Agenda and draft minutes

None.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. (Late items will be considered under the agenda item where they appear. New items will be dealt with at item ?? below. New items of exempt business will be dealt with at item ?? below).

None received.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgement of the public interest.

There were no such declarations.

To note the following terms of reference for the review:

“To consider the effectiveness and value for money of CCTV in contributing to community safety and to make recommendations on options for improving co-ordination between different systems, future installations and maximising its effectiveness”

Noted.

To consider progress with the review and future timetable (attached).

The Panel noted that the consultants that were working with the Council on this issue – PRCI - wished to meet with the Chair to outline the nature of their work and their input to the scrutiny review.  It was agreed that a meeting would be arranged.

Mr Sweeny that reported that relevant residents organisations had been identified from the west of the Borough for PRCI to interview as part of their research but were still being sought from the east.  It was agreed that Neighbourhood Management would be asked to suggest appropriate groups.  PRCI would be looking at two incidents as case studies of the effectiveness of the cameras.  In addition, they would be sending out questionnaires to a wide range of people including local residents and staff.  In order to encourage participation, PRCI were proposing to offer entry into a prize draw with a digital camera as a prize to encourage people to respond, provided the Council  had no objection to this being offered to staff.

Members of the Panel would be visiting the CCTV control  room at Woodside House in order to get an impression of how the system worked.  It was agreed that Members would undertake these visits on 11 and 13 September.

The Panel will receive a presentation from the Council’s CCTV Coordinator on the main current schemes in operation within Haringey, how they work and  their purpose and intended benefits.

Michael Pollak, the Council’s CCTV Coordinator and Sean Sweeny, the Police Projects Officer, gave a joint presentation on the main CCTV systems within the Borough and their contribution to community safety.

The Panel noted that CCTV had initially been introduced to the Borough in the 1990s through the CCTV Challenge process.  Wood Green and Tottenham high streets as well as two housing estates were covered by a total of 33 community safety cameras.  These were all monitored and recorded for 24 hours per day.  Relocatable systems were in place in Crouch End and Muswell Hill. These were situated near possible trouble spots.  In practice, the cameras were only partially relocatable.   These which were not entirely satisfactory as only one of the cameras that were in place in each location could be viewed at a time. 

There were a total of 11 parking enforcement cameras in place.  These were only used during the daytime or parking regulation hours.  Whilst these were not specifically community safety cameras, they were to be integrated into the community safety system shortly.  In addition, there were a 9 Transport for London cameras that were there to enforce parking regulations.

In addition, there were 9 mobile cameras that were operated by the Environment Service that were used to address environmental crime.  These had hard discs within the camera which could be reviewed by staff.  They were generally located within a particular hot spot for two weeks and used to gather evidence.

There were two other CCTV systems within the Borough that were significant.  There was a covert mobile system that was used to collect evidence in cases of anti social behaviour and had been successful in helping the closure of brothels and dealing with disruptive youths.  In addition, there was an overt van that had been used in a number of locations such as Tottenham Hotspur, Finsbury Park and around schools at the end of the school day. There were also systems that were controlled from outside the Borough such as ones that covered the main transport routes and smaller digital systems, some of which could be worn on the body. 

The CCTV control room could undertake work other then community safety for time-to-time, such as assisting with operations by the Environment Service and targeted operations with the Police such as Operation Blunt.  Management and coordination were undertaken by a CCTV Steering Group. In addition, there was a Tasking Group that was responsible for looking at how the cameras were used. 

The staff who worked in the Control Room were generally security guards and the current contract was with Reliance Security.  Re-tendering was currently being undertaken.  All operators had to be licensed.  The control room would shortly be moving to new premises.  This would enable community safety and parking control to be located within the same building, which would improve communication and facilitate the sharing of resources.  The control room had police radio so could hear and communicate with officers.  This allowed officers to direct cameras to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

There were no such items.