Telegraph Poles: Planning Permission
Laurence Turner Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I know that a number of colleagues have experienced similar problems in their constituencies to those I will be raising, and I will try to accommodate interventions.
I welcome the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to his place. I am sure hon. Members from all parties welcomed his statement in July:
“We fully understand people’s concerns about the excessive deployment of telegraph poles, and are urgently considering options to address this.”
As time is short, I will focus on the current absence of a requirement to consult residents under the legislative and regulatory regime that Ministers have inherited. This is not about being against telegraph poles, nor is it about being against the roll-out of fast broadband. New infrastructure is vital in a society that is increasingly dependent on fast and reliable internet services. However, surely it is wrong that when poles are sited inappropriately, recourse for residents is advisory only, and, in many cases, completely lacking in practice.
Official statistics suggest that in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, almost 99% of residents have access to superfast broadband. I know that Ministers have some scepticism about the accuracy of those figures, but it is undeniable that broadband coverage is better than in neighbouring rural areas, yet urban areas are the current focus for the roll-out. The case for the changes in 2013 that established the current permitted development regime focused almost exclusively on the need to extend superfast broadband to rural areas and new-build estates. Little to no consideration appears to have been given to how the legislation would impact already built-up, urban areas. The consequences are now being seen in south Birmingham, as some residents are left to accommodate poles that are unwanted, unneeded and obtrusive.
Preet Kaur Gill
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and it is much needed. As he said, many of our constituents already have excellent broadband, so telegraph poles should be strategically prioritised in rural areas. In one of my streets alone, there are five poles. I have previously asked the Government how many poles they think is acceptable. Does he agree that this is not the way that providers should behave?
Laurence Turner
I know that my hon. Friend has been doing extensive work on this issue. There are similar problems in my Birmingham Northfield constituency, and I would be sympathetic to having different approaches in rural, semi-rural and built-up urban areas, precisely because of the issues she raises.
Alex Ballinger
I thank my hon. Friend for organising this excellent debate. Telegraph poles are a key issue in my Halesowen constituency. My constituents support the roll-out of high-speed broadband, but they are concerned about the installation of telegraph poles in areas that did not previously have them. Community engagement has not been done well—I give the example of the Squirrels estate in my constituency, where a recent campaign, which I supported, was successful in stopping a company rolling out telegraph poles in an area that did not have them. The residents’ major concern was about the use of underground ducting. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is accessible infrastructure underground already, broadband providers should use that? The Government should change the regulations so that providers are able to share the infrastructure, even if they are competitors.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for making those points. He highlights issues that are common across the wider region and, I suspect, the country. I will come on to some of the regulatory changes that could be made, but it is important to recognise that there was a requirement for companies to share infrastructure wherever possible. However, I will discuss some of the cases in my constituency where that clearly is not happening.
I want to draw attention to some of the problems in my constituency. I recently attended a residents’ meeting in a street in Birmingham Northfield called Pineview, a quiet cul-de-sac that is set back from a busy road. The community is close-knit, and over the years, the residents have invested their time and a considerable amount of money to ensure the upkeep of the area. They have lived with underground telecommunications infrastructure, which serves different operators, and they have experienced a positive service. However, residents report that four telegraph poles were installed on the road last year, starting early in the day and finishing late at night, with intrusive spotlights to facilitate the work. There was very limited community engagement, despite the residents taking up the company Brsk’s suggestion that a petition be collected. That was done, but to no effect.
I also draw attention to Lovell Close in Weoley. It is another small cul-de-sac, with only half a dozen houses and narrow pavements, but activities by two competing companies are now causing obstruction for residents and users of an adjoining public park. The hope that the infrastructure would be shared is not being observed in practice, and there are ongoing problems with pavement parking across south Birmingham. I know that Transport Ministers are looking separately at this issue, but the fact is that the combination of pavement parking and the loss of pavement space to poles has created obstructions and pinch points. This is a particular problem for those with prams and mobility scooters.
There are also problems in the Bournville conservation area, which I discussed recently with the Bournville Village Trust. I place on record my thanks for the local representations that have been made to me in advance of this debate by Councillors Esther Rai, Miranda Perks and Jamie Tennant in my constituency, and Liz Clements and Fred Grindrod in the neighbouring ward of Bournville and Cotteridge. I also want to mention the work done on this issue by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—as she said, she is addressing the same problems in her constituency—and my other constituency neighbour, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As a Front Bencher, he is unable to speak in this debate, but I know that he is addressing the same problems and has written to Ofcom on this matter.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
In Stourbridge in the west midlands, we face similar problems with the same company, which is causing havoc. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the legislation was passed in 2013, yet in 2024, we are still waiting for the full roll-out of ultrafast broadband. Although I appreciate what he says about our current adequate speeds, they could be much faster. When I was recently in Ukraine, I experienced far better internet connectivity than I do in central London or Stourbridge town centre. Our European neighbours are enjoying much faster broadband while we languish behind, and Stourbridge residents have been left at the mercy of these third-party companies—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady might like to sit while I am standing. I have previously told Members that interventions should be short and spontaneous. It is not an opportunity to read out a pre-prepared speech. If she wanted to speak in this debate, she could have asked permission from both the Minister and the Member in charge, and that would have been acceptable.
Laurence Turner
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles).
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) about engagement. I am holding a letter that residents received from my predecessor, containing the promise from the company involved in rolling out these poles in Inkberrow that the work would initially be done underground. Lo and behold, a couple of weeks later, poles appeared and work was carried out late into the night. Re-establishing co-operation and engagement with the community is vital to regaining trust.
Laurence Turner
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes his case well. This is not about saying that there can never be telegraph poles, as there are some areas where they are clearly the right solution. However, there must be a proper process, and companies cannot be left to mark their own homework. He highlights well the issues in his constituency.
