The post you are reporting:
1) Section 31 challenge: This current challenge included, no appellant has successfully challenged a statutory authority (such as the DHB) over tariff increases levied by that authority under the statutory regime. At least one authority was successfully upheld after a tariff increase of 1000%. The problem for the appellant in s section 31 challenge is to prove that the tariff increases were unfair or applied in an inequitable way and this is near impossible to do within the terms of reference of the Act. So, the announcement yesterday came as no surprise. What is more important about the case than the outcome was that it clearly showed in a very public forum that the existing management and executive of DHB have badly mishandled their relationship with such key stakeholders as their main revenue source. However, it should also be noted that the cash surplus built up as a result of the accelerated tariff increases has to be ring fenced for expenditure on terminal construction, so one of the ferry companies' points raised during the enquiry seems to have been accepted by the inspector.
2) DPPT approach to tariffs with port users, who remain stakeholders under our plans and are not disenfranchised as envisaged by the DHB plan: At no point has DPPT said or otherwise indicated that tariffs would be frozen for any period of time. The idea that we might have done so appears to arise from a mis-understanding of our proposed 5 year framework agreements. What DPPT propose is that we negotiate a 5 year framework agreement with the Ferry Companies which includes a pre-agreed tariff path for the next 5 years designed to enable delivery of Capital works and maintenance as agreed with the stakeholders and regulated by an agreed set of Key Performance Indicators on both sides. In case of disagreement between stakeholders and port operations at the conclusion of negotiations for any period of 5 years, part of the framework is that all parties pre-agree to present to a mutually agreed arbiter whose decision is binding on both. This means that the relationship between main revenue generating stakeholders and port executive cannot disintegrate to the low levels that have led to this most recent case.
3) DPPT will ensure that GB£50m is provided as seed funding to its regeneration vehicle. This money is expected to work for a living, we do have already drawn up and printed out a 'vision for regeneration' brochure, and grow over time, pulling in match funding for some projects, generating revenue streams on other projects and setting the ball rolling on projects that will benefit our town and the surrounding district. There will also be an ongoing additional source of income from leases or port operational profitability which will be used for small project grant and capital funding for on going commercial, revenue generating projects designed to benefit the communities of Dover and its surrounding district. This revenue stream is estimated to be GB£1m per annum for the first 5 years covered by our business plan and financial modelling. Beyond 5 years it is difficult to assess on going benefit with any degree of accuracy because we rely on the extent of the success of the business plan and implementation. However, should our plans for the port and port operations be even only partially successful, the ongoing income from port operations profitability will likely increase over time.
