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 7 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 2 October 2006. (TO FOLLOW).

AGREED;

That agreement of the minutes of the meeting of 2 October 2006 (tabled) be deferred until the next meeting.

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

The Panel noted that representatives of residents associations and traders would be attending the next meeting.  It was agreed that the CCTV Coordinator would be asked to attend as well in case any technical issues were raised.

There were no such items.