Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report which sought to provide Members with an up to date position with regard to Broadband Provision across the District.  The report also set out high level options for future consideration and sought Members’ steer on the issue of payment to the On-Lincolnshire Partnership.  To aid understanding of terminology used throughout the report, a number of definitions were clarified at the outset.

By way of background and context, it was noted that in 2012, WLDC agreed to be part of the BDUK partnership in Lincolnshire to be known as On-Lincolnshire. This partnership was to be led by a team based within Lincolnshire County Council.

The district of West Lindsey had been identified within the project as being part of what was known as Phase 7. This was due to be initiated in March 2015 and completed in March 2016. BDUK Phase 1 was expected to provide coverage to 90% (including commercial roll out) of households in West Lindsey.

The BDUK roll out would not provide 100% coverage. Therefore WLDC subsequently determined to provide a commercial loan to Quickline Ltd who could provide coverage in the harder to reach areas in advance of the work of BDUK. This loan was at market rates and commercial in nature and was in no way a contract for service or a plan for 100% coverage.

As has become much discussed, whilst WLDC received appropriate advice regarding its own responsibilities for State Aid issues (hence the Commercial Loan does not contravene any state aid regulations), officers at BDUK determined that the loan, and in particular its reference to WLDC achieving 100% coverage, would cause BDUK to contravene the state aid regulations applicable to their use of Government Funds should they allocate further funding to West Lindsey. BDUK could not provide funding where it would constitute ‘overbuild’ (development of broadband infrastructure where there was already an infrastructure in place).

Despite challenging this determination over many communications with BDUK, including representations by colleagues at Lincolnshire County Council, Officers had been unable to change the BDUK opinion on this matter.

The intentions of Phase 1 of the project were outlined to Members and detailed in Section 2 of the report.  It was noted that 90% coverage had been expected to be delivered, however current estimates suggested this was around 85.53%.  The Capital programme of 2012/13 had committed 375k – 500k to the Partnership this amount had yet to be paid. 

Furthermore there was a reported underspend on Phase 1 of £9m which West Lindsey was currently prohibited from benefitting from due to the direction of BDUK. This amounted to a 25% underspend on the overall project.

There was also a commercial ‘payback’ scheme in operation (BT provide cashback to On-Lincolnshire where take up of a supported cabinet exceeds agreed levels) this would take the remaining available funding figure up to £16m.

However, given the circumstances explained above, On-Lincolnshire had advised that they were unable to use any of these surplus funds to support residents in West Lindsey.

The current coverage levels were summarised to the Committee and detailed in Section 3 of the report, comparison with near neighbours was also provided in Section 4 of the report.

Current offers available to residents were outlined in Section 6 of the report.  The report concluded with some suggested future options for consideration and Members direction was therefore sought.

Given the circumstances outlined West Lindsey were not currently being supported by BDUK and therefore On-Lincolnshire, in their attempts to support West Lindsey neighbourhoods to obtain high speed broadband.  It was therefore important to consider how the remaining 10-15% coverage would be delivered

Currently there was no financial provision within the Authority for any direct support and therefore any additional provision would need to be ranked alongside other commitments in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

Suggested options could include

1 –       Working with On-Lincolnshire and BDUK to remove the barrier to providing funding in West Lindsey

2 –       Direct support by the Authority

            3 –       Provide Broadband expertise to support local neighbourhoods

Further information regarding each option and potential issues for consideration were contained within the report at Section 7

Debate ensued and Members welcomed the report.  It was noted that BDUK was a Government established project and thus the Government must understand the importance of superfast broadband to communities.  A number of suggestions were made including: -

·         Engaging with the Local MP to make representations at the highest level

·         Inviting senior Officers from BT, who had previously met with Members, to meet with Officers and Members again;

·         Contacting local communities allowing them to share their experience of provision, as example case studies.

·         Undertaking a survey of residents.

Members were also of the view that withholding payment from the Partnership would focus minds.  The priority needed to be service provision, the partnership had not delivered the service it promised and it would be unfair to hand over tax payers money, in the absence of provision.

Some Members were of the view that if this was a service such as gas, electric or water and our residents did not have access we would not simply let the status quo remain. In today’s world broadband was just as important a service and should be available to all.  Investment into Economic Development and Business Support was wasted money without adequate broadband provision for businesses.  Members urged Officers to commit whatever funding it took to resolve the unacceptable positon.  The MP should be urged to take action at the highest level to ensure investment was made in Lincolnshire.  The collection of real data to support the cause was required and therefore all Members wholeheartedly supported the suggestion of some sort of audit into provision being undertaken.

There was discussion around how the audit may be best undertaken, and information circulated taking into consideration cost and capacity.

BDUK had made it clear from the outset that they would not achieve full coverage, hence the steps which had been taken in 2014 had been taken in good faith and were intended to complement the national programme.  West Lindsey should not be being penalised for showing initiative to help overcome the national issue.  Some Members felt it important to establish what had been agreed at the outset and what had actually been delivered, as this may help with the ongoing dispute over State Aid rules.

The Director of Resources outlined the difficulties he had experienced in trying to speak to BDUK representatives direct, in light of the Partnership arrangement.  Commercial sensitivity had prevented him in being able to establish where works were next planned, only where work had been undertaken to-date, further hampering discussions. It had also been difficult to establish why the underspend had occurred. 

It was also noted that Officers were aware of similar initiatives which had been run in other areas of the country and had not resulted in the area being penalised by BDUK and this needed further investigation. 

On that basis it was: -

RESOLVED that:

(a)     Officers investigate the options available to the Authority to assist residents in obtaining access to Superfast Broadband Services and, working with the Chairman of the Committee, submit a further report for consideration in March 2017; and

(b)     in light of the comments made throughout the course of the debate, Officers be requested to undertake a District Wide Audit of community spaces, residential dwellings and business premises to ascertain their current broadband provision and experiences; 

(i)     the Audit to be undertaken by way of survey;

(ii)    the draft survey to be formulated in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee; and

(iii)  its proposed content and proposed circulation methods be shared with Members via e-mail during January 2017 for comment.