPT did not exist until August 2010,
The first reply sent to me on 9 March 2010 included the following phrase:
"Your comments have been noted and will be included among the representations taken into account when the Secretary of State considers whether, or not, to approve the scheme. "
That was before August 2010.
Perhaps, Keith, you should write to the Department for Transport for clarification, as there are conflicting views on the Forum whose representations are relevant and whose are not.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Trying to stir again Keith.
Pay your tenner and gain a right to ask questions in the forum in which they actually belong, I have paid mine.
I don't get why Keith isn't behind the Peoples Port. It is potentially for and by the people of Dover and reduces DHB corporate clutch. That is what I thought Keith stood for.........
A marvellous concept with the brains and drive to back it up. What's not to like?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
bern/barryw/peter
(more so barryw)
theres no stirring, it was a reasonable question, but ok no reply still thats fine.
funny enough peter i did ask my buddy gordon and he to remains unsure of the lomited powers and how little say anyone locally would have in such a scheme.
I don't wish to rehash all debates, and can see thgere are some posters rigid in there beliefs that to is fine.
whilst i'm no more in favour of the way D.H.B. presently runs the operation, the peoples port still has these unanswered questions.
alexander;
my question was directed at the pro peoples port supporters because only they ciould answer it.
the dept of transport has a view as to what it wants to see in any new set up, but doesn't have much control(hopefully)over the internal workings of the peoples port
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Hi Keith,
The questions that you raise again have already been answered, several times, on earlier threads. However, for your benefit I will summarise again here.
1) Where's the money coming from?
Initially via a syndicated loan raised by and between 4 major banks. We have the written support of these banks already, subject to full due diligence.
This syndicated loan is a temporary measure only and acts as a bridge to bond. Long term finance is derived from the sale of bonds on the international bond markets. Bond finance is one of the most efficient ways of raising money for infrastructure purchase and development, so long as the terms and conditions of the bonds are met, bond purchasers have no interest in decision making, strategy or ownership, they want long term predictable income. Bond markets indicate that, based on the DPPT business plan, corporate accountability to stakeholders, the nature of the asset and the medium term framework agreements that are planned with the port's users, bonds issued will receive an investment grade rating attracting a low rate of interest. Bonds will be issued in different tranches to be repurchased by DPPT in such a way that they can be sold back into the market as required to raise finance for major port infrastructure development projects. Average interest rate for the Port of Dover is significantly lower than that achieved for a similar type of bond issue undertaken by the purchasers of the HS1 and the publicly available numbers from DHB, in depth knowledge of the existing market and medium term trends, independent stress testing of the financial model, etc. all conclude that the bonds are serviceable and still allow sufficient free cash flow to meet the needs of port maintenance, intermediate investment in catch up maintenance and improvements and still provide a substantial annual sum of money to transfer to the Regeneration Vehicle of the DPPT for community benefit.
2) Who is Financing it?
Commercial confidentiality and the hostility of the DHB to any proposal that does not deliver their private equity model mean that the names of the banks involved cannot be divulged at this time.
3) Powers
The DPPT constitution is a public document and is available on line. The powers, duties and responsibilities of the organisation, its members, directors and chair are detailed in the constitution.
to summarise the powers of members:
Each member will have an equal vote which they can utilise to call SGMs, to nominate and elect 4 directors to the board, to approve (or not) remuneration, to decide rule changes (if required), to indicate support for, or opposition to, major infrastructure developments costing more than the port's annual turnover and to hold the directors of the board and the chair to account.
Those appear to be the three questions that you have put forward for now and I have answered them to the best of my knowledge as completely as possible. I do speak at various community fora, I am available and visible in town and can often be found shopping there or spending time with my family there and am quite happy to answer all questions asked of me whenever they are asked.
