Sidmouth isn’t Brighton – but WE knew that!

So, in its wisdom, EDDC’s Asset Management Forum (Chairman, Geoff Pook) decided to compare East Devon with Brighton and to almost double rents for beach hut sites.

Result? 115 people gave up their huts (out of a total if 445), people on waiting lists declined offers and empty sites abounded. They had to resort to advertising on the huts in Sidmouth to get people to take them up.

If sites ARE taken up all it now proves is that:

A. Sidmouth – and Exmouth, Budleigh and Seaton are NOT Brighton.
B. The Asset Management has no idea what asset management is.
C. Only the really well-off can now afford to rent sites.

Thanks Councillor Pook, thanks for nothing.

Voting in the digital age – just one problem …

In a digital age when voting and registration ought to be getting quicker and easier the UK seems to be bent on keeping the system slow and inconvenient.

Other countries do it differently. Belgium, Norway and Israel are trying internet voting, as are a couple of states in America. Online voting would be a boon to Devon and Cornwall, which has pockets of sparsely populated areas where voters have a relatively long and off-putting distance to travel to the polling station.”

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Opinion-Devon-Cornwall-needs-voting-21st-century/story-29239762-detail/story.html

The problem? Many areas of rural Devon (including East Devon) still do not have internet access and seem unlikely to have it for many years, if at all.

And we are still awaiting Councillor Twiss’s Plan B after EDDC’s application for a grant from the Government was turned down (and turned down again on appeal) after the Government said it was not value-for-money.

Another cock-up with voting …

Today’s Express and Echo (page 3) reveals that, as late as 48 hours ago, CEO and Returning Officer Mark Williams was desperately tweeting to find presiding officers for the PCC elections in Lympstone and Exmouth.

The tweet, posted on May 3, at 3.19pm, said: “@eastdevon needs Presiding Officer for Woodbury Village Hall & Exmouth Littlemead Methodist Churchroom for Police election Thurs 5 May”.

The Express and Echo says: “The council came in for criticism in May last year after delays at the count for the General Election in Sidmouth. A representative said at the time that the expected announcement time of 2am was pushed back to 6 am ‘because of the sheer number of ballot papers’ ”

Hard to believe as the turnout was pretty similar to four years before.

And the article neglects to say that these problems are not new. The CEO was hauled before Parliament to explain how he “lost” six thousand voters from the electoral roll (because he decided that individual homes would not be canvassed but that officers would telephone people who need following up – though how he knew who to follow-up was never explained.

And, of course, there was the Case of the Misprinted Postal Ballot Papers in Sidmouth, that had to be withdrawn and resent as they had the wrong voting instructions on them.

It seems that the longer our CEO does the Electoral Officer and Returning Officer jobs (for which he is handsomely recompensed in addition to his CEO salary) the worse he gets at it.

Perhaps time to give up the day job(s)?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/East-Devon-District-Council-explains-reason-late/story-29232946-detail/story.html

Beach huts – what is a stronger word than omnishambles?

So, EDDC has a great idea. Squeeze beach hut site tenants until their pips squeak. Almost double their rents, increase them hugely again next year, stitch renters up so that many cannot reclaim the business rates charged (block rateable value for whole sites), shorten the season by a month and all under the guise of “long waiting lists” and ” only charging market rents” (one of the markets being Brighton).

What happens?

image

image

The yellow notices here in Sidmouth beg for tenants to come forward.

All sites now have between 10-25% plus vacant sites and no waiting lists.

Lost revenue, lost reputation and lost trust.

Well done Asset Management Group and its Chairman, Councillor Geoff Pook.

Seaton Heights: EDDC sees no reason for delay

“GS had been contacting Seaton Heights by email but had not made any progress on contacting the owners at present. It was understood
that there were no barriers to development starting at Seaton Heights, except for stringent S106 requirements. With the economy and property market improving it may be that development could proceed. …”

Click to access 110516-combined-cabinet-agenda.pdf

What EDDC wants to keep secret in the next few months

EDDC has to publish details of “key decisions” it intends to discuss only in the secret part of agendas. This list is in the current agenda for the next Cabinet meeting on 11 May 2016. Here they are:

Sports and Social Club rents
The boundary review for West Hill
Community Infrastructure Levy governance issues
Business Support – options for the future
Thelma Hulbert Gallery – options

Does anyone see any good reason why ANY of these should be secret?

