Agenda item

Report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport

26.1     The Committee considered a report by the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport which provided an update on the strategic infrastructure in East Sussex. The Committee agreed to discuss the section of the report on the Superfast Broadband project first, to allow questions to be put from a number of other Councillors who were attending the meeting.

 

Superfast Broadband

 

26.2     The Director for Communities, Economy and Transport (CET) explained that the project includes an initial contract, awarded to BT Openreach, to provide fibre based infrastructure to enable properties to be connected to Superfast broadband services. This contract is the second best performing broadband contract in the UK in terms of coverage and speeds achieved. A second contract has been awarded to improve download speeds and to look at alternative solutions for hard to reach areas. The deployment of the second contract is due to start in June 2016.

 

26.3     Officers informed the Committee that the project has been working in all exchange areas across East Sussex, but is not allowed to deliver infrastructure improvements where the private sector is delivering or planning to deliver Superfast broadband in the next three years. Outside of the project there is nothing to prevent private individuals, or businesses, from paying for improved connectivity to meet their needs. As at December 2015 the take up of fibre based services was just over 25% against a target of 20%.

 

26.4     In response to questions from the Committee, officers set out:

 

• Value for money - The project has secured £10.6m of government funding and the value for money test and criteria are set by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK, the Government department located within the Department for Culture Media and Sport). The value for money cap, which the project cannot exceed, has been set by BDUK at £1,700 per property. This can pose difficulties in rural areas where the distance to a fibre enabled exchange or cabinet can be greater. The project delivery costs are currently just under £500 per property, which has enabled funding to be re-invested in the second contract.
• Download speeds - Typically in rural areas properties are connected to cabinets by copper cabling. Broadband speeds are affected by the length of copper cable that connects properties to fibre enable cabinets or exchanges. So an area may be fibre enabled, but this may not lead to faster download speeds. The second contract aims to tackle this in addition to looking for other solutions to provide faster broadband in hard to reach areas.
• Hard to reach properties - They are defined by the cost of connecting them to the fibre enabled network and does not necessarily mean they are more geographically or technically challenging to connect to the fibre enabled network. As a consequence it is much harder to meet the value for money criteria for these properties.
• Responsibility for connecting properties to Superfast Broadband - The project aims to install the infrastructure necessary to enable access to faster broadband in areas that would otherwise be commercially unviable. It is then the role of consumers to arrange for connection via a number of retail service providers.
• Uptake of Superfast Broadband services - Although it is hard to predict, the anticipated take up of fibre based solutions at the end of both contracts is expected to be between 30% and 40%. There may be a time delay for these levels to be achieved due people not being able to take up the new service until their current contract for broadband expires.

 

26.5     The Committee discussed the issue of broadband provision, including faster download speeds, and a summary of the main issues the Committee raised is given below.

 

• The Committee members and other Councillors in attendance expressed concerns that expectations of getting faster broadband speeds exceeded the reality in some areas. Communications could be better as residents and Parish Councils were unclear about what is going on. Some Councillors were unaware that a second contract had been let to improve speeds and deal with the issues being raised by residents. Examples were given where BT Openreach had publicised the installation of fibre enabled cabinets and exchanges which had given the impression that this would automatically lead to faster download speeds for all properties.

 

• There is great variation in the download speeds and the level of service available village by village. This may be due to the length of copper cabling between properties and cabinets, but there needs to be a more detailed breakdown of broadband speeds at post code level rather than relying on countywide figures. It is important that a clear picture is given of the service levels that are available to residents and businesses. Members of the public do not appear to be aware that ESCC is providing the infrastructure and that retail providers are responsible for the connections.

 

• Having access to faster broadband speeds is important for rural and diversified farm businesses. It is also important for education, as many school children now need fast and reliable access to the internet in order to undertake school work. Access for groups such as the elderly will be become more critical as health and other services are provided online.

 

• There is some anecdotal evidence that retail broadband service providers are saying that it is too expensive to connect rural properties to Superfast services. Some Councillors expressed the view that BT Openreach should be required to replace the copper cabling (via re-routing or with fibre) as part of their contract.

