Agenda item

To consider a report by the PCC on CCTV provision and the possibility of establishing a CCTV partnership with local authorities in Thames Valley.

The Panel was provided with a report on CCTV provision across the Thames Valley.

The PCC reported that CCTV provision across Thames Valley was varied, with each Local Policing Area (LPA) and local authority working to provide CCTV as a joint approach.

There was an issue across Thames Valley regarding the ownership of the equipment, where it was housed, and who employed the staff. Reference was made to the previous Local Policing Dept. who owned the CCTV strategy and negotiated a new Funding Formula, but this was not adopted in all areas.

Significant efforts have been made to progress both the Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire hubs.

The PCC reported that there was a lack of clarity on who was responsible, and that there was no statutory requirement to provide CCTV, which meant it was discretionary for all partners.

The PCC outlined his vision for the future. The PCC recognised that CCTV existed primarily for the benefit of policing and the wider interests of community safety, however, it did not generally form part of the core function of local authorities. It was acknowledged that policing had the main responsibility for providing the CCTV capability within the Thames Valley, but this would take time to implement.

The PCC’s long-term vision was for TVP to own the equipment/contracts, be responsible for maintenance and to employ staff to monitor the service. However there needed to be a Thames Valley CCTV Partnership arrangement, with contributions from participative local authorities, both financially and in kind. This partnership would enable principle local authorities, with parish/town councils; BIDs; private businesses to contribute financially to increase coverage in their locality.

The PCC reported that funding to the partnership would likely be based on a funding formula, similar to that used for the Community Safety Fund, to provide baseline coverage and additional charges based on extra provision that may be provided.

Reference was made to discussions which have already begun with Milton Keynes Council and councils in Oxfordshire. Oxfordshire was the area which seemed most likely to be able to make a change first, should all partners be willing, and this could form the model for the rest of Thames Valley.

Thames Valley Police currently has a capital budget of £472,000 available to support moves to a new model, and the PCC said he would create an earmarked revenue reserve of £1m.

Discussion took place on elements of the funding of such provision, and in particular, the funding which would be required for the personnel who would be required to monitor the CCTV screens. The PCC replied that there would be a considerable financial burden on the Police, and local authorities would have to provide funding. There could be an option of transferring all staff to the Police to centralise the service.      

Members’ Questions

1.             Reference was made to West Berkshire, where the Council and Parish Councils were concerned regarding the sustainability of the proposed model.

[The PCC reported that the proposal was an ambition, and the partnership arrangements would be primarily with upper tier local authorities, although there was nothing precluding Town and Parish Councils becoming involved and providing finance for local coverage.]

2.             Reference was made to the aspiration of the Central Hub and the partnership with Buckinghamshire Council and the availability of the joint control room, and the PCC was asked whether CCTV doorbells would be a useful tool for the Police.

[The PCC replied that doorbell CCTV worked very well in Lancashire, where householders registered their CCTV systems with the Police. This would be a good resource for the Police to use.]

3.    The PCC was asked how big a challenge was getting Councils onboard?

[The PCC commented that it was a challenge getting every local authority to sign up for the contracts funding. In Oxfordshire, local authorities were already looking at a centralised control room and this would be a good model when focussing on other parts of Thames Valley. Further down the line, the systems could be brought together to get Thames Valley wide coverage.

The PCC commented that there were great benefits on centralising, not least costs, but there had to be good joint working from all parties. TVP taking the lead role would take away any conflicts which local authorities may have as the primary role of the CCTV would be for preventing and fighting crime.]

4.             A Member referred to the partnership working very well in Oxford City, with the visuals from the cameras being excellent. There were experienced officers, and it was important that these were retained. The Council had coverage in towers blocks and this made communities feel safer.

[The PCC commented that for the CCTV partnership to work, there needed to be a continuation of funding from Councils. CCTV in tower blocks gave Councils improved community safety for their residents.]

5.             The PCC was asked about Windsor where the Council had invested over £1m in CCTV in public spaces. The level of monitoring of the cameras needed more localised control. There was difficulty getting the Police to contribute. There could be an option of enforcement by camera.

[The PCC replied that partnership work would be challenging, there was the need for negotiation on both sides. There would be operational challenges for the Police in terms of capacity. Enforcement by camera could be an option.]    

RESOLVED – That the report of the PCC be noted, together with the information provided at the meeting.