Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Martin, not business.
As a Dovorian and one who has seen the ongoing decline of Dover over decades, I see this an a one in a lifetime chance to provide resources to help Dover regenerate and to take its future more into its own hands without having to hold out a begging bowl to agencies all the time.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw
martin has a point but i suppose we are where we are
what does people port give
that D.HJ.B.
in relation to putting m,oney into the town
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
so many inponderables keith, we can only hope that whoever gets control eventually can deliver something for the town.
the bit that bothers me is the probability of extra traffic on the western side if properties there are sold off to businesses.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
think thats what a lot of us are saying howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
I am at a loss to see how the Port operation can make the revenue to develop the the Port and develop and regenerate the Town as well, put the charges up to P&O and DFDS etc ?
Audere est facere.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Howard, the Department for Transport have not made any decision to sell or privatise the Port of Dover, this is official.
If DHB submit a new proposal for privatisation, this may lead to further public consultation, but on this point I have no technical details, though.
There is no statement on the part of any Government department that the Port will be privatised. The official statement is that a decision has still to be reached.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Well I guess that it's obvious that DHB and DPPT are both well aware of that. For one teansey minute there I thought we were about to slide back into the 'unanswered questions' bottomless pit.
Never give up...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
martin
my understanding is that fees to the ferry companies would be frozen for 5 years if dppt get the nod.
welcome back alex, you may well be right - not sure myself.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
There are no unanswered questions, Richard.
It does appear DHB may submit a new proposal to the Government, but then, they themselves will confirm whether they will or will not.
Then we have the fact that Dover Harbour Board has been added to schedule 5 of the Ports Act.
This, however, can work in any direction, and may be to the benefit of more than one or two particular proposals.
There is no information apart from these points. Anything concerning an imminent privatisation of the Port of Dover is sheer speculation.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Hi Howard.
Have been absent lately as I'm restructuring my painting and decorating business.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Small correction, it's schedule 5 of the Public Bodies Act 2011, not the Ports Act.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Sorry there, Peter, you're quite right, My apologies.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Let's just hope once its all in place and sorted that Dover benefits, whoever gets the go ahead
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 715- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 2,438
Howard re #28, good news for the Ferry companies if that is true but that will in real terms mean less income for the Port, where does that sit with the plans to regenerate the Town out of the income of the Port?
Audere est facere.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Maybe Neil will explain again as far a PPT is concerned Martin. I have to say though that the money is to be used as a 'multiplier' - seedcorn that can bring in additional funds so it is not just the port money.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
neil will explain later, he is having log in problems at present.
once sorted he has a detailed statement to make.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
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.
Guest 1694- Registered: 24 Feb 2016
- Posts: 1,087
Now that there are no more excuses, we should see the DHB's final revised proposal very soon and have the required consultation period. The sooner, the better.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Amen to that, Neil.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I wonder what would happen if DHB didn't present another submission for privatisation.