Agenda and draft minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mughal.

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 approve the minutes of the meeting of 7 September 2006.

AGREED;

That the minutes of the meeting of 7 September be confirmed.

To receive a presentation from the Panel’s external advisers on the effective use of CCTV for community safety purposes.

The Panel received a presntation from Dr. Tim Pascoe from PRCI about the use of CCTV for community safety purposes.  PRCI were a “spin out” company from the University of Leicester and specialised in looking at issues concerned with community safety and, in particular, CCTV.   They could provide a range of services including research, consultancy, evaluation and training and facilitation.

They were currently assisting the Council and the Safer Communities Partnership by reviewing the operation of CCTV systems within the Borough and this included providing support for the scrutiny review on the issue.

Where CCTV systems had been successful, they had clear objectives and sustainable strategies.  CCTV as a crime prevention measure appeared to have a life cycle.  It was necessary to renew and update systems from time to time and to market them so that the public remained aware of their existence otherwise deterrent value would be lost.  CCTV had greater preventative effects on some types of crimes, such as car park crime, than others.  It had little effect in deterring disorder but could be effective in assisting an effective response to it.  It was most beneficial when used in conjunction with other crime reduction measures and tailored to the local setting.  It did not always have to be used to just deal with the “hard” issues – it could also be used for finding lost children, helping people find their cars and monitoring traffic.

There was clear evidence that CCTV made people feel safer and that they had considerable faith in its deterrence value.  There were now over 4 million cameras in operation within the UK and their numbers had trebled within the last 3 years.  The National Evaluation of CCTV had shown that CCTV could work but in a lot of cases, it did not work as well as it could. 

Many projects suffered from not having clear objectives.  The existence of funding for CCTV had created pressure to bid for it during its early years, often in the absence of reliable intelligence indicating where CCTV would be likely to have the most effect.  Schemes needed to be properly managed and this required:

·        Access to technical expertise

·        The full engagement of end-users

·        The appointment of a suitable project manager

·        Independence.

There was a shortage of suitably qualified people to manage schemes.  Independence was of particular importance as there could often be tensions between partners involved in schemes. 

As a result of the lack of guidance on how many cameras to bid for, the number and density of cameras varied widely between schemes. Too little coverage tended to prevent efforts to track offenders for detective and evidential purposes.  However, systems with a high density of cameras did not necessarily produce a greater reduction in crime.  Camera coverage was linked to camera positioning and needed to take account of the nature of the area to be monitored and the objectives of the CCTV system

Police intelligence was invaluable when positioning decisions were taken, as was the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

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.

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

The Panel noted that the officers from the Environment Service would be attending the next meeting of the Panel on 19 October to outline the way that CCTV was used to deal with environmental crime and parking.  The following meeting would be on 30 October and would provide an opportunity for the Panel to hear the views of local residents and traders.  The meeting would focus on their perceptions of CCTV and whether its current use had met their expectations in deterring crime.

There were no such items.