Decision details

          The Cabinet Member for the Economy, Regeneration, and Skills and the Board Director, Resources submitted a joint report concerning the Council’s participation in the Superfast Broadband Extension Programme operated by the Government agency Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK), and on the outcome of an open procurement process undertaken to identify the best value for money solution that would secure the greatest possible Superfast Broadband coverage across the Borough within the funding available (Cabinet Minute 8, 2014/15 refers).

          Councillor Garry Perkins, Cabinet Member for the Economy, Regeneration, and Skills, presented the report and referred to the procurement process that had been adopted and the analysis that had been undertaken in respect of the solution put forward. He commented on the coverage that would be available and the significant benefits of this to local communities and the economy, particularly, for the more rural areas of the Borough. He noted how savings to the Council, in terms of its level of contribution, would release funds to identify solutions for those estimated 600 properties that would remain without Superfast Broadband.

          Councillor Fionuala Foley, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, referred to how the proposal would provide Superfast Broadband to those areas, many of them rural, where such a network was not currently commercially viable.   Councillor Foley drew attention to the joint report’s appendices that clearly illustrated those places that would benefit. She reiterated the comments made by residents of Chiseldon at the Cabinet Open Forum held prior to the Cabinet meeting, on the benefits for those residents and businesses that were involved in a trial Superfast Broadband scheme undertaken by UK Broadband.

Councillor Stan Pajak, Leader of the Council’s Minority Group, supported the intent behind the report and stressed the importance of Superfast Broadband for local residents and businesses. He sought clarification about the parent company involved, Hong Kong Telecoms (HKT).

          Councillor Perkins explained that UKBroadband (UKBD) was a subsidiary of HKT that had operated in the UK for over a decade.  A new “sister company” had been established to deliver Superfast Broadband on a commercial basis called UKB Networks. He referred to the open tender process that had been followed in which thirteen companies had made initial enquiries, although only one had eventually submitted a formal tender. This bid had been the subject of robust scrutiny and it was believed offered a viable solution to the delivery of Superfast Broadband.

          Councillor Des Moffatt referred to the contents of the report and noted that the proposal and the approach to its approval was different from that involving Digital City UK Ltd. However, he was sure other Councillors also had concerns regarding the detail of the proposal and he suggested that a briefing for all Councillors should be arranged so that they could have a better understanding of all the issues prior to any signing of contracts.

Councillor Perkins advised that he would be happy to arrange for such a briefing to be held.

Councillor Steve Wakefield expressed his reservations regarding the proposal and its technical solution. He urged caution given previous Council experiences.  He reminded the Cabinet that there were also parts of the urban area that lacked adequate Broadband provision.

Councillor Perkins noted the comments and reiterated that UKBD had conducted a trial independently of the Council to assess the deliverability of its technical solution. He confirmed that Councillors would have access to all relevant documents once contracts were signed.

Councillor Brian Ford, Cabinet Member for StreetSmart, referred to fibre-based solutions and the likely coverage available now and in the immediate future. He noted that the ward he represented was one of those with significant areas lacking access to Superfast Broadband and where residents were seeking such provision as soon as possible.

Councillor Emma Faramarzi, Cabinet Member for Housing and Public Safety, thanked Councillor Perkins and the officer team for their work in preparing the report. She noted that the proposed approach offered a practical solution for rural areas, but expressed reservations about how effective the technology proposed would be in highly developed areas of North Swindon, such as Priory Vale.  She referred to the petition by Councillor Toby Elliott that highlighted that 7,500 properties lacked access to Superfast Broadband.

Councillor Brian Mattock, Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care welcomed the report and noted that the proposal both secured value for money for the tax payer and employed a technology that had been trialled successfully by both residential and business users.

          Resolved – (1) That the appointment of UKB Networks as the preferred supplier of a network that will increase Superfast Broadband coverage from 80% to 99.4% of households in Swindon Borough by 2016, be approved.

          (2) That, further to the decision in (1) above, the Director of Law and Democratic Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for the Economy, Regeneration, and Skills and the Board Director, Resources, be authorised to complete and enter into such agreements and associated documentation on such terms as he considers necessary to protect the Council’s interests in this matter, subject to state aid and compliance being confirmed by Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK).

          (3) That the Cabinet Member for the Economy, Regeneration, and Skills and the Board Director, Resources, continue discussions with parish and town councils and other stakeholders around the roll-out of the core UKB Networks proposal and in respect of further options to secure 100% Superfast Broadband coverage across the Borough of Swindon at the earliest possible opportunity.

          (Councillor Dale Heenan, Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning, Sustainability, and Transport made a personal and prejudicial declaration of interest in respect of the above item and left the meeting taking no part in the discussion, as he was employed by an organisation within the relevant technology industry.)

          The reasons for the decision and alternative options are as set out in the report to the meeting.