Meeting documents

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Mike Byatt, Mervyn Jeffery and Margaret Phipps.

Councillors are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 regarding disclosable pecuniary interests.

§     Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary interest.

§     Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done on the form available from the clerk within 28 days).

§     Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the County Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of a dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item.

The Register of Interests is available on Dorsetforyou.com and the list of disclosable pecuniary interests is set out on the r

There were no declarations by members of disclosable pecuniary interest under the Code of Conduct.

To confirm and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2016 (attached).

The minutes of the meeting held on  12 October 2016 were confirmed and signed.

Public Speaking

To receive any public questions and/or public statements in accordance with Standing Order 21 (2).

There were no public questions, statements or requests to speak received.

The opportunity is being taken to scrutinise the progress being made in implementing the County Councils’ Digital Infrastructure Strategy, what this entails, how it is applied and the progress being made in making connectivity improvements.  A report by the Service Director – Economy (attached) sets out what successes there have been to date, how these have been achieved and by what means.

Of particular importance is to know how improvements might continue to be delivered, with a specific view to identifying solutions to meet the needs of those currently having limited, little or no reception and to understand what is being done to achieve this.

To provide some context of the Strategy and programme for delivery, the officer’s accompanying presentation - to the Director’s report - will be in dispersed with some short, case study videos of what has been achieved and how this has been done.

As part of this process, the opportunity is being provided for service providers and users to join the meeting to explain to the Committee:-

·         the part being played in providing Superfast Broadband and connectivity to Dorset residents and what is being done to reach those areas which have been identified as having limited, little or no reception and

·         what connectivity means to those receiving the service, how their needs are being met and what the Strategy might be able to do for them in improving that service.

So that the management of this item is structured, invitees have been allocated the following timings for the Committee to hear what they have to say about the Strategy and for members to ask questions of them:-

Services Users (up to 10 minutes each)

·         Stephen Earwicker – Kimmeridge resident and recipient of VoIP connectivity option

·         Carol Matthews – Charlton Down resident and recipient of Fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP)

·         Representatives of The Thomas Hardye School  - on their connectivity experiences

·         Contribution from other rural recipients of broadband, if practicable

Service Provider (up to 20 minutes)

·         BT/Openreach – on the practicalities of the rollout, what this entails and how this is being done

So as to stimulate debate and optimise the session, the Chairman encourages members of the Committee to give some thought as to what they might be minded to ask those attending on the day - by way of a short Panel Question and Answer session - in order to have a better understanding of how superfast broadband is being delivered across the county and what part the Committee might play in enabling this.

To assist in a better understanding of what progress is being made and how this is being done, the attached hyperlinks might be of benefit:- 

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/superfast

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/broadband/about?formid=1474910

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/broadband/case-studies

https://www.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/broadband/better-broadband-scheme

https://news.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/2016/08/30/dozens-more-communities-to-benefit-from-superfast-dorset-fibre-broadband-roll-out/

https://news.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/2015/06/15/high-speed-fibre-broadband-available-to-3000-more-dorset-homes-and-businesses/

Arising from discussion at the meeting on 12 October 2016, the Committee took the opportunity to scrutinise the progress being made in implementing the County Councils’ Digital Infrastructure Strategy, what this entailed, how it was applied and the progress being made in making connectivity improvements.  The report by the Service Director – Economy set out what successes there had been in making improvements, how these had been achieved and by what means. The attention of the Committee was drawn to the progress made to date of the Council’s Superfast Dorset Programme which provided gap funding to support the rollout of broadband in areas not deemed commercially viable by infrastructure providers. 

The Committee was informed that the Strategy was designed to set out the overall vision and approach to transform Dorset into a digital economy in order to fully realise strategic benefits of economic growth, digital inclusion, transformation of public services and opportunities for individuals and communities across Dorset. The Strategy included reference to the speed and coverage of broadband, and the opportunities for Mobile 4G/5G to play a part in this.