 

26.6     The Lead Member for Economy commented that the intervention area covered by the first contract to provide Superfast Broadband infrastructure (signed in May 2013) is entirely made up of rural areas and does not include urban areas, where the infrastructure is provided by commercial operators. Officers have secured better contract delivery from BT Openreach than contracts elsewhere in the country and are meeting the value for money criteria. There are examples of good broadband speeds (e.g. 80Mbps in Heathfield) and there is a target to try and provide Superfast services to every rural trading estate. The project has been well managed and will achieve 95% coverage by the end of the first contract.

 

26.7     The Director for CET responded that 85% of the intervention area was covered by Superfast broadband (speeds in excess of 24mbps) by the end of December 2015. Details of the second contract have been communicated to Members and it will take time for all areas of the county to have access to Superfast services. The “Go East Sussex” web site provides a good level of information about the Superfast Broadband project. The rollout of the second contract is not due to start until June 2016 and will address residents’ concerns. However, there will remain some rural areas where it will be challenging to provide access to high broadband speeds. None the less, by the end of the project it is estimated that 97% or properties will have access to Superfast Broadband.

 

26.8     The Lead Member for Transport and Environment commented that it did appear that residents and some Councillors are unaware of the second contract that is due to start in June 2016. It is important that Parish Councils are made aware of the second contract and that this is a speed based contract in comparison to the first contract that was aimed at providing infrastructure coverage. It would be helpful for Members to have a bullet point information sheet that they could use when talking to residents and Parish Councils.

 

26.9     The Committee thanked Officers for their work in the delivering this project. However, they had concerns about what they had heard from the other Councillors who had attended the meeting. The Committee had questions around residents’ expectations, communications and whether the roll out of the second contract will address residents’ concerns in the best way. There is also an issue of fairness when considering access and value for money. There is a need to analyse at a local level how well the project provides access to fast and reliable broadband services for those who may need to rely on them (e.g. school children, students, those in need of support and rural businesses).

 

26.10   The Committee agreed to establish a Review Board to examine the provision of Superfast Broadband. The membership of the Review Board will include all members of the Economy, Transport and Environment Scrutiny Committee and the other Councillors present at the meeting will be invited to give evidence to the Review.

 

Mobile Telephony Infrastructure

 

26.11   The provision of 4G mobile telephone services could potentially offer an alternative to fixed line broadband. However, it is subject to the same commercial drivers as the Superfast Broadband. The Committee expressed concern about the number of ‘not spots’, as this affects local businesses as well as residents. The Director for CET acknowledged that this remains a challenge and the Lead Member for Economy added that ESCC has no resource to deal with this issue. However, this issue has been raised at the South East Economic Partnership (SELEP) Board meetings to seek additional resources. The provision of 4G/5G mobile telephony services will be a priority for SELEP.

 

Other Strategic Infrastructure

 

26.12   The Team Manager for Strategic Economic Infrastructure introduced the remainder of the report covering:

·         Rail Infrastructure

·         Strategic Road Infrastructure

·         Aviation

·         Ports

·         Local Growth Fund Projects

 

26.13   The Committee asked further questions on a number of sections of the report. A summary of the points raised by the Committee is outlined below.

 

Rail Infrastructure

 

Lewes to Uckfield line re-instatement

 

26.14   The Committee discussed the strategic importance of another London to South Coast route that offered an alternative to the existing line that runs through the Balcombe Tunnel. Part of the line is being run as a heritage railway at present and the route of the line is protected in the Lewes and the Wealden District Councils’ Local Plans. Reinstatement of the line would have benefits in relieving road traffic congestion and could support housing development. The Committee considered that it was important to continue to lobby for the reinstatement of the line.

 

26.15   The Lead Member for Economy responded that the rail strategy had been carefully considered before establishing the priorities. The Marshlink proposal offers a potential economic gain of £354 million. The Uckfield line electrification, including the associated projects to extend the platform and construct a new car park, was also considered a priority.

 

26.16   The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure together with Planning officers and two of the local Members of Parliament (MP’s) went to see the Department of Transport (DfT) concerning the Uckfield to Lewes line re-instatement. The consultants who are reviewing the feasibility of re-instating the line are also considering the provision of a shuttle service over the 8.1km original route.