And doesn’t “Business Support – options for the future” scare you – especially as EDDC will be contributing heavily to this via the Local Enterprise Partnership?

Click to access 110516-combined-cabinet-agenda.pdf

Does EDDC know how much S106 money it has and how much is owed?

S106 money is that due to a town or parish where a developer has had to enter into an agreement to provide facilities or infrastructure to mitigate damage caused by a development.

This is the Freedom of Information request to East Devon District Council that reveals how little EDDC knows about how much money is still uncollected from S106 agreements. It should be noted that EDDC employed a S106 Officer and a Community Engagement officer for many years. Indeed, this is the convoluted procedure a town or parish has to go through to access its share of S106 contributions which mentions them by title:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

and it states that the S106 officer knows how much money is available to each town and parish.

The request:

Dear Mr Metcalfe,

Thank you for your request for information. Please see our response to
your request below with supporting documentation attached.

This request concerns agreements made under Section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 (known as s106 agreements) particularly during
financial years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016 (to date) and compliance with
these s106 agreements.

1. How many s106 agreements were made by EDDC in each of the years stated above?

2011/12 – 170 registered agreements
2012/13 – 196
2013/14 – 297
2014/15 – 307

Please note that these are registered agreements and some are likely to
have been withdrawn, refused, or be resubmissions or supplemental agreements. Please see the attached spreadsheet for a breakdown of s106
agreements, where it’s been colour coded into financial years for ease of
reference.

2. What financial contributions were due to EDDC arising from s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

We do not hold this information in a format which enables us to easily identify the financial contributions that were due to EDDC arising from s106 agreements in each financial year.

To find this detail we would need to check through each agreement during the stated time period. The attached list of each of the applications where a s106 agreement was registered can be searched online
here:
[1]http://eastdevon.gov.uk/planning/view-pl…

Simply enter the relevant application number into the search box and all
associated documents can then be accessed.

We estimate that to search through each of these agreements to locate the
ones specifically relevant to your request will take around 30 hours of
officer time. We know that it has taken an experienced officer some 6
hours to search through 200 of these documents and this is what we have
based our estimate on. This information is therefore exempt from
disclosure under s12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

I am sorry that we cannot provide this information but hope that you will
find the application reference numbers helpful in conducting any searches
of your own. If you have any difficulties using the online search
facility, please let us know.

3. What financial contributions were received by EDDC for s106
agreements in each of the years stated above?

2014/15 – £2,464,737.56
2015/16 – £1,825,993.28.

4. In respect to monitoring of s106 agreements, how many agreements
have not been complied with in each of the years stated above? In cases
where there has been a breach of the obligation, how many direct actions
has EDDC taken to recover the payments due and expenses? –

This information is not held.

5. How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?

This information is not held.

If you are not satisfied with the way we have responded to your request,
please fill in our online complaint form[2]www.eastdevon.gov.uk/making_a_complaint or write to the Monitoring
Officer, EDDC, Knowle, Sidmouth, EX10 8HL.

Yours sincerely,

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

EDDC has no idea how much S106 money is owed to them

“How much revenue for s106 agreements in total is now owing to EDDC
(regardless of what year the agreement was made) because payment has not
been made?”

This information is not held”

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s106_agreement_monitoring_and_co#incoming-797580

First East Devon Alliance conference

The Who Cares What You Think? conference at EDDC HQ , Knowle, last Saturday (23 April marked a turning point for the new political group of Independents, established in March 2015, just one year ago.

They have now joined forces with colleagues from across the South West.

Background

The East Devon Alliance of Independents (IEDA) have been hard at work since winning remarkable support in the May 2015 elections, which saw the number of Independent East Devon District Councillors increase five-fold, to 15.

Since then, two major IEDA reports have been accepted by Parliament:

House of Lords Select Committee on the economics of housing in the UK and

National Audit Office (Local Enterprise Partnerships)

The latter report, on LEPs, has just been sent to a higher level, the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC), at the suggestion of the National Audit Office (NAO).

Making a difference

Meanwhile, the new IEDA Councillors have brought positive change:

– raising the level of debate
– producing well-researched reports so that decisions can be based on evidence rather than party allegiance
– introducing proper scrutiny.

Full report on the Who Cares What You Think? conference coming soon.

Local Plan: more than 1,000 extra homes already projected – 18,391 not 17,100

As we expected, too many unaffordable, greenfield properties being built.