Alexander, there were many hundreds of submissions made to the DfT over the course of the various consultation periods that have taken place. All submissions will be taken into account by the Minister when making a decision on the DHB proposal, we have never said differently. The DPPT is part of the process and this process, as I said before, is ongoing. It isn't over yet. When I made my own private submission to the DfT (which included the basic elements of what has since grown into the DPPT) in March 2010 I received the same letter back. DPPT made a corporate submission during the second consultation period in July/August 2010 and received a similar reply from the DfT, as I keep telling you, DPPT takes full part in the ongoing consultation process and is in no position to subvert or hijack it. Consultation did not end in March 2010, additional consultation took place in July/August 2010, further consultation took place in August 2011 and interested parties and persons who had made submissions during consultations were invited to meet with senior civil servants (this was an invitation open to all and interested parties had to write to the DfT to make appointments to see the Civil Servants) and then the Minister for consultation in December 2011 and January 2012. I didn't see you round the table with the Minister and the other parties who had taken the effort to make appointments and meet directly with senior civil servants at the invitation of the Secretary of State for Transport.
There is no legal or moral bar to the DPPT engaging in active campaigning and lobbying to 1) ensure that the DHB private equity proposal is rejected by the DfT and 2) to promote a permanent solution to the port's ownership status that allows the port access to the capital markets to finance growth and development whilst taking decisions over the ownership out of the hands of an out of touch executive and central government and placing them into the hands of the local community and the port's other stakeholders permanently.
I believe that the DPPT proposal is the best long term solution for our port and for our communities. Others are unsure or are opposed for a multitude of reasons, some based on misunderstanding, some based on principle. All views are valid, part of my job is to explain and persuade so that community ownership of the port becomes a reality that cannot be changed at the whim of money hungry executives or a silver selling government with a short term parliamentary length planning horizon.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Thank you for an excellent and in-depth reply Neil.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Neil, you write:
"whilst taking decisions over the ownership out of the hands of an out of touch executive and central government and placing them into the hands of the local community and the port's other stakeholders permanently."
The fact is, DPPT is not the local community.
Further to your post, the Department for Transport never invited me to any meeting, and yet their official statements to me remain as I have - in part - noted on this thread.
Like you, I too have been publicly campaigning, but for my proposals.
One important point is, whether DPPT represent the Community of Dover. They do not represent me, and do not seem to represent the vast majority of people in Dover.
I am pretty sure you cannot dispute this.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
LOL - on this issue, Alexander, of course they represent the local community.
Confirmed by a poll
A Board made of representatives of local Councils and local businesses among others with the full support of the local MP
Supported by major Port users ike the Ferry companies
An open and wide membership now that almost anyone local can join for only a nominal £10
Of course DPPT is representative of the local community.
Of course if you prefer the port to be sold to Dubai then that is up to you.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Strongly doubt you are laughing out loud, Barry.
The parish poll was based on a biased assumption misleading the public into believing there were only two options: those presented on the ballot sheet.
The parish poll achieved only a 25% turnout, and that, together with the previous point, makes it anything other than representative of Dover's Community.
The very questions it proposed were an assumption of inside information suggesting the Government was going to sell the Port of Dover unless people voted for DPPT.
My replies from the Department for Transport state otherwise: try reading them carefully.
"The sale of the port will go ahead only if the transfer scheme is agreed."
Another fact you are overlooking, Barry, is that there were several petitions in Dover against the DHB privatisation proposal, none of which had anything to do with a hitherto non existing DPPT.
I signed two petitions. One of these was of Charlie Elphicke.
At that time I had been led to believe that Charlie Elphicke was campaigning against the DHB plan and in favour of the Port of Dover remaining a State asset.
I shall have to pull out that petition and consult the wording. There was no mention of a DPPT.
Tidliwinks, Barry
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander you are in a different world all of your own....
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, you imply you have inside knowledge of an imminent sale of the Port of Dover to Dubai.
Who gave you this information?
Is it from Dover Harbour Board, the Department for Transport?