Issue - meetings

1)  That the intention be noted to re-negotiate the service provided by Medway and extend the CCTV partnership agreement for one year to 31 March 2018;

2)  That it be noted that a review of the current provision and siting of static cameras would be carried out to ensure the Council complies with the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice 2013; and

3)  That the options be agreed for the use of CCTV funding to be developed further and a final recommendation to be made to this Committee in February 2017 as follows:-

* reduce the CCTV service – considering reduced camera numbers

  and reduced hours of active monitoring of the static CCTV and
  mobile cameras

* explore other funding or commercial opportunities

* better use of new technology

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Housing and Communities which summarised the findings from the review of CCTV funding carried out June – October 2016 and recommended what options should be developed in more detail to be reported back to the February Committee meeting.

It was noted that the CCTV operation costs the Council in the region of £340,000 a year, the operation of the 95 static cameras are monitored 24/7 and maintained by Medway Council at a cost to the Council of £315,000.  The Council also operates 28 mobile cameras which are administered by a PCSO, the Council pays half of the salary of the postholder.  The cost of the mobile CCTV service was in the region of £25,000.

Officers advised that at present Medway Council maintain the CCTV system on behalf of the Council as part of a partnership agreement with Medway, Swale and Gravesham Councils.  The CCTV partnership agreement expires on 31 March 2017 and discussions had been held with the other councils and the provider with a view to extending the partnership agreement for 12 months and the consideration of what level of service is required. 

Members’ attention was drawn to the key findings of the review set out in the report. The review found that CCTV by itself was not particularly effective in preventing crime and disorder, although it was more effective when used with other interventions.

It was noted that Kent Police and the Police Crime Commissioner had made it clear that they would not be able to contribute towards the annual ongoing revenue cost of CCTV. 

Councillor Mrs Gooch addressed the Committee as a Visiting Member and as the Council’s representative at the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel.  She advised that in attending the Panel she had taken the opportunity to ask the Police Crime Commissioner (PCC) what impact it would have on the police service in their investigation of crime if the Council reduced its CCTV operation. 

In his response the PCC stated that in reviewing the CCTV operation Councils should be mindful to consider the value that each camera provided in terms of how often it had been used for evidence gathering.  He added that both he and the Police valued it and it was an example of where there should be collaborative working on non-statutory services to ensure that the best is being done by the public.

He did confirm that he could not commit any funding for the CCTV operation and neither could the Police.  However he did suggest that the Council may be able to get funding from the Safer Maidstone Partnership.

In response to comments from Members, it was noted that:-

·  The data provided by Medway is the same kind of data the Council received when the service was carried out in-house.

·  A review of the cameras was carried out in 2014 and a number were de-commissioned.  A regular review would continue to be carried out.

·  There is a duplication of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105