The post you are reporting:
I think Roger is right, Vic.
In the days of the Cinque Ports, Dovorians enjoyed privileges, such as with regards to tax, and could levy port tolls on ships coming and going.
In return, Dover maintained at local expense a standing Fleet, and so too did all the other Cinque Port members, including the smaller associated ports.
When DHB came about in 1606, all the revenues from the Port went to DHB, and in return DHB kept the Port open for shipping. They could - and can - only invest their profits in the Port, for its maintenance.
This decision was taken (in 1606) because shingle and drift-sand kept silting up the harbour, so DHB had the duty to build jetties and piers that would keep the harbour free, and the port profits were destined for this sole purpose, as well as general Port maintenance.
The Town, of-course, lost out on any Port revenues.
This is why my representation is important, because it brings us closer to the pre-1606 situation, when Dover received Port revenues for the Town and surrounding Garden.
Meanwhile, DHB should continue receiving their current Port revenues too, and the two distinct forms of revenue proposed (one for the Port and the other for Town/District/County) should remain distinct and separate.
The same should apply to all British commercial ports.
The DfT informed me last month that my representation has been received and is relevant, so I see no reason to attend the Pencester Gardens rally.