“83% of completions [in East Devon] on Greenfield sites (including fields and undeveloped greenspaces, barn conversions and garden sites)” …

… “A grand total of 18,391 net new dwellings are now projected to have been completed over the full plan period (2013-2031). This is above the 17,100 minimum figure of housing need outlined by the new Local Plan.” …

… “3.1 The final page of the HMU sets out the five year land supply calculation based on the 30 September 2015 monitor. It shows that East Devon can demonstrate 5.54 years supply of land for housing taking account of a 20% buffer as required by paragraph 47 of the NPPF for authorities that have persistently under-delivered in previous years.

3.2 Paragraph 47 of the NPPF sets out that in calculating the five year land supply authorities should apply a 5% buffer, or a 20% buffer where there has been a record of persistent under delivery. Application of the 20% buffer is a conservative approach to take. The Council could be more bullish and say that clearly it is now delivering above requirements and so the 5% buffer should apply in which case the Council could demonstrate a higher land supply figure, but it is recommended to apply the 20% figure for the time being.

3.3 This, along with the application of SHLAA methodology build-out rates and a robust but conservative assessment of future windfalls means that it is harder for an appellant to argue the five year supply figure down.

3.4 The calculation shows that over the five year period a surplus of 617 net new dwellings are projected to be built over the district as a whole. This is a healthy surplus that means that should certain sites not deliver or under-deliver there is an added buffer of supply. …”

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/media/1687772/100516-combined-dmc-agenda-compressed.pdf

Community Infrastructure Levy – 2

If CIL replaces Section 106 levy, the district council can put the money received from CIL and spend it wherever and on whatever infrastructure it wishes – in the past S106 money had to be spent close to the particular development.

This means, for example, if most developments take place in Sidmouth, the money could all be spent in Cranbrook.

However, a proportion of CIL money is supposed to any town or parish where a development takes place when it has a neighbourhood plan in place.

Using new powers introduced in the Localism Bill, the Government will require charging authorities to allocate a meaningful proportion of levy revenues raised in each neighbourhood back to that neighbourhood. This will ensure that where a neighbourhood bears the brunt of a new development, it receives sufficient money to help it manage those impacts. It complements the introduction of other powerful new incentives for local authorities that will ensure that local areas benefit from development they welcome.

Local authorities will need to work closely with neighbourhoods to decide what infrastructure they require, and balance neighbourhood funding with wider infrastructure funding that supports growth. They will retain the ability to use the levy income to address the cumulative impact on infrastructure that may occur further away from the development.”

Of course, as always, exceptions will be allowed to avoid it:

Given the importance of ensuring that the levy does not prevent otherwise desirable development, the regulations provide that charging authorities have the option to offer a process for giving relief from the levy in exceptional circumstances where a specific scheme cannot afford to pay the levy. A charging authority wishing to offer exceptional circumstances relief in its area must first give notice publicly of its intention to do so. A charging authority can then consider claims for relief on chargeable developments from landowners on a case by case basis, provided the following conditions are met.

Firstly, a section 106 agreement must exist on the planning permission permitting the chargeable development. Secondly, the charging authority must consider that the cost of complying with the section 106 agreement is greater than the levy’s charge on the development and that paying the full charge would have an unacceptable impact on the development’s economic viability. Finally, relief must not constitute a notifiable state aid.”

Click to access 1897278.pdf

Rush to avoid Community Infrastructure Levy?

According to Official Notices in the press, Community Infrastructure Levy will become payable to EDDC from 1 September 2016. This is charged per square metre and is in bands with Cranbrook being lowest and Sidmouth being highest.

Should we expect a rush to get planning permissions past the Development Management Committee before 31 August? Would this explain why Bovis is rushing through its application for phase 2 of its Seaton development where it wants zero affordable housing? Will we see the Pegasuslife Knowle application done and dusted before the end of August too?

Austerity – not at East Devon District Council!

The employee statistics for EDDC make very interesting reading. It can be hard to work out what is going on, as structural changes such as the creation of Strata, or the transfer of traffic wardens to DCC, can distort the numbers.

However, between May 2015 and March 2016, the number of staff measured by full-time equivalent has increased by 23. And the number of new starters exceeds staff leavers by a whopping 34.

The cost of 23 full-time staff, when all the extras are taken into account could be of the order of £1 million per annum. Has this been budgeted for?

