Members of the public may ask questions or
make statements at this meeting if they have given notice and provided the text
to Stephen Loach of Democratic Services (contact
details below) no later than midday on Tuesday 28th March 2023
Each speaker should limit themselves to 3 minutes on any item. Members of the public who have given notice
will be invited to speak:
·
at this
point in the meeting if their questions/statements relate to matters which are
not otherwise on the Agenda (subject to an overall time limit of 30 minutes);
·
when the
relevant Agenda item is being considered if they wish to speak on a matter
which is on the Agenda for this meeting (unless, for the orderly operation of
the meeting the Chair deems it appropriate that all questions are provided at
this time).
If you are
exercising your right to speak at this meeting, but do not wish to be recorded,
please inform the Chairman who will instruct those taking a recording to cease
whilst you speak.
Minutes:
Question from Mike Hepworth, Filey (delivered at
the meeting by Councillor Marilyn Anthony of Filey Town Council
Re: Adequate Internet Connection along Filey
Seafront.
“I own a holiday rental property on Filey seafront
and I have struggled to obtain an adequate internet connection for the past 5
years. My initial approach was via Plusnet and Openreach only to be met with
indifference, time-wasting and obfuscation at every step of the way. Eventually I had to resort to a self-funded
Wi-Fi connection from a nearby building. It is very basic (2mb) and will only
support internet surfing and emailing.
Streaming and connection to a smart TV is out of the question.
Recently it has been brought to my notice that my
section of Filey seafront has not been included in the NYNET and Openreach
Superfast contract. The reasoning for
this is not entirely opaque, although I have a strong suspicion that cost is a
factor. Additionally, I have learned
that in the contract Openreach has been allowed to ‘claim’ properties that they
supply. In other-words they can reject
properties that might cost in excess of their connection cost limit of £300 per
household. This certainly does not rest easily with the Government’s Universal
Service Agreement that places the free connection limit at £3,400.
As an aside, it is interesting to note that,
according to ‘Statistica’, Openreach made profits of £357million in the last
quarter of 2021/22!
I am very worried that my property and probably
others that are close by, are omitted from the role out of a fibre connection
and as a result, it is highly unlikely to have this facility available to them
for the foreseeable future. It is not as
if my property is a remote farmhouse in the middle of nowhere. It is an
integral part of an urban town.
So, my question is, why is it not a high priority
to install a fibre network to all the properties in this crucial part of a town
that depends on the income from visitors who have high expectations of the
services provided when they come on holiday?
The sun does not shine all the time!
I am sorry that I am unable to attend the meeting
in person but I would be happy to speak to any attendee about this issue. Cllr. Anthony will be able to give you my
contact details.”
It was stated that a response to the issues raised
had been requested from the relevant County Council officers, and this would be
provided directly in due course.
County Councillor Greg White stated that until
recently he had been the Executive Member whose portfolio covered this matter.
He was aware of the situation outlined and noted that NYNET were providing the
necessary infrastructure via a contract with BT and they determined how to
maximise the number of properties connected through the funding available.
Currently this left some properties without the Superfast Broadband
availability Every effort was being made to accommodate these properties, and
additional funding was being made available via central Government to try
different connection methods to enable this to happen. In terms of the specific
case raised in the public question he was aware that there were additional
complications in respect of this matter. He stated that he would liaise with
the questioner and the local Member to consider this issue further. The local
Member stated that he had been in contact with the questioner regarding this
matter and recognised that it required addressing for his business to operate
effectively.
It was stated that the matter would be followed up
and information on how this was to be addressed would be provided to the
questioner.
Members thanked Mr Hepworth for his question.