Agenda item

This report provides information on the progress on work stream 1 of the CCTV audit being carried out by Front Line Services.

Discussion:

The Committee received a report outlining the background to the provision of CCTV in Medway and it was noted that there was no statutory requirement for a local authority to provide CCTV.

It was confirmed that whilst Medway Commercial Group Ltd (MCG) was now responsible for the delivery of CCTV, which involved the repair and maintenance of existing stock but not replacement, ownership of CCTV cameras remained with the Council.

The Committee was advised that in December 2016, the condition of the camera stock had been noted and further updates provided at meetings of the Community Safety Partnership Strategic Executive Group, including in May 2018 when it had been noted that there were a number of cameras that required decommissioning.  MCG had advised that they had taken stock of Medway’s CCTV cameras and would pass the data onto the Council so that MCG and the Council could undertake a review.

Upon receipt of information from MCG, the Council’s Community Safety Team commenced a review of all 442 cameras owned by the Council of which 75% were noted as operational. By focusing on the 25% of cameras that were not operational, it was possible to prioritise repairs and replacements and identify CCTV requirements across Medway.

The CCTV camera audit had focused on cameras in public spaces and specifically retail environments, transport hubs and areas of the night time economy but did not include cameras located in specific areas e.g. waste recycling sites, individual buildings and Medway Tunnel. The results of the audit were appended to the report at appendix 1.

The Committee received an update on Workstream 1 and it was noted that whilst some CCTV cameras were not working and were beyond economic repair, other issues related to the failure of the pan/tilt/zoom feature, outdated hardware with parts no longer available, interference due to network connectivity and consistency of power supply. In addition, MCG advised that the fibre network in Gillingham and Rainham was in need of a full review due to the maintenance of the network no longer being supported by the provider.

It was confirmed that whilst 5 cameras had required replacement in Twydall and this work had been completed on 23 November 2018 ahead of the agreed timescale, it was possible that operational issues could occur in Twydall due to the intermittent power supply defects.

Workstream 1 of the review was scheduled to be completed by December 2018 and options for funding were currently being considered, including the use of Capital reserves and Section 106 contributions.

Workstream 2 involved a plan for red and amber cameras and delivery was dependent upon costs and timescales received from MCG as well as securing funding.

Workstream 3 could run concurrently and would involve looking at the wider long term strategy with Workstream 4 identifying further funding to implement Workstream 3.

The Committee welcomed representatives from MCG Ltd who had attended the meeting to answer questions relating to CCTV provision.

In response to questions, MCG supplied further information as to the reasons why some of the CCTV cameras were no longer working or were not fully operational. It was noted that some of the CCTV stock had been in place since 1998. Whilst some cameras were no longer recording, a number were continuing to record but had been included within the number of non-operational cameras as the camera unit failed to move and was not therefore fulfilling its required function.

MCG confirmed that when the provision of CCTV had been transferred from the Council to MCG in 2016 a condition survey had been undertaken and 100% of cameras had been fully operational. However, the Control Centre equipment had required updating. In the light of this information, Members questioned the reasons why there had been such a rapid decline in the condition of the CCTV camera stock since being transferred to MCG two years ago. A MCG representative highlighted the age of the CCTV camera stock and the fact that technology had progressed since 1998 when some of the cameras had first been installed.

MCG confirmed that in its first two years of operating the CCTV contract, funding had been directed towards replacement of the Control Centre equipment in the first year and the replacement of recording equipment in the second year.

MCG stressed that where possible, cameras were repaired using existing parts from other redundant cameras but the provision of new replacement cameras did not form part of the contract and was not therefore the responsibility of MCG.

MCG confirmed that in operating the CCTV contract for the Council, MCG was required to comply with the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. Under this Code of Practice, if a CCTV camera was not reporting a required level of activity, MCG was required to report the CCTV camera for decommissioning.

The Committee discussed the report and the information provided by MCG and concern was expressed as to the lack of funding provision by the Council for the replacement of CCTV cameras. In addition, there was concern that the Council had been paying MCG to operate a fully operational CCTV service and yet a proportion of the cameras were not functioning.

In response, the Head of Regulatory Services advised that officers and MCG were committed to resolving the issues concerning the provision of CCTV and were working closely on this issue.

Some Members expressed concern as to the set-up and operation of the CCTV contract, the lack of dialogue between the client and contractor and the apparent lack of accountability. Concern was expressed that MCG were claiming that they had reported the incidents of CCTV cameras becoming non-operational and yet Council officers claimed to be unaware of the scale of the issue until May 2018.

In response to the comments concerning the setting up of MCG as an Alternative Delivery Model, the Director for Regeneration, Culture, Environment and Transformation and Deputy Chief Executive outlined the background to the setting up of MCG Ltd and advised that when the CCTV service had transferred to MCG, those Council officers managing the service had also transferred to the company. He drew attention to the comments from MCG representatives on the operation of the contract over the past two years and the investments made by MCG. However, it was clear that the infrastructure of the CCTV cameras had remained the responsibility of the Council with MCG being responsible for repairs and maintenance of the equipment. He stressed that the Council had a wide range of assets and limited funding available and no specific funding had been set aside for the replacement of CCTV camera stock.

In response to questions as to the lessons learnt, MCG re-iterated that it was now working closely with relevant officers at the Council to resolve the issues and identify a way forward.

A Member suggested that consideration should be given to the inclusion of a regular standing report on this Committee’s work programme holding MCG to account.

Decision:

The Committee:

a)            expressed appreciation to both officers and MCG representatives for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions on the provision of CCTV.

b)            requested that MCG provide copies of the information that it supplied to the Council in 2017 on the condition of the CCTV camera stock so that this could be circulated to the Committee.

c)            agreed that consideration of a progress report on Workstreams 1 and 2, further reports on Workstreams 3 and 4 and the future scrutiny of MCG be deferred until consideration of the Committee’s work programme later on the agenda.