Of particular importance to the Committee was to know how improvements might continue to be delivered, with a specific view to identifying solutions to meet the needs of those currently having limited, little or no reception and to understand what was being done to achieve this.

As part of this process, the opportunity was being provided for service providers and users to join the meeting to explain to the Committee:-

·         The part being played in providing Superfast Broadband and connectivity to Dorset residents and what was being done to reach those areas identified as having limited, little or no reception; and

·         What connectivity meant to those receiving the service, how their needs were being met and what the Strategy might be able to do for them in improving that service.

The invitees were given the opportunity to address the Committee so that they might hear what they had to say about the Strategy and for members to ask questions of them in order to gain a better understanding of how superfast broadband was being delivered across the county and what part the Committee might play in enabling this.

The Committee was being asked to assess the progress being made and how improvements could continue to be made for accessibility to broadband. It was considered that the benefits to Dorset from this could well lead to the generation of significant economic and social prosperity. The Committee recognised that delivering the Superfast Broadband initiative was integral to the delivery of services in a more direct, flexible and accessible way.

In setting the scene, the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth explained how important connectivity was considered to be for the prosperity of Dorset and having the means to access it was considered to be essential. Giving all residents the same opportunity to access it was an obligation the Council was determined to fulfil and all was being done to achieve this.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The County Council at its meeting on 10 November referred the motion by Councillor Ros Kayes (County Councillor for Bridport): Clause 21 of the Bus Bill - seconded by Janet Dover (County Councillor for Colehill and Stapehill) – to the Economic Growth Overview and Scrutiny Committee for consideration at its meeting on 25 January 2015; the Motion being:-

‘This Council notes:

1. That the Bus Services Bill currently passing through Parliament includes Clause 21 that will effectively "prohibit a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service".

2. That this might have profound implications both for the proposed Combined Authority in seeking Local Transport Authority powers and in DCC’s ability to support small community transport schemes with its own fleet as is currently happening in Southill and Portland.

3. That the Localism Act (2011) provides general powers of competence to local authorities.

4. That municipal bus companies like Reading and Nottingham provide some of the best bus services in the country and have a successful track record of increasing bus passenger numbers and providing high quality bus services.

5. That polling by We Own It found that a majority of the public (57%) oppose clause 21, whilst just 22% support it. The opposition to Clause 21 is consistent across voters from all political parties.

This council believes:

1. Clause 21 contradicts the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011.

2. If there is a need and a demand from their public, then Councils should be able to provide their own bus services

3. Should they wish, Councils should be legally able to follow the model developed by Reading and Nottingham.

4. Consequently Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill.

This council resolves:

1. To write to Lord Ahmad and to call on the Department for Transport to omit Clause 21 from the final legislation

2. To write to local MPs to ask them to oppose clause 21 when the Bus Services Bill reaches the House of Commons and ask them to write to Lord Ahmad and the Department of Transport to raise concerns about Clause 21.’

Unless determined otherwise by the Chairman the maximum time to be allowed to present this motion shall be 10 minutes.

Associated with this, the Bus Subsidies Working Group met on 29 November 2016 to consider evidence of the reasoning for the decisions taken by Cabinet for how bus subsidies would be managed and applied in the future. In doing this, they also took the opportunity to give some initial thought to the motion and made recommendations on what progress might be made. The notes of the meeting are attached.

The Committee took the opportunity to consider the motion ‘Clause 21 of the Bus Bill’ proposed by Councillor Ros Kayes, County Councillor for Bridport, which had been submitted in the first instance to Full Council on 10 November 2016. The motion was primarily concerned with the effect the Bill would have on effectively prohibiting a local authority from forming a company for the purposes of providing a local bus service, which might in turn have an adverse effect on the effectiveness of any combined authority.

Although there currently were no plans for the Authority to pursue the formation of an ‘arms length’ company for the purposes of running their own service, Clause 21 of the Bus Bill sought to deny local authorities the opportunity of doing this if they so wished. Accordingly it was felt that they would be disenfranchised in their ability to pursue this course of action if they considered this to be viable option. As it stood, Clause 21 would limit local authorities options on how they were able to proceed in managing these arrangements and determine the grounds on which services were able to operate.

