Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning and Public Protection (copy attached) which provides an update on the Partnership, its governance arrangements and effectiveness in delivering a service.  The report also outlines the work underway to develop a more sustainable future for the service and seeks members’ support for its continued development.

10.50am – 11.30am

The Lead Member for Corporate Standards introduced the Head of Planning and Public Protection’s report (previously circulated) which provided members with an update on the CCTV Partnership, its governance arrangements, along with an assessment of its effectiveness in delivering the service, information on the Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Cheshire West and Chester Council to deliver the service and work underway to develop a more sustainable future for the service.  Attached to the report was a recent Internal Audit (IA) review of the service (Appendix 2) and a confidential operational update report on the service provided by Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWaCC).

The Committee was briefed on the Partnership’s establishment by the Head of Planning and Public Protection.  Due to financial constraints the Council was unable to continue to provide a CCTV service, which was a non-statutory service.  However, the service was valued by the communities it served and North Wales Police (NWP) and as a result alternative arrangements were devised for its delivery, hence the establishment of the Partnership consisting of Prestatyn, Rhuddlan and Rhyl Town Councils, North Wales Police and Denbighshire County Council.  The Partnership delivered a CCTV service which was not monitored on a 24/7 basis, however the partners were keen to explore potential options for developing a more sustainable and resilient future for the service.  Following consideration of a number of options a decision was taken to enter into a 3 year Service Level Agreement (SLA) with Cheshire West and Chester Council which resulted in pictures being beamed from all cameras owned by the Partnership being beamed over to CWACC for 24/7 reactive monitoring.  CWACC have immediate communication routes with NWP which enables them to alert them immediately they become aware of a developing situation.  To facilitate broadcasting the pictures direct to CWACC investment was made in a new server.  Going forward there are plans to contact other city and town councils to explore whether they would be interested in joining the Partnership in order to benefit from a reactive monitoring service.  Each city and town council would need to make a judgement on the benefits to them of being able to access the service for an initial outlay costs and an annual contribution based on the number of cameras operated in their area.  Members were advised that as the SLA with CWACC was a new arrangement officers had requested the Council’s Internal Audit department to undertake a review of the arrangement with a view to providing assurances that the Council had robust governance and contract management procedures in place to manage risks, monitor performance etc.  That review had given a medium assurance rating, it had identified minor weaknesses in the management of risks and/or controls but no risk to the achievement of objectives.  All three risks identified under the review had since been addressed.

Responding to members’ questions the Lead Member and Head of Planning and Public Protection:

·         advised that the service provided under the SLA was very cost effective and well-governed;

·         confirmed that each town council within the Partnership made a financial contribution towards the service based on the number of cameras operating in their area.  Similarly Council services who had CCTV cameras also provided a financial contribution as did NWP who used footage as evidence for prosecution;

·         advised that the Partnership operated approximately 80 cameras across the three towns.  Following a rationalisation/prioritisation programme 32 cameras within the towns had been designated as priority cameras based on their crime and disorder and community importance.  The remaining 48 cameras had been categorised as lower priority in the event of a breakdown etc.

·         advised that newer, more modern cameras were particularly useful as they aided the Police with respect of facial recognition.  These cameras were extremely expensive and required instant internet access;

·         confirmed that work was about to commence on marketing the benefits of the Partnership to potential partners, which would include providing details them of the estimated costs to them of jointing the Partnership;

·         advised that NWP provided the Partnership Board with a quarterly update on crime etc. in the area.  This report highlighted crime and anti-social behaviour hotspots etc.;

·         confirmed that a strong working relationship existed between the Partnership and CWACC;

·         advised that there was no evidence at present of a need for 24 hour monitoring of the cameras, present reactive monitoring arrangements were proving to be effective;

·         advised that NWP had a small number of mobile CCTV cameras which could be deployed in areas where there were concerns about crime levels etc.  Town and community councils who had concern about crime levels in their areas should contact NWP to seek their assistance and discuss whether it would be appropriate to seek them to locate these cameras on a temporary basis in their area; and

·         confirmed that whilst national trends indicated an increase in major crime levels on a UK wide basis, NWP only reported on minor crimes within the CCTV area.  Methods for recording incidents of crime had also changed

Questions relating to the confidential Appendix 1 document were raised. At that juncture the Committee:

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

RESOLVED:  that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the discussion on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 18 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Lead Member and Head of Planning and Public Protection duly answered the Committee’s questions.

PART I - Upon completion of the above business the meeting resumed in open session.

Members representing the Rhyl area advised that they were of the view that the Partnership provided an effective, value for money service in their area.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Committee:

RESOLVED: -

(i)           subject to the above observations to continue to support the development of the CCTV Partnership; and

(ii)          encouraged officers and members to actively promote the benefit of Partnership’s services to interested stakeholders/organisations