Agenda item

The committee to receive a presentation on deployable CCTV.

The committee received a presentation of the Associate Director of Planning, Infrastructure and Economy, the Planning Strategy and Infrastructure Lead and Environmental Health Manager.

The presentation covered the provision in Watford, the regulations underpinning the use of CCTV, details about the deployable units and the trial that had been undertaken, the challenges faced and data on effectiveness of the trial programme. The committee was also informed about other measures in place to tackle fly-tipping.

During the course of the subsequent discussion, the following points were made:

•          The Envirocrime team identified hotpots for fly-tipping and made recommendations about locations for CCTV.

•          Consultation had taken place with some ward councillors, but sites were restricted by a number of physical features of the sites and in some cases alternative nearby locations sometimes had had to be sought.  There were specific privacy issues that had to be considered in residential areas.

•          Fly-tipping did continue to happen but the deployable CCTV had not proved to be effective in increasing the number of fixed penalty notices (FPNs) or prosecutions.

•          The cameras had difficulty identifying individuals who were not using a vehicle and could not follow people beyond the range of the camera. They could move but had to have been pointing in the right direction to capture an offence as it happened. The regulations required that signs were in place alerting people to the presence of CCTV. Where there had been FPNs issued, this had often been as a result of other investigative measures.

•          The town centre cameras were part of an effective network over a broader area and benefitted from two-way communication from the Police. There were, however, only a limited number of operatives surveying 300 cameras. These were used in real-time for higher risk crimes but were not a substitute for other safety measures.

•          The cameras could not be repurposed for ANPR uses; this was a power held by Hertfordshire County Council to enforce offending vehicles. Should the trial be ended, the cameras could be repurposed as permanent installations as part of the network; the locations for relocations would be subject to consultation and technical assessment.

•          The cameras provided high-quality images in daylight and met the legislative requirements, however the offences were often at night.

•          Poster campaigns highlighting the issue of fly-tipping had proved quite effective in Callowland ward.  However, other councillors reported that posters had less of an impact on fly-tipping levels in their wards. This approach could be used elsewhere if there was a suitable location for signage. It was important that measures did not just relocate the issues.

•          It was considered bad practice to employ dummy cameras as the regulations required transparency and dummy cameras caused all cameras to lose their preventative effects.

•          The data showed that fly-tipping was still happening but often not at the camera sites.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the officers and the committee for their presentation and discussions. He highlighted the campaign in Callowland where fly-tips were marked up as a crime scene. Fly-tipping was antisocial behaviour and was never justified.

Officers extended an invitation to the committee to visit the CCTV Control Room in the town centre.

Resolved –

The committee noted the presentation.