Accordingly, as the motion considered that Clause 21 contradicted the general powers of competence and the spirit of the Localism Act 2011 and given the weight of public support for local bus services, it asked for support from the Committee that Clause 21 should be omitted from the Bus Services Bill and that a submission be made to the Secretary of State on this matter.

In light of the fact that the Bill was progressing through Parliament, the motion encouraged the County Council to play their part in influencing how this proceeded and on what basis this should be. The Committee considered it necessary to do what could be done whilst there was still an opportunity for it to be done. Additionally, a statement was circulated to the Committee from Councillor Kayes further emphasising the importance of opposing Clause 21.

So as to take the opportunity to influence proceedings at the earliest possible stage and to ensure progress could be made as soon as practicable, as part of the discussions of the Bus Subsidies Working Group on 29 November 2016 the opportunity was taken to consider - on an informal basis - the motion in advance of it being formally considered by Committee.

Whilst the motion did not directly relate to the issue of bus subsidies, it was felt that the principle of the motion had a bearing on how passenger transport could be delivered in future years. On that basis the Group felt that, in principle, the motion had merit. Arising from that meeting, a position statement was made available to all members setting out the facts and what these entailed about how Clause 21 would affect the County Council's ability to manage its own passenger transport arrangements as it chose and saw fit. 

This allowed members to be able to make an informed judgement on their merit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider a joint report by the Chief Executive and the Director for Environment and the Economy (attached).

The Committee considered a joint report by the Chief Executive and the Director for Environment and the Economy which drew attention to the set of "outcome indicators" to measure performance related specifically to the prosperous outcome within the Corporate Plan.

The Committee agreed that the improved take up of Superfast Broadband should be actively pursued given that access to digital connectivity was fundamental to all that the County Council was trying to do. They Committee recognised that members had a key role to play in what progress might be made and how this could be done.

Members found Appendix 2 of the report to be the most helpful in their understanding of what progress was being made and their attention was drawn to the "outcomes tracker" for their use.

Members felt that whilst emphasis was placed on exception reporting in identifying what interventions might be appropriate, successes and improvements should also be recognised to demonstrate what was being done well and which could be used as good practice elsewhere. The Committee was invited to identify issues which they considered had scope for further scrutiny and to inform the Clerk and/or Chairman of this.

The Committee considered that this new process was a good basis for progress to be made in outcomes being realised.

Noted

To give consideration to authorising the establishment of a Parking Management Policy Development Panel and the reasoning for this proposal.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to consider the need for a Policy Development Panel for Parking Management to be established. Members considered that, in principle, this should be progressed but that this should be held in abeyance pending the outcome of a decision on Local Government Reform. Any arrangements would need to be holistic to encompass both off street and on street parking and to determine what part the County and District Councils played.

Noted

To consider the Committee’s Work Programme (attached).

The opportunity was taken to look at the Committee’s Work Programme. Members were encouraged to contribute towards this if they wished and to let the Chairman and/or Committee Clerk know accordingly.

Members agreed that the Industrial Strategy should be considered at their next meeting, in March 2017.

Further to earlier discussion, the Committee agreed that Mobile Phone Coverage 4G/5G should be considered at the June 2017 meeting, together with an update on what progress was being made with the broadband rollout.

The opportunity was taken to inform the Committee that Dorset had been successful in receiving an allocation from the Productivity Investment Fund of £2.5m which would be used towards improvements to the north/south strategic route. 

Resolved

That the Work Programme include consideration of the Industrial Strategy at the March 2017 meeting and an update on Mobile Phone coverage, together with broadband progress,  at the June 2017 meeting.

Reason for Recommendation

To improve outcomes for the people of Dorset.

To answer any questions received in writing by the Chief Executive by not later than 10:00 am on Friday 20 January 2017.

No questions were asked by members under Standing Order 20(2)