And, of course, the new HQ at Honiton is going to have to be substantially bigger, and therefore more expensive, to accommodate all those extra people.

Since relocation was first proposed, and the HQ space needs assessed, the number of full-time equivalent staff appears to have risen by about 50.

Voting omnishambles – they deal with them differently in the USA

“A New York City Board of Elections official has been suspended after reports of voters being turned away and polling sites opening late in Brooklyn during Tuesday’s presidential primary election.

Brooklyn Chief Clerk Diane Haslet-Rudiano has been suspended without pay pending an internal probe into ‘the administration of the voter rolls’
Roughly eight percent of active voters in Brooklyn were removed from the voter-registration roll.

Haslett-Rudiano made an error that caused them to be removed during a periodical purging for voters who died or moved away. Other problems included some polling sites being opened late, training of poll workers and incorrect primary notifications were mailed out.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3554123/New-York-election-official-suspended-primary-voting-issues-Brooklyn-removing-100-000-active-voters-registration-roll.html

Around 6 per cent of voters in East Devon disappeared from our electoral roll, postal voting papers had to be reissued because they were wrongly printed (blamed on inexperienced helpers) and our electoral officer decided not to send out election officials to visit homes where people were not registered and the officer was called to a parliamentary committee to explain himself.

Then? Nothing at all happened.

Exmouth: 95% of those who voted want more consultation on seafront plans

Which means we return to the question: who does a council represent – its developers or its voters? What should a council’s over-arching aim be: economic growth at all costs or social and environmental representation?

Back to the drawing board, EDDC. Or ignore your voters?

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Exmouth-Seafront-94-cent-vote-consultation/story-29151530-detail/story.html

Devolution – not all it is cracked up to be

There are significant accountability implications arising from ‘devolution deals’ which central government and local areas will need to develop and clarify, the National Audit Office has said.

In a report, English devolution deals, the spending watchdog said these implications included “the details of how and when powers will be transferred to mayors and how they will be balanced against national parliamentary accountability”.

The NAO noted that the ten deals agreed so far involved increasingly complex administrative and governance configurations.

It stressed that, as devolution deals were new and experimental, “good management and accountability both depend on appropriate and proportionate measures to understand their impact”.

The watchdog said that to improve the chances of success, and provide local areas and the public with greater clarity over the progression of devolution deals, central government should clarify the core purposes of the arrangements as well as who will be responsible and accountable for devolved services and functions.

Central government should also ensure it identifies and takes account of risks to devolution deals that arise from ongoing challenges to the financial sustainability of local public services, the NAO added.
HM Treasury and the Cities and Local Growth Unit are responsible for managing the negotiation, agreement and implementation of devolution deals on behalf of central government as a whole.

Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, said: “Despite several iterations of deals, the Government’s approach to English devolution still has an air of charting undiscovered territory. It is in explorer mode, drawing the map as it goes along.

“Some of the opportunities and obstacles are becoming clearer, but we still do not have a clear view of the landscape or, crucially, an idea of the destination.”

Morse added: “Devolution deals provide important opportunities to reform public services. As with any experiment, some elements will work better than others. As we have said before, it is in the interests of both local areas and the government to know which programmes have the biggest impact for the money invested. Localism is not a reason for failure to learn from experiences or to spread best practice.”

Responding to the NAO report, a Local Government Association spokesman said: “Councils are working hard on implementing agreed deals and are working with government to finalise those deals which are still to be signed.

“It is imperative that the momentum is maintained to secure deals, especially in non-metropolitan areas whose economic potential is just as significant as that of big cities.”

“In terms of accountability, devolution has the potential to improve the democratic process by allowing decisions to be made closer to local people to best meet their needs. But councils should be free to put in place the appropriate model of governance for their communities and not have a ‘one-size-fits-all’ model imposed on them where significant new responsibilities are devolved.”

The LGA spokesman added: “The report rightly recognises the possible complications arising from differing geographies for service delivery and councils, particularly for the recently announced sustainability and transformation plans. Councils and their partners will continue to take a pragmatic approach to designing and delivering services that best meet the needs of their communities.

“We support the study’s findings that devolution needs to be accompanied by fair and sustainable funding by Whitehall to manage risk and ensure devolved areas can run services successfully.

