Agenda item

12.00pm

To receive an update from the PCC on the progress made on the proposed CCTV partnership across the Thames Valley.

The Panel was reminded that in April 2022, the PCC set out his strategic vision for a Thames Valley CCTV Partnership.  The report of the PCC provided the Panel with an update on the proposed model.

The PCC reported that TVP would own the system and equipment for public space CCTV and be responsible for the maintenance and employment of the staff.

The Panel was informed that Phase 1 was currently underway and involved upgrading the CCTV systems for Slough and Milton Keynes City, with both areas to be monitored from a Milton Keynes Command Suite.

Phase 2 would involve Oxfordshire local authorities and a consultation took place to seek feedback on the operating model to be delivered and the funding formula to be used to calculate the annual local authority revenue contributions.

The options were Oxfordshire having its own Command Suite or whether their cameras would also be integrated into the Milton Keynes Command Suite. Feedback on the consultation would be reported to the TVP CCTV Programme Board in December 2023 with recommendations then made to the Chief Constable and PCC.

The CCTV Project Team would continue to engage with Buckinghamshire Council who have decided not to join the Thames Valley CCTV Partnership at this time and will now be monitoring all CCTV for Buckinghamshire from their Control Room in High Wycombe, as well as local authorities in Berkshire who will be included in Phase 3 of this programme.

The PCC pointed out that CCTV was not a statutory responsibility of the Police or local authorities, however, financial contributions were required from local authorities who had a responsibility for community safety. There were advantages of having more local authorities signed up to the partnership in terms of costs, a joined-up network of CCTV which would help the Police and the local authorities. Maintenance costs would be reduced in terms of maintaining cameras and being able to replace broken cameras.

Members’ Questions:

(1)   The PCC was asked about the location of control rooms not having the local knowledge of other local authority areas and not being as responsive which would create a time lag. Existing control rooms in local authority areas had that local knowledge and without this, for example there could be delays on environmental offences, the tracking of known shoplifters etc.

[The PCC replied that this system was about an important bit of public safety. If local authorities such as Windsor and Maidenhead and Buckinghamshire had CCTV systems which worked that would be great, but it would be good if the local links were also linked to the Police.  The PCC referred to the Vale of White Horse district which was a huge area, but the CCTV control unit was in Abingdon, so it would have been difficult for the staff at the control unit knowing all parts of the geography of a large area, but over time this local knowledge would be gained. This would also be gained from a Milton Keynes control unit.]

(2)   Reference was made to Slough which did not have the CCTV infrastructure and the coverage and this was needed for a growing population. The PCC was asked whether there were plans to increase the coverage in Slough and other areas.

[The PCC pointed out that CCTV was not the solution to all problems; it did not solve everything. At the moment, there were no immediate plans to the expansion of the CCTV coverage but a stabilisation of the system. However, subject to the financial settlements agreed with local authorities, that could be an option in the future.

There would need to be a formula of funding between the partnership on how further CCTV coverage could be funded. There was an additional £1m in TVP’s budget for this strategic vision for a Thames Valley CCTV Partnership, but there was no budgetary provision for an expansion.  

The PCC talked about the importance of installing CCTV cameras in locations where they were needed and not just where they were wanted. Discussions would be required further down the line.

The PCC commented that funding was available for use for charity purposes and some funding went to community groups for CCTV coverage for a deterrent purpose and for recording, rather than for monitoring.  There may be a case that this funding could go to Parish Councils but it could not be provided for borough councils.]   

(3)  The PCC was asked about funding from s106 agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) money and whether this money could be used for CCTV?

[The PCC said that in terms of expansion this could be an option but over time there may be an increase in the CCTV budget and local authorities may want to contribute more funds. Regarding CIL money, the Police were not part of the statutory regulations for receiving CIL money.]

(4)   Reference was made to Buckinghamshire Council’s transition to a Unitary Council where they inherited four separate CCTV control rooms all operating differently over the County. With Aylesbury Police Station control room the cameras were decommissioned, either going to High Wycombe or Milton Keynes. How was the PCC making sure those cameras were being redeployed and people with local knowledge were involved?

[The PCC commented that there was a control room in Aylesbury with Police staff doing the monitoring with significant funding by Buckinghamshire Council, whereas in Wycombe the control room was staffed by Council employees, with TVP providing significant funding. This highlighted the confusing and complex system that operated.   

The Aylesbury cameras would be monitored in the Buckinghamshire Control room in Wycombe with the police staff moving to the Milton Keynes control room.]

(5)   The PCC was asked for details on the cameras in the new contract.

[The PCC replied that there was the video management system, and the existing cameras would still be used. There would be a programme of replacing cameras with more up to date cameras. There were opportunities to develop technology. Subject to the regulations, cameras could be used for ANPR purposes. There were legal restrictions for using ANPR on all cameras.)

(6)   The PCC was asked about the transition arrangements for moving the monitoring of Slough CCTV to Milton Keynes.

[The PCC said that he was confident that the transition on 31 December will run smoothly.]

(7)   The PCC was asked where would the police staffing of the control rooms come from, particularly with staff at existing control rooms not wanting to relocate? Also there were already a number of vacancies in TVP and there was only two months to appoint control room staff.

[The PCC said there would be a recruitment process but with people having the opportunity to transfer or taking redundancy.

In response to a point made about control rooms being monitored 24/7, the PCC said that at the moment not all control rooms operated 24/7. There were ongoing negotiations with local authorities as part of the partnership and discussions on hours would be included.]

(8)   The Chair commented that the ambitions of this going live on 31 December was challenging, particularly with decisions required on revenue funding from local authorities. Reference was made to the budgetary challenges that local authorities had made the revenue funding of the project difficult.

[The PCC reiterated that he was confident that the scheme could be delivered although there were financial decisions required from different councils. Milton Keynes had put in capital funding but had said that they did not have any revenue funding. This would have implications on how Milton Keynes was supported CCTV.

The PCC reiterated that local authorities had a statutory duty in terms of community safety.]

RESOLVED - That the report of the PCC and the information given in the answers to Members questions be noted.