The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am today announcing the outcome of the review of the broadband cabinet and pole siting code of practice.
The broadband cabinet and pole siting code of practice came into force in June 2013 to complement planning improvement to fixed broadband infrastructure. The Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 made possible the required complementary changes to secondary telecommunications legislation to allow broadband cabinets, poles and overhead lines to be deployed in all areas except sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs) for a period of five years.
These changes were part of a package of measures announced by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in September 2012 aimed at speeding up the process of superfast broadband rollout, reducing the costs of deployment, and incentivising further investment. The availability of superfast broadband to business and individuals is crucial to supporting economic growth and the planning changes made in 2013 represent an important contribution to the process of extending broadband connectivity. I am pleased to report that these benefits are already being delivered. I understand from BT that more than 500,000 premises have access to superfast broadband that would not have been served, or otherwise not served in a reasonable timeframe, if the planning measures did not exist.
The code of practice is an engagement framework for communications providers, planning authorities and stakeholders. It provides detailed guidance on the appropriate deployment of broadband infrastructure in order to meet the objectives of avoiding or minimising adverse impacts on the physical amenity and supporting good practice while increasing the pace of the roll out of superfast broadband.
The code of practice was devised by a working group comprising representatives from a range of industry and sector organisations including the Planning Officers Society, English Heritage, the National Parks Authorities, Openreach, Virgin Media and the UK Competitive Trade Association (UKCTA), with oversight from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and input from the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The same group was responsible for reviewing the effectiveness of the code of practice.
The review examined the code of practice by assessing the available evidence on compliance and performance, and considered whether any revisions were needed. The working group members prepared for the review by gathering feedback from their own organisations about the performance of the code and assessing its effectiveness through their own experience as code of practice users. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport as well as the Departments for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs also passed on feedback received which feeds into the review.
Overall there has been relatively little feedback about the performance of the code of practice. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport received one letter from a local authority in September 2013 complaining that communications provider was resisting compliance with the code but did not provide specific details about the nature of the non-compliance. The code was revised in November 2013 to correct a factual error, and at that stage a feedback form was circulated to local planning authorities and communication providers, although none were returned. The Department for Communities and Local Government received four letters about poor siting of cabinets. One specifically cited non-compliance with the code. The Department for Transport and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs did not receive any feedback or complaints about the code.
The Planning Officers’ Society (POS) gave three examples of non-compliance with the code involving Openreach and insensitive cabinet siting in the London area. Overall however, POS’s view was these were isolated examples that had been addressed constructively by the relevant communications infrastructure provider and that generally, the code of practice appeared to be working well.
The national parks authorities also reported that the code appeared to be working well and that in their experience, the real issue for residents of the national parks was an eagerness to receive superfast broadband connectivity at the earliest opportunity.
English Heritage reported two cases of non-compliance by a communications infrastructure provider involving poor siting of a broadband cabinet near a heritage asset and in the other case failing to consult with English Heritage. In both cases the provider accepted that lessons needed to be learned and were putting in measures to avoid it happening again.
Virgin Media had received no complaints about their compliance or otherwise with the code and the same applied to the membership of UKCTA. All communications infrastructure providers agreed that overall the code was working positively. Openreach were aware of a few cases of non-compliance by their contractors, but they were committed to complying with the code and these were isolated examples which they had addressed.
Conclusion
The working group jointly agreed that overall the code appeared to be working well. There were no complaints from members of the public or interested organisations about the efficacy of the code itself, and relatively few complaints about non-compliance. Of the small number of cases of non-compliance, in each case the problems were addressed by the relevant communications infrastructure provider and they reiterated their commitment to future compliance.
We will continue to monitor compliance with the code and a further review will be carried out in 18 months to ensure it remains up to date and relevant.
[HCWS350]