“This will help to ensure that the opportunities provided by devolution – delivering economic growth, building more homes, creating jobs and a skilled workforce, and joining up health and care services – will be actively embraced by both local and central government.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26690%3Aspending-watchdog-warns-on-devolution-deals-and-accountability&catid=59&Itemid=27

Publicans and ex-publicans enjoy a jolly good night out …

image

Colin Brown, East Devon District Councillor for Dunkeswell, EDDC Development Management Committee and Licensing Enforcement Committee, of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton; director of Bell Vue Developments

Paul Diviani, Leader EDDC, Devon County Councillor and Local Enterprise Partnership board member and formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

Jenny Wheatley-Brown, also of the Monkton Court Hotel, Honiton and Conservative candidate for district council seat (lost) at Seaton at the last election and also director of Bell Vue Developments

and

John O’Leary, EDDC Councillor, Licensing Enforcement Committee, with special responsibility for the Thelma Hulbert Gallery, Honiton and Town Councillor for Honiton St Pauls, also formerly of the Stockland Arms Hotel, Stockland

at The Deer Park Country House Hotel for the unveiling of it’s orangery.

Photographer: Terry Ife (Midweek Herald)

Councillors Elson and Moulding think our LEP will improve healthcare – but seem unable to explain why

We must go forward they say – but don’t appear to know which forward is. And they don’t seem to have any idea what they are signing up for. Neither do they appear to know just how an LEP with no NHS membership or background, or even a dedicated budget, or without any proven track record on health-related funding might improve things.

But it won’t stop them puffing it up or voting for it! Read and weep – yet again. If anything proves the sheep mentality of our majority party councillors, this is the cast-iron evidence:

If successful, The Heart of the South West (HOTSW) deal will see powers devolved from the Government to a new combined authority made up of 19 local authorities in Devon and Somerset.

It is hoped devolution will attract more investment to East Devon, leading to 163,000 new jobs in the South West, as well as faster road and rail journeys to the region and wages higher than the national average by 2030.

The matter was up for discussion when it went before members of EDDC’s cabinet last week.

Councillor Jill Elson said she had concerns about the democratic value of the deal and how much input constituents would have. She added: “If you have 19 leaders for all the councils making the decisions, how is that going to be disseminated to the elected members of all the various councils and their residents?”

Cllr Elson said there was also an issue with the health budget, because nobody knew how much it was going cost.

“Older populations need more and more care – whether they are at home or in homes, it is not going to be financially viable because at the moment there are not enough community care workers to actually have people in their own homes,” she added.

“There is one whole ward at the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital of people just waiting to come out because Devon County Council cannot provide the service – the council is going to be left with some real problems, as is the NHS.”

Cllr Elson said nobody seemed to know how the skills shortage issue would be addressed either.

“The one thing we are missing is a national vocational qualification for those residents who do not have an English degree, but are very good electricians, plumbers and so on,” she said.

Cllr Andrew Moulding, deputy leader, said it was not known exactly what was going to be negotiated, but there would be a period of negotiation and bosses would get the details they needed.

He added one of the deal’s main aims was to improve productivity and that would come by getting younger people involved in learning the right skills earlier on, which in turn would lead to more apprenticeships.

Cllr Moulding said there was a vast need to improve healthcare.

“If that can be done by bringing it down to a level where we can really get to grips with healthcare in this region, to me that has to be a benefit over what we have at the moment,” he added.

“I think we should grasp this opportunity. We want to get more control over our own decisions, rather than leaving them with the Government. If this can be done at a more regional level, then I welcome it.”

Cllr Mark Williamson said: “We should go into this positively, looking at it as an opportunity for East Devon and our residents.It will hopefully mean we can deliver a better service.”

Cllr Eileen Wragg added: “Everything needs much fairer funding and we will only get a chance to influence this if we go forward with this.”

The next step of the process will be for EDDC to nominate a representative who will then join 18 others from similar authorities at briefing sessions on the devolution proposals.

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_devolution_should_be_grasped_as_opportunity_1_4497198

“Foreign aid spending to overtake council funding next year”

“Foreign aid spending will outstrip the amount given to councils to collect bins, install street lights and run local services for the first time next year, official government estimates show.

Forecasts buried in the Treasury’s Budget book reveal that spending on international development will hit £9.3bn in 2017/18 – overtaking local government spending of £8.2bn that year.

