Issue - meetings

To receive feedback on the outcomes of the external review commissioned by the the Safer Communities Partnership on current CCTV installations within the Borough that address crime and community safety issues and presentation of options for further development.

.

To receive the views of a group of invited local residents and traders on the perceived effectiveness of CCTV systems in their localities and, in particular, finding out if their expectations have been met.

The Panel received evidence from a number of local residents and traders from three locations within the Borough – Muswell Hill, Green Lanes and Tottenham.

Residents and traders from Green Lanes felt that they had been misled about the purpose of CCTV cameras that had been installed in the area.  They had been told that their purpose was to help keep bus lanes clear and to promote community safety.  Since their installation, people had stopped abusing bus lanes but the cameras were now being used to enforce yellow box junction offences.  The camera near Endymion Road was now the 6^th. highest earning camera in London.  They felt that the cameras were not there for community safety purposes but to raise money for the Council.

Mr Pollak stated that the cameras in question had been installed using Transport for London (TfL) funding and were only used by the parking service.  The community safety and parking control rooms were moving to new premises where they would share a single control room.  TfL cameras would continue to be used for yellow box junction and bus lane enforcement whilst the community safety cameras would be used for solely for community safety purposes and not for parking except in areas where it was considered too dangerous for parking attendants (there were currently 4 community safety cameras that were being used for this purpose). The new working arrangements would better allow parking cameras to be used for community safety purposes in out of hours periods and the ultimate aim was that all cameras would be used around the clock. 

. 

Parking cameras were already sometimes used for community safety and the Police had recently used ones in Green Lanes as part of an operation.  In addition to the parking cameras, there were also community safety cameras present in the Green Lanes area.

In respect of Tottenham, it was also felt by traders in the area that the cameras were not being used for the benefit of residents but to raise revenue.   They had originally been told that cameras would be used for community safety purposes after 7:00 p.m. and at weekends and that they could also be used to monitor any incident that took place during the day.  This did not appear to be happening as cameras appeared to be switched off after hours.  Cameras that had been placed in car parks had proven to be very successful and made people feel safer.

There was a radio link between shops and the CCTV control room but this had proven to be very inefficient and it was difficult to get hold of anyone.  It was felt that the system needed good management with operators being more proactive in their approach.  They felt that having CCTV cameras was a good thing but community safety needed to be their highest priority and determine their use. 

Mr. Pollak stated that community safety always took precedence in the event of an incident taking place near parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27

To receive evidence from officers the Environment Service on their use of CCTV to address environmental crime and parking offences and how this may link in with measures to promote community safety within the Borough.

The Panel received evidence from Tony Chapman, from the Council’s Environmental Crime Group.  It was noted that CCTV was a small part of the work that the service undertook to address environmental crime. In 2003/4, Members had agreed to invest in surveillance equipment to be used in combating dumping hotspots across the borough.  The equipment was to act as a visible deterrent to continuous dumping of waste at known problem areas. 

Prior to 2006/07 cameras were deployed at a number of known dumping hotspots.  Reductions in the quantity and frequency of dumping were recorded although regular instances of dumping still continued. However, there had not been enough follow up after surveillance to sufficiently deter people from dumping to make a more significant impact. 

Camera systems were not cheap to buy and required regular maintenance and updating.   They required frequent input from field officers to check if they needed maintenance, contained evidence and were still deployed in a suitable location.  Sentry Scope and Sherpa systems were not capable of sending information to a central location therefore requiring officer time to visit the deployment site to retrieve evidence.  Briefcase systems relied on line of site communication between the camera and operator to be effective, therefore requiring officers to be present at the deployment site while the camera was in operation. 

Following the launch of the Street Enforcement Team in September 2005 and a planned recall of the camera systems for necessary maintenance between February and March 2006, the camera systems available had been used in conjunction with a series of proactive projects focussed on reducing hotspots identified by key partners in Haringey Accord and Waste Management.  The equipment had now proven to be a more useful tool when used in conjunction with proactive work rather than a stand along deterrent.

Before September 2005, no formal action had yet been taken using evidence gathered from these camera systems.  Since the launch of the newly configured Street Enforcement Teams, in excess of 50 reported dumping hot spots had been removed from the hot spot list following intensive surveillance, waste removal and education of the local community.   Intelligence gathered from some of these locations had contributed to seven formal investigations concerning alleged fly tipping offences, five of which were being prepared for prosecution and two which had resulted in the offenders receiving written formal cautions.

The system had cost to buy £412,000 to purchase which had been funded by NRF monies. This included capital and revenue costs. General maintenance of the equipment cost approximately £6,500 per annum. All systems were now outdated and would benefit from upgrade to current technology available. Systems did not necessarily require replacing to do this but an upgrade to the current systems would still cost in excess of £30,000. 

Officers from the Street Enforcement Team generally installed the equipment with the assistance of a Council electrician when necessary. Officers received training on the use of the equipment and regulations regarding the use of CCTV. 

Images captured during an investigation were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20

To receive evidence from the Police Service and the Council’s Anti Social Behaviour Team on their use of CCTV systems.

Mr Kibblewhite answered questions regarding the operation of the covert CCTV van that operated within the Borough. The rationale behind its purchase had been to provide public reassurance and reduce crime and anti social behaviour. The van was primarily to deter disorder and robbery.  Examples of where it had been deployed were outside schools, in Finsbury Park and outside Tottenham Hotspur football ground.  It was a very effective deterrent and could cause potentially troublesome groups of people to disperse quickly. It also helped to detect crimes in certain instances.  For example, it had helped to catch some young people who had undertaken a robbery on a bus and assisted in identifying individuals involved in an assault on a bar manager.  There had not been any prosecutions that had relied solely on evidence collected in this way but it had been a contributory factor in many cases.

When the van was bought, the intention was for it to be used 24 hours per day but, in practice, 6 hours a day had proven to be more achievable.  It was generally used at peak times – early evenings and weekends. The van had been bought by the Safer Communities Partnership but it had been used almost entirely by the Police.  It could be booked by other partners but the Police had priority use and bookings could not be guaranteed as they might need to use it at short notice.  There had been some initial teething technical problems and on some occasions they had not been able to record activity  

The van had cost £75000 to purchase and £25000 to maintain over a 5 year period.  This worked out as being cheaper then the cost of one PC.  It was used sometimes as a replacement for manpower when action was urgently needed. The unit was popular with law abiding people who felt reassured by its presence and could help to calm down volatile situations

He felt that the Police could be more forceful in its use.  It could also be used more regularly.  Its use was particularly good at deterring disorder outside schools.  He also felt that the fixed cameras did not always provide good quality pictures when “zoomed in” on targets. 

Mr. Jones and Mr. Clues explained the role of the Police Video Sentry system.  Mr. Jones stated that when he had come to Haringey, he had found the images that the Police had been getting via CCTV cameras were of poor quality.  He had started the new system up by placing two cameras in a store room in Bruce Grove.  They worked off a narrow beam and were very useful at placing people at a location at a particular time.  Half of the funding for this had come from the Council.  There were now 130 cameras in operation throughout the Borough and these had been installed during the past 5 years.  They were located in shops, offices and storerooms and covered a range of locations including cash points and road junctions.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13