(NOTE: Members are reminded that Standing Order No. 3.3 requires that Notice of Question pursuant to that Standing Order must be received by the Borough Solicitor NOT LATER THAN 12 O’CLOCK NOON ON TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY 2024 )
Minutes:
There was one public question in the name of Carmen Lea to the Leader of the Council.
824 people are determined by GBC as having overwhelming public support for the criterion in a 6 week consultation.
In the first 2 weeks of our petition for reinstating the live monitoring of CCTV, has well over 1000 supporting and is rapidly growing by the day.
Given this petition has twice the amount of support in such little time, will the GBC leader explain why this isn't enough to support its reinstatement.
Answer: Thank you for your question for which I am very grateful and welcome to the Chamber. The question allows the administration to explain their position in relation to CCTV live monitoring.
To date there are 1417 valid signatures with 371 rejected. This could be for a number of reasons, including duplicated signatures and incorrect address details.
I am grateful for your campaign and congratulate you on being passionate about the issue, as it is absolutely correct to want monitoring 24/7, part time monitoring would encourage those prepared to undertake crime to do so outside of the hours of live monitoring.
The joint partnership had stopped under the Conservative administration, along with the full coverage. The ending of the partnership had required Gosport to cover the costs, and the projected costs of full coverage would be approximately £200k.
The reason for the high figure was that the coverage required full time staff, these staff would require specific training. It had been suggested that monitoring could be covered by volunteers, however this would not be possible due to GDPR rules and the requirement to be trained.
The Council do not have the funds to re instate the live monitoring, however others do, in addition, the Police had repeatedly advised that if they were alerted to an incident, they could not guarantee that they would be able to attend. It would depend on the resources available at the time. If the Police did not respond, what would be point of monitoring the CCTV 24/7 and whilst its reintroduction was welcome. The Police and Crime Commissioner should pay for it from their own budget.
There has been misinformation spread that the cameras had been switched off, but this was untrue. The 44 cameras are recording 24/7, 7 days a week and 365 days a year and recordings were kept for 28 days. Crime was important to the Council and the Councillors and it was important raise awareness of the safer streets campaign.
CCTV covered 2/3rd of the High Street, and was very effective in monitoring entrances and exits to the peninsular, however it was not effective in areas it was not present. What was significantly important was the lack of streetlights and the darkness that creates and the impact darker streets had on safety within the Borough.
I am happy to discuss this further with you and take it forward with you and also want to acknowledge the danger to men too, as a victim of an assault that was recorded and allowed action to be taken. Cameras would make life easier not half the time, but 24/7, the Police needed to be persuaded to react to incidents and there would be a meeting with the Mayor and Sam Warne and Chris Spellaberg to discuss this and request help from the PCC to not only cover the cost but support the response.
Congratulations once again on your campaign based not on party political issues but on values and the cause would be worked on with you.
There were four Members questions.
A question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Leader of the Council
When was it decided to scrap 24/7live monitoring of Gosport's CCTV cameras and by whom?
The decision to scrap 24/7 CCTV monitoring was taken by the Conservatives in 2021 when Fareham Borough Council withdrew from the joint CCTV partnership.
Neither Fareham nor Gosport had had live monitoring since 2022 but the cameras in Gosport remain in use, 24/7, 365 days a year, with recordings kept for 28 days and available. There were no plans to switch off the cameras, and it is disappointing that the protest was being led in part by someone who had voted to end 24/7 recording.
Question in the name of Councillor Beavis to Councillor Westerby as the Chairman of the Community and Environment Board.
Since the planned upgrade of the Stokes Bay Splash Park was cancelled, it has continued to deteriorate, suffer closures and require frequent repairs. When will there be a proper refurbishment and upgrade?
Answer: The facility was poorly constructed by the Conservative Council, converting an old ticket office into a plant room and creating a facility that was not efficient or cost effective. There had been numerous breakdowns which had not been repaired correctly. There was a commitment to improve all leisure facilities to bring up to standard, but poor installation had led to the splash park issues and others including the skate park at Lee on the Solent which had also been poorly installed and was now unsafe for public use.
Supplementary Question:
I would like to point out that the Liberal Democrat Council had presented the upgrades to the Stokes Bay Splash Park in the capital programme last year and the work had not been undertaken and it was expected to be the same this year, but there was nothing in the plan for it this year. Stokes Bay Splash Park was a popular facility for young people and could reassurance be given that it would be properly maintained.
Answer: I can assure you it will be maintained and the facility will continue. The money allocated for the Stokes Bay Splash Park had needed to be amended to what had been planned following assessment but it would keep being improved. The difficulties with the splash parks included the availability of parks, with the yellow bucket for the Lee on the Solent facility only being available in Canada. However, work would continue to ensure that both splash parks were up and running and coupled with a glorious summer the residents of Gosport and further afield would enjoy them.
Question in the name of Councillor Raffaelli to the Leader of the Council
On 26 July, Cllr Chegwyn was informed by the Deputy Monitoring Officer that he had breached the Councillors’ Code of Conduct by bringing the Council and his role as a Councillor into disrepute by his actions because the wording he had used “in respect of the use of funds for the (new Gosport Borough Council) logo was open to misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the actual position.”. Cllr Chegwyn was required to provide a short written confirmation that his “Facebook posts could have been misinterpreted by members of the public as suggesting that no funds left Gosport Council.” The written statement was eventually provided to Cllr Raffaelli on 7 January. In that statement, Cllr Chegwyn states that he “will always choose my words carefully in the hope that Councillor Raffaelli and everyone else understands them.”
In light of that commitment, and for the public record, what was the cost to Gosport Borough Council for the new GBC logo design work?
Answer: Councillor Raffaelli already knows the answer to this.
Supplementary question: Making a complaint against another Councillor is not something that is taken lightly, numerous opportunities had been given to confirm the £3465 spent on the design of the new logo but there had been a refusal to do so.
A decision had been made by the Deputy Monitoring Officer in July that a statement should be made, so the public, very openly could understood what had been said. A statement was not received in a timely fashion and as had been pointed out, two Standards Board complaints had been upheld and for misleading behaviour. How therefore can Councillor Chegwyn not resign?