Tory MPs questioned whether at a time when councils are under “massive pressure” from cuts it was right to be spending “shedload of taxpayers’ money” on foreign aid. …

… Day-to-day spending at the Department for International Development [Dfid] will increase from £7.2bn to £10.4bn over the next five years, according to Treasury estimated released last month,

Over the same period spending on local government will drop from £10.8bn to £6.2bn as the government cuts central funding for councils. The crossover will happen in 2017/18.

Ministers justified the cut at the time by arguing extra council tax raising powers and the right to keep more money raised from business rates would counter the impact.

However council bosses have reacted with fury at the cuts from Treasury funding and said the new powers will not cover the financial black hole.

Tory MPs reacted with fury to the idea the government is prioritising foreign aid at a time when, bin collection, protection of the elderly and other council-run services are under pressure from the cuts.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a former Tory shadow minister, said: “We are at the point of facing a real crisis in local government where absolutely essential services, such as care for the elderly, are under massive pressure.

“By contrast Dfid is awash with cash and struggling to find ways of pushing this vast shedload of taxpayers’ money out of the door.

“Politics is about priorities. Surely after all the austerity we need to show the British people that we’ve got out priories right? The priority must be to look after the vulnerable citizens at home and to strengthen our defences in the face of very dangerous turbulent world out there.”

The majority of local authorities across the country have taken advantage of new powers to increase council tax by close to 4 per cent in the next financial year, partly to help fund social care.

However the Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils, said the new powers would not cover the major cuts in centralised funding from Whitehall.

An LGA spokesman said: “Councils are increasingly having to do more with less and to try and protect services, such as caring for the elderly, protecting children and reducing homelessness, in the face of growing demand. This means having less to spend on many of the other services people value, such as filling potholes and funding leisure facilities like pools, gyms and parks, libraries and museums.

“The next few years will continue to be a challenge. While extra council tax flexibilities will help some councils offset some of the funding pressures they face, it will not prevent the need for further cutbacks to local services. Many will continue to have to make significant reductions to local services to plug funding gaps.”

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman defended the decision to spend 0.7 per cent of foreign aid, noting how money had been used to help tackle the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Asked about the failure of other rich countries to reach the 0.7 spending level, the spokesman said they should “step up to the plate” and meet the commitment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/14/foreign-aid-spending-to-overtake-council-funding-next-year/

Rural broadband – no guarantees people will ever get it

EDDC chose to remove itself from the Devon BDUK contract negotiations to go-it-alone with a government grant application which was recently refused.

People living and working in isolated rural areas may miss out on taxpayer-funded broadband despite a Government pledge to roll-out “universal” superfast speeds, the UK minister responsible for the telecoms sector has warned.

Ed Vaizey told a gathering of MPs, “I’m not going to guarantee to you that every single premise is going to get 10 Mpbs but it should be potentially possible.”

Last year, the Government promised that everyone should have the legal right to request a 10 Mbps connection by the end of this Parliament, no matter where they live. Mr Vaizey said then that this could come into force as early as 2017.

But when MPs on the culture, media and sport committee asked if this could be truly universal, he suggested limiting the amount of public funding available on hard-to-reach properties.

Mr Vaizey also admitted to “significant delays” in the DCMS’ Broadband Delivery UK (BDUK ) unit, which hands out subsidies to make delivering superfast broadband in rural areas economically viable.

He said BDUK is currently “on track” with its target to cover 95pc of Britain’s geography with superfast broadband by 2017, which it defines as achieving minimum speeds of 10 Mpbs.

But he blamed delays in rolling out internet on local authorities, saying that councils took too long to negotiate contracts. Negotiations were “extremely time-consuming and significantly delayed the project,” he said. “I should’ve intervened much earlier.”

This latest hearing comes one day after Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, faced the same group of MPs, who asked about the regulator’s plans to reform BT Openreach.

Ofcom has proposed sweeping changes to further distance Openreach from BT, for example, by giving the division control over its own finances, but Ms White said discussions with BT are still in their “early stages” and may not reach a voluntary agreement.

Ms White did not set a deadline on negotiations but said that a timescale of when to expect changes would be available later in the summer.

Gavin Patterson, BT’s chief executive, also faced a grilling from the cross-party committee last month during which he admitted that Openreach misses 1,000 repair appointments a week.

The committee is due to present its final report to the Government in the summer.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/13/minister-admits-broadband-blackspots-may-be-too-expensive-to-cov/