One of the few requirements placed on network operators is to provide 28 days’ notice in writing to the local planning authority when they propose to put up a pole. That is a very low bar. Without commenting on an active investigation, it should be noted that Ofcom is currently investigating Brsk for an alleged failure to notify Birmingham city council 28 days prior to installing poles. It is important that the investigation is concluded quickly.
I understand that the industry body, the Internet Service Providers Association, which I thank for providing a briefing ahead of the debate, is working on a potential revision to the cabinet and pole siting code of practice. I hope we will hear something encouraging from the Minister but, as long as the code remains voluntary, it will always be circumvented in some cases.
The code of practice merely states that, following advice for engaging and consulting residents, the code operator should place a site notice in
“as close proximity as possible… If an appropriate place to site a notice is not available, another means of informing residents may be discussed and agreed upon.”
In seeking to address these concerns, a number of residents in my constituency have, individually and collectively, attempted to follow the steps set out in the code of practice, including the complaints process. However, the code of practice, in its current form, fails to provide sufficient redress. It states that a complaints procedure should be in place, but it fails to go further than a company providing written responses detailing why a complaint is accepted or rejected. Frankly, that is not good enough. We must focus on preventing poor practice, as well as encouraging the best.
I thank the Minister for his engagement with hon. Members across the House on this issue. Does he agree that, in pursuit of the Government’s welcome manifesto commitment to a renewed push for full gigabit coverage by 2030, a better code of practice is needed? Does he agree that there is a natural conflict of interest in allowing broadband companies to be the sole arbiters of their own practice? And does he further agree that there should be a role for Ofcom in upholding the code?
I thank the Minister for his attention, and I look forward to hearing how he proposes to engage with Members across the House on this important issue. I am sure we will all hear more about this problem throughout the course of this Parliament.
Laurence Turner
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with almost everything that he has said. I also wish to reflect on the moving tribute that he made to a predecessor Member for King’s Norton.
I understand the case that my hon. Friend has made, and I welcome his comments. Does he accept that, when the price of poles is already cheap, there is a risk that some companies will undercut each other on consumer service to reach lower margins? That is at the heart of the issue that we are debating today. It is about those operators and local cases in which standards have not been followed. Good network providers should have nothing to fear from the changes that have been suggested tonight.
Chris Bryant
Yes, I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has just said. He put it extremely well. He probably ought to be the Minister, and perhaps he will be soon. He is right. I also want to say that we should have shared infrastructure wherever that is possible. Legislation already makes provision for some of that to happen. In speaking to the operators, I have laid it down quite firmly that we need to enhance that infrastructure. I can perfectly understand why a commercial operator might say, “Well, I am not sure that I really want to share with my competitor”. That is why a new code of conduct has taken a while. I hope that new code of conduct, which I have discussed with the operators, will be laid out very soon. There is urgency about this, because the roll-out is happening this week, next week and the week after. We need to tackle these issues in short measure, not wait a long period of time.
At the very latest, this code of conduct will be published in the early new year, and I encourage everybody in the sector to abide by the code. I encourage competitors to tell the two or three companies that are not playing by the rules that they are bringing all of them into disrepute. The single most important issue for most of these operators is how they will drive take-up. It is about not just roll-out—that is their investment—but take-up. When we talk about 100 megabits per second—or about gigabits per second—many people have no idea what we are talking about. The truth is that all of our homes and businesses will need much greater broadband capacity in the near future, so we do have to roll this out. We have to make sure that people understand why they need it. The danger is that, if this whole process undermines confidence in the roll-out, it will affect take-up. It is in the commercial interests of everybody to make sure that we come to a better set of solutions in this area.
Let me go through a couple of the specific points that my hon. Friend raised. As he knows, the cabinet siting and pole siting code of practice was issued in November 2016. It sets out guidance on best practice relating to deployment, encouraging operators to site apparatus responsibly and engage proactively with both local authorities and the local community, and he laid out some of the specifics that follow on from that—the 28 days’ notice that needs to be given to local councils and so on.
There are some operators—not the ones my hon. Friend is talking about, but for instance, IX Wireless, which I had in my office earlier this afternoon—that are operating a different model, and a different set of issues relates specifically to them. There, too, I have tried to make it clear what Government expectations are. As I say, following a meeting with the operators, the industry has committed to revising the code of practice, which I think will be much tougher, and the guidance should be published in the new year. However, I am absolutely clear that if voluntary adherence does not work, we reserve the right to change the law. We are in earnest about that, because we are aware of the concerns people have expressed.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that Ofcom has stated that it would investigate any cases where poles are sited in a way that is not consistent with the requirements and guidelines in place, including where they block residents’ drives or where operators systematically fail to engage with local planning authorities’ suggestions. As my hon. Friend has already referred to, Ofcom has opened an investigation into whether Brsk has failed to comply with its obligations. I am keen to have a meeting with Brsk, and I hope that will happen in the next few weeks. I do not want to interfere in the process that Ofcom is engaged in; that is a matter for Ofcom and I would not seek to undermine what is effectively a quasi-judicial operation. However, I want to make sure that Brsk fully understands the concerns not only of many Birmingham MPs—I noted the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) earlier—but of the Government in this field.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield for getting the debate so early in his time as a Member of Parliament. He is obviously going to be a doughty defender of the rights of his constituents. Madam Deputy Speaker, I noticed that you were nodding along—I know you are not really allowed to do that. You are shaking your head as well—you are not allowed to do that either. None the less, I think you broadly agreed with the thrust of what I was saying, so I feel as if I have united the House. On that note, I bid you farewell.
Question put and agreed to.