Agenda and minutes

(Assistant to the Chief Executive)  To report the appointment of any substitute members for the meeting.

The Panel noted there were no substitute members.

(Assistant to Chief Executive). To declare interests in any items on the agenda.

In considering whether to declare a personal or a prejudicial interest under the Code of Conduct, Overview & Scrutiny members are asked pay particular attention to paragraph 11 of the Code in addition to the more familiar requirements.

This requires the declaration of a personal and prejudicial interest in any matter before an OS Committee which relates to a decision of or action by another Committee or Sub Committee of the Council, a Joint Committee or Joint Sub Committee in which the Council is involved and of which the Councillor is also a member.

Paragraph 11 does not refer to Cabinet decisions or attendance at an OS meeting purely for the purpose of answering questions or providing information on such a matter.

No declarations of interest were made.

To agree the notes of the last meeting held on 27^th October 2009.

The notes from 27 October 2009 were agreed as a correct record.

CRIME AND DISORDER SCRUTINY ROLE – POLICE & JUSTICE ACT 2006

Members will remember that sections 19 and 20 of the Police & Justice Act 2006 have given powers to local authorities to be able to scrutinise the work of CDRPs/SCPs in the same way as they can the Executive and CDRPs/SCPs are now required to invite this scrutiny at least once a year.

Overview & Scrutiny Committee considered how best to arrange this scrutiny role and concluded that it could best be discharged through the existing Safer, Cleaner, Greener Standing Scrutiny Panel. This Panel in turn decided that it would undertake this important role through allocating two special meetings, the first being in October 2009 and the next being this meeting.

Since this role was a new and untried one, the Panel decided that the first SCP scrutiny meeting should be restricted to topics raised by Members rather than inviting the public at large or other organisations to contribute.  At this meeting it is intended to involve a wider audience and although these meetings are open to the public to attend, a more proactive approach has been taken to encourage public involvement.

At the last SCG scrutiny meeting Councillor Mrs Smith said she would like this forum to look at CCTV coverage and the officers duties in what was described as ‘CCTV co-ordination’,  this therefore will be the main subject of discussion.  Members of the safer communities’ partnership will be present to answer Members questions on this subject and will also be available to answer questions on other topics of concern.

Members will also note that in a later item they will be asked to consider recommending the adoption of the Directorates CCTV code of practice and five year service plan.

The Chairman of the Epping Forest District Safer Communities Partnership, John Gilbert welcomed the meeting to the latest Crime and Disorder Scrutiny meeting, when they were to receive an update on CCTV implementation. The Panel noted that large strides had been made to bring the CCTV up to date and able to be used in evidential terms.

Adrian Petty, the CCTV Operations Operator, began by saying that the drive for better CCTV stemmed initially from the 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks. CCTV had been installed then but the quality of the pictures were in question. The Panel noted:

• There was a need to bring CCTV images and the need for evidence together and also to make sure that the council was compliant with the Data Protection Act;
• There had to be an audit trail in place and a need for adequate maintenance for the cameras;
• They had to identify budgets and bring it all under one umbrella;
• They now deal with all the EFDC CCTV in this area, except for Council buildings;
• Officers also have a mobile system they can deploy very quickly. Using this they have had successes in, for example, eradicating fly-tipping in Darby Drive and are working closely with Essex Police at a number of locations within the District. They can also use it to keep certain ATMs under surveillance;
• The quality of the system in place means that the imagery can provide evidence even in dark conditions;
• They have a ‘Rotakin Testing’ system in place for testing the cameras installed and are the only council in the country to have CCTV “secured by design”.

They now have remote access (via the web) to the cameras live twenty fours a day that would enable officers to check they are working correctly. However the cameras are not monitored all the time as there is no monitoring centre.

The partnership working with the Police also uses the Automatic Number Plate Recognition System and also with the environmental company looking after Bobbingworth Land Fill site. The CCTV system monitors the car parking area, looks for fly-tipping and monitors the reed bed water levels and the monitoring equipment.  This saves officer time in having to visit the site.

CCTV officers are also trained in the use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act if they need to undertake covert surveillance.

They have had successes in investigating burglary, sexual offences, criminal damage, shoplifting, driving offences and fly-tipping.

The Chairman then opened the meeting to questions from Panel members.

Q:        What is secure by design?

A:         This was akin to designing buildings by  specifically taking into account security, the same applied for CCTV systems, e.g. making sure that the cameras could be seen, that the cameras could move etc. generally pre-thinking about the design and location of the system.

Q:        It seems to be about 80% more in favour of law enforcement with a bit of fly-tipping for the Council. Where does Council work stop and the Police work start?

A:         This is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

To consider the attached report.

The Director of Environment and Street Scene, John Gilbert, introduced the two key documents on CCTV, the Service Delivery Plan and the Code of Practice.

The Code of Practice was arguably the more important of the two because it regulated the control of CCTV, based on the national code of practice.

Asked if the protocol would encompass all the CCTV that the Council had responsibility, the Safer Communities Manager replied that it did not cover Town Councils, but District officers were working with them and with Sports and Leisure Management at the leisure centres, but they would eventually need their own code of practice.

Councillor Jacobs asked what the life span of the new system was; was there an allowance in the rate support grant for CCTV; and Ongar Town Council have their own CCTV – should they have let the District do it for them. Adrian Petty, the CCTV Operations Officer, said it was difficult to gauge the life time of the cameras which was why they had a robust maintenance schedule in place. They should get about seven or eight years life out of a camera. The Safer Communities Manager added that there was no central budget from the Home Office for CCTV systems; they were looking at alternative sources of funding and partnership working. Officers had supported Parish and Town Councils with their CCTV systems including Ongar Town Council. There were all sorts of money available to Parish and Town Councils such as partnership working and the District Council that could be made available.

As an example they noted that District officers had worked in partnership with Theydon Bois and their CCTV system.

Members questioned the cost of equipment as outlined in the Service Delivery Plan and were assured that because the equipment was very specialised they were expensive. Members also asked if officers blanked people out on the pictures and if the system would be used to give out fixed penalty notices. They were told that they did not blank out faces, as the images were not publicly available. And, as for using the system for parking enforcement, since this activity is governed by the agreement with Essex Counry Council and they had not adopted the relevant powers, this could not be done in this District.

The documents in front of the Panel were there to provide members with peace of mind on the CCTV surveillance procedures and to break down the budget and the sources of funding.

            RESOLVED:

(1)               That the CCTV Service Delivery Plan and the associated Code of Practice was noted;

(2)               That the following key actions from the action plan was noted and agreed:

(a)               the resource implications;

(b)               the reconfiguration of the post of Safer Communities Assistant to CCTV Support Officer; and

(c)               bringing together the management and maintenance of all CCTV under the remit of the Safer Communities Unit; and

(3)        To recommend accordingly to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

The final programmed meeting of the Panel for this year will be held on 29t^h April 2010.

The date of the Panel’s next meeting was noted.