Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

No apologies for absence were received

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of Interest

To provide an opportunity for Members to declare the existence of a party whip in relation to any item on the agenda.

There were no declarations of Party Whip

A total period of 15 minutes is allocated for members of the public to make a statement(s) on any matter that falls within the remit of the Committee.

Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes, but the Chairman will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned, where there are a number of speakers.

Note: In order for officers to undertake any background research, it would be helpful if members of the public contacted the Scrutiny officer listed at the foot of the agenda, at least one working day before the meeting to provide brief details of the matter to be covered. 

There were no members of the public present who wished to speak.

To approve the minutes as a correct record

RESOLVED – That subject to the words “Those managed on the scheme see a reduction in their offending of 85%.” Being added to the last paragraph of minute 14, the minutes of the previous meeting be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To receive an update on the progress with the review of the Council’s CCTV camera network

The Committee considered an update on the CCTV Review. Jan Griffiths and Martin Forshaw presented a report on the progress of the review of the Council’s CCTV Camera Network. The officers informed the Committee that reducing costs of the service was an important part of the review with a £250,000 saving agreed in the 2013/14 budget.

It was explained that there had not been a history of evidence driven placement of cameras which was the reason the Borough had a large number of cameras, some of which were in the wrong places. The CCTV Camera Network review would use police statistics and CCTV camera data to establish whether placement of each camera was justified. A pilot review had taken place in Sandbach from which most of the recommendations for cameras had been accepted. Town and Parish Councils had also been contacted to provide local knowledge. Local councils would also be asked for financial contributions from 2014 to guarantee that the cameras would be monitored in their area on a 24 hour per day basis. The process of the review was planned to be completed by September 2013 so that any changes to the network could be completed before the end of the financial year.

Members of the Committee asked questions and the following points were made:

·         Cheshire East Councillors should be included in consultation on any review of cameras in their area as well as town and parish councils as Cheshire East Council owns and operates the camera network.

·         Some cameras are effective in reducing criminal activity and therefore contribute to crime reduction without recording any criminal activity. This should be taken into account when reviewing statistics.

·         £50,000 per annum of capital funding for three years was to be used for to fund, for example, replacing old cameras or removing/moving cameras across the whole Borough.

·         Having been renovated at significant expense Queens Park in Crewe had been subject to vandalism which was costly to repair. Crewe Members had requested a CCTV camera which would cost approximately £20,000. The Committee suggested the necessary funds might be generated through collaboration between CCTV budget, Parks and Open Spaces budget and a Crewe Town Council contribution.

·         The reasons given at 10.11 of the report for not using the CCTV network to deal with parking offences were useful for Councillors to know and should be distributed to all Members for information.

·         The Committee wanted to receive the new National Code of Practice for CCTV and to see how the Council had responded to consultation on it.

·         The Committee wanted to know more about how the introduction of contributions from Town and Parish Councils would work and whether those making contributions would get a higher standard of service than those which did not contribute.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Jan Griffiths and Martin Forshaw be thanked for attending the meeting.

2.    That the report be noted.

3.    That the Committee request the reasons for not using CCTV network to monitor parking offenses illustrated at 10.11 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To give consideration to the work programme

Consideration was given to the Work Programme.

RESOLVED

1.    That the work programme be noted

2.    That an officer from the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) be requested to attend the meeting on 20 June to provide a briefing on the role of the PCP and its recent work.