// Home / News / Broadband

New broadband minister vows to cut red tape

By Stewart Mitchell

Posted on 7 Sep 2012 at 11:21

The new culture minister has unveiled plans to tackle red tape that's been holding back broadband projects, with a range of changes to planning regulations including forcing councils to accept street cabinets.

The changes mean telecoms companies will spend less time preparing for for projects because carriers can install roadside fibre cabinets without permission from local councils.

The move marks the first steps in broadband by new Culture Secretary Maria Miller, who said infrastructure projects take too long. "The government means business and we are determined to cut through the bureaucracy that is holding us back," Miller said.

"Superfast broadband is key to boosting economic growth, but the delivery of this vital business infrastructure is being held up by unnecessary bureaucracy in the planning system, jeopardising the country’s economic recovery," the Department of Culture Media and Sport added.

The delivery of this vital business infrastructure is being held up by unnecessary bureaucracy in the planning system

The plans would see street cabinets and other infrastructure installed without the need for prior approval from the local council, except in "Sites of Special Scientific Interest".

The announcement will be good news for bandwidth-hungry residents in areas such as Kensington, which has until now refused to allow BT to install cabinets in the area.

According to industry insiders, the changes will save BT, and any other providers investing in infrastructure, at least half day's salary per cabinet it would have had to apply for permission for.

The decision to legislate comes as the government is trying to meet its goal of seeing 90% of the UK on connections of 24Mbits/sec or more by 2015.

Cabling changes

The changes would also make it easier for telecoms companies to dig up streets, and there are plans to streamline the negotiation process for installing cables in or above private land, although details on how the system would work remain thin.

"It sounds like they have some sort of adjudication scheme in mind, which might force people to accept realistic offers, because these things come down to money," said Andrew Ferguson, network expert at Thinkbroadband.com. "What currently happens is that it drags on for three or four months and then the company eventually gives up."

Companies rolling out cables for larger infrastructure projects would also be allowed to site overhead cables without planning permission,

According to a spokesperson for the DCMS, the plans should make it cheaper to roll out network upgrades and so could extend the reach of the networks. "The idea is that if it's simpler and cheaper, then companies will roll out faster and further," the DCMS told PC Pro.

The government said it would also work with mobile operators and local government to consider ways that the planning process might be streamlined to speed up the deployment of mobile infrastructure.

That would be welcome ahead of system upgrades for the 4G projects that have so far been held up by interminable red tape surrounding the auction process.

Legal challenges

However, with large areas of the UK designated as conservation areas, there's there could be a large amount of retrospective legal action taken by councils over where masts, cables or cabinets are sited, which could lead to higher costs in the long run.

"Anything that speeds up fibre rollout has to be good news, but if you wipe away bureaucracy in the shot-term it could create more bureaucracy later, with installations being challenged," said Ferguson.

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

User comments

Nicer cabs

I think people might be more likely to accept a cabinet outside their house if the things weren't such pig ugly graffiti magnets.

I've always wondered why BT didn't negotiate with local property owners to install the box just off the pavement, on the property side of the boundary, in exchange for free broadband for the relevant property owners.

If anyone from BT is reading this, I'm up for it, and have a suitable front driveway area!

By PaulOckenden on 7 Sep 2012

"The changes would also make it easier for telecoms companies to dig up streets"

I've no problem with this. It's that they never repair the streets to a satisfactory level that annoys me.

It's not just telecoms companies mind you. Gas, Water, Electric... they all leave the streets looking an uneven mess!

By AlphaGeeK on 7 Sep 2012

Wrong message for me...

As usual there is no commitment to providing usable broadband in rural areas. We (by which I mean the residents and the many businesses) are ignored and left with out of date exchanges, poor cabling and no chance of anything like the access nearby cities get.
Turn it round and insist that hi-speed internet access is provided to rural areas first to help support and grow SMEs. Once that is in place spread it to the cities.

By paulgarb54 on 7 Sep 2012

Plus ca change....

Oh dear! Not the old "Red tape" farrago, again.

While I'm not advocating that Councils should be able totally to block cabinets, there ARE matters that need to be considered.
Given that 'Paralympic fever' is currently raging, its worth noting that 'street furniture', including Fibre cabs, can be a potential hazard for the disabled community. Given the government's 'localism' gaenda, surely they acknowledge that LOCAL councils might be a better judge of such things than BT's Central OpenReach office in London, Aberdeen or Mumbai?

By wittgenfrog on 7 Sep 2012

Have any of you ...

... ever actually had to go through the planning process? The problem is not that reasonable projects get turned down, it is the huge cost in time and money of the process, and the unpredictability of how long it is going to take. Last one I got involved in (and the last I will ever get involved in) took two years and getting the permission ended up costing more that building the project! There was never any real grounds for objecting to the project, just that the planning department was totally dysfunctional and decision averse. The thing that really sticks in the craw is the un-democratic nature of the process. One objector can override the wishes of hundreds of supporters by just making it so difficult and unpleasant that the developer loses interest or is driven into bankruptcy.

By JohnAHind on 7 Sep 2012

@JohnAHind

I know (from bitter experience) exactly what you mean, BUT its a 'babies & bathwater' sort of issue.
Just because the process is flawed that doesn't mean the underlying philosophy of having local checks & balances is wrong.
Simply letting BT & Virgin stick fibre cabs willy-nilly over our streets won't inherently make anyone's broadband even 1% faster, but it could be ugly & is potentially dangerous.

By wittgenfrog on 7 Sep 2012

@wittgenfrog

They should be able to come up with general guidelines applying to all projects, and there is no reason why those should be different in different parts of the country.

Actually, I think just about everything EXCEPT planning should be decided locally. Trouble is everybody wants infrastructure, but we'd all rather it was somewhere else. Local planning inevitably means not enough gets built and what does is far too late and far too expensive.

I do not want nuclear waste stored in my back yard, but I do want it stored in the safest place, not the place with the least well organised NIMBYs!

By JohnAHind on 7 Sep 2012