 

Willingdon Chord

 

26.17   The Committee also discussed the reinstatement of the Willngdon Chord (which was a section of track that allowed trains to by-pass Hampden Park and Eastbourne on the Brighton to Hastings line) and the provision of a station to serve the Stone Cross / Willngdon area.

 

26.18   The Team Manager, Strategic Economic Infrastructure  responded that the re-instatement of this section of track has been highlighted in responses to route studies in 2010 and 2015. However, the cost benefit ratio identified by a study in 2000 was only 0.79, whereas the DfT require a minimum ratio of 2.0 before they will consider providing funding. The situation may have changed with the addition of housing in the area. However, the old Stone Cross station, which closed in 1935, could not be redeveloped due to the proximity of some of the new housing.

 

Newhaven improvements

 

26.19   The Lead Member for Economy informed the Committee of work to improve the rail infrastructure in Newhaven. This involves work with the Newhaven Port Authority  to create a new loading bay and work with Network Rail to consider better rail links and the future of the three stations.

 

Devolution Proposals

 

26.20   The Assistant Director, Economy outlined how the Three Southern Counties (3SC) devolution deal will place further emphasis on strategic needs. It will mean that issues such as the Lewes Uckfield line re-instatement will not be considered in isolation, but will be considered alongside other rail growth projects.

 

Strategic Road Infrastructure

 

A27 Lewes to Polegate

 

26.21   The Committee supported the need to improve this section of road and noted the work of the A27 Reference Group. The Committee considered that the £75 million currently allocated for improvements would not provide the long term solution that was needed. A view was expressed that it would be better to focus all the allocated money on improving the Polegate (Cop Hall) roundabout part of the A27, rather than spreading the improvements along the length of the Lewes to Polegate section on the road. The Committee was also concerned that accepting the smaller improvements may undermine the case for a better long term solution.

 

26.22   The Director for CET responded that all the MP’s in the A 27 Reference Group believe the solution is the making the Lewes to Polegate section of the A27 a dual carriageway and are lobbying the DfT for a larger £350 - £400 million improvement scheme. This section of the A27 is very close to meeting financial criteria for a larger improvement scheme, and there is a risk that improving the Polegate (Cop Hall) roundabout in isolation may weaken the cost benefit case for a dual carriageway.

 

Road impact of Gatwick Airport expansion

 

26.23   The Committee expressed concerns about the impact of increased road traffic through Ashdown Forest, as a result of expansion at Gatwick Airport. One of the main impacts is air pollution and the consequent atmospheric deposition of nitrogen, which affects the ecology of the Forest.

 

26.24   Officers responded that at present 40% of arrivals and departures at the airport travel by train. Gatwick Airport want to increase this to 60%. They are also developing and Ashdown Forest transport model to address the road traffic impacts on the Forest and to slow the nitrogen deposition.

 

Aviation

 

Gatwick Arrivals Review

 

26.25   Officers and the Lead Member for Economy have been lobbying Gatwick Airport over the impact of aircraft noise and other issues. A Gatwick Arrivals Review has been carried out which contains 23 recommendations that aim to address all areas of concern. Two of the main measures are to raise flight paths to 7000 feet and alternate approach patterns. Gatwick Airport is due to publish their response to the Review at the end of March 2016.

 

Gatwick second runway

 

26.26   The Director for CET commented that if the decision is made to build a second runway at Gatwick, it would have a significant impact on the strategic infrastructure.  The Lead Member for Economy commented that provision would then need to be made for improved road access on or around the Forest. Councillor Whetstone responded that the villages in the Medway Valley would not want to see an increase in traffic diverted through them.

 

26.27   The Committee welcomed all the work that was being undertaken to meet the needs of local businesses and residents. It also noted the amount of work that is being undertaken with partners on strategic infrastructure issues.

 

 

26.28   The Committee RESOLVED to:

 

1)    Note the report and the progress being made;

2)    Express its support for the work being undertaken on Strategic Infrastructure; and

3)    Establish a Review Board to examine the provision of Superfast Broadband.