Report of the Director of People and Places (enclosed)
Minutes:
The Group considered a report of the Director of People and Places that presented information on the consultation undertaken with the Parish Councils and the draft final report of the review.
The feedback from Parish Council had been supportive of the CCTV service and had provided many examples of anecdotal evidence to support the case for maintaining its presence, although many of the parishes felt the service could be extended to the outlying areas of the borough.
The Chair, Councillor Robert Finnamore presented the draft final report of the review, which had been undertaken under Overview and Scrutiny’s requirement to scrutinise crime and disorder matters.
Members also raised the public perception of safety provide by CCTV, how far cameras acted as a deterrent, the cameras role in preventing the escalation or crime or the prosecution of offenders including those involved in serious crime.
As the subject was a complex one, the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny suggested that a full scrutiny review on the provision of CCTV in Chorley be undertaken to by a Task Group to inform future CCTV provision in the Borough.
The task group had engaged with both partners and customers to ensure that all perspectives were considered and to ensure the scrutiny was balanced. The system was highly valued by the community and was an effective tool used in the prevention of crime and disorder.
There was significant support for the provision a CCTV service from key partners such as police; from public response to a consultation; from local town centre business and from Parish Council. Therefore the option to decommission the service was not considered acceptable and the Task Group recommended that the provision of the service be continued at some level.
The Task Group AGREED to ask the Executive Cabinet is asked to consider the following options:
Infrastructure Provision
Option |
Detail |
Cost |
Advantage/Disadvantages |
Option 1 |
Do nothing and retain the existing system and seek to maintain it. |
c. £20K per annum |
Equipment will become obsolete and not maintainable at reasonable cost |
Option 2 |
Replace key components to improve the system recording capability |
c. £28K one off cost |
Upgraded and digitised recording capacity provided |
Option 3 |
Option 2 plus replacement of the current desktop operating system utilised to remotely switch camera views and manoeuvre cameras according to monitoring requirements |
c. £48K one off cost |
Improved operation and manoeuvrability of cameras |
Option 4 |
Option 3 plus the wholesale replacement of existing camera heads |
c. £215K |
The current suite of 50+ cameras would be replaced with new products and remove the current annual maintenance cost requirement of £20K
|
Option 5 |
Option 3 plus phased replacement of existing camera heads |
c. £48K plus £4K per camera which could total in excess of £250K |
Higher costs due to no economies of scale and maintenance cost of remaining cameras ongoing. However there is an advantage in terms of ability to consider relocation and addition of cameras in a phased way to meet changing demand.
|
In addition the Task Group recommended that the Council explores any outsourcing opportunities for the service and the provision subscription service for businesses.
In terms of the operation of the service the Task Group also recommend that current staffing levels are maintained but that the hours of operation are regularly reviewed using local intelligence to ensure periods of high demand are covered.
Supporting documents: