Agenda item

(i)          Joint Report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships and the Corporate Director of Resources.

(ii)         Presentation by the Digital Durham Programme Director, Resources.

The Committee received a joint report of the Director of Transformation and Partnerships and the Corporate Director of Resources which provided Members with an update on the Digital Durham Programme (for copy see file of minutes).

Mrs Morris queried whether there were any plans to embrace new technology which could provide ultrafast coverage as they had in other Countries.  The Head of Digital and Customer Services commented that access to superfast broadband was becoming a necessary utility.  He continued that one of the constraints under the current government contractual arrangements was a price cap per property.  He referred to the cost of digging trenches for cables as being significantly more than the price cap in some situations and therefore there was no alternative but to consider new technology.  The third contract of the Digital Durham Programme was looking at technologies such as fixed wireless and moving in a different direction.

Councillor Henderson commented that there were particular issues with access to broadband in rural areas of the county and highlighted that there are a lot of cottage industries in the Dales.  He continued that the sooner connectivity is extended to these areas the better.  He continued by commenting that he was surprised to find that areas such as Shotley Bridge had issues with connectivity.

The Project Co-ordinator responded that the contract only allowed investment in more traditional fixed line broadband however it was recognised that there more needed to be done.

Councillor Reed confirmed that there were still issues in rural communities and some people still had no connection at all.  More people were required to work from home and she was aware of one constituent who had moved home because of broadband issues.  The Project Co-ordinator confirmed that a limitation of fibre-based broadband was that if a properties telephone line was more than 1500m to the cabinet, there would be a decline in speed. Where this occurred, an additional fibre structure in closer proximity to the property or an alternative technology such as fixed wireless could provide a solution.

Councillor Adam queried how much of the allocated funding was aimed at rural areas.  The Head of Digital and Customer Services confirmed that funding was aimed at all areas where commercial operators did not provide a service and that this could only be used for broadband connectivity and not in improving 4G technologies.  The funding could however be used to deliver broadband wirelessly if the business case was favourable.  Contract 3 was being used to consider how to solve issues in the hardest to reach areas of approximately 5,000 properties.

Councillor Dunn was concerned about the issues of rural properties and connectivity and commented that more and more businesses were enabling staff to work from home and young people needed to access the internet.  He was concerned that if rural communities were unable to receive the technology, people would choose to live elsewhere.

The Head of Digital and Customer Services confirmed that there were bids for additional funding however many grants such as the Rural Broadband Fund had spending restrictions.

Councillor Clarke commented that he represented Delves Lane, Consett and had to date never received an email about poor broadband connectivity.  In relation to Contract 3 he queried whether it would only look at remote access or whether it would address problem spots in areas where issues had been identified.  He also queried how the remaining money would be spent, what the split would be between existing inefficient infrastructure and areas which need new infrastructure to be installed. 

The budget was not a considerable budget, given the amount of work that needed doing. 

The Head of Digital and Customer Services confirmed that there was an ongoing process considering those with poor or no access and a schedule of properties to target, together with plans of how the properties were going to be connected.

Councillor Clare commented on the positive work already undertaken by Digital Durham but he criticised the contract delivery of Openreach.  He then asked for confirmation that there was no new funding for Contract 3. The Head of Digital and Customer Services confirmed that the budget/funding for Contract 3 was money that was left over from the first contract, with a small amount of early gainshare (clawback) as a result of the good take up of broadband services, and potential funding from the Rural Broadband Fund.  Councillor Clare commented that more Government funding was required by Government to ensure connectivity in the county.

Councillor Adam commented on savings made due to austerity and queried whether any funding was from the Council, as it was clear that more investment was needed.  The Head of Digital and Customer Services confirmed that there was funding from the Council within the Digital Durham programme, but it had to be noted that government funding changes had seen budgets become smaller and were allocated to very specific projects and accessed by a bidding process.  Councillor Howell responded that there was a need to determine what the £12m would be spent on before DCC looked to Government for more funding.

Resolved:

     i)        That the report be noted.

    ii)        That the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee receives a further progress report on the development of the Digital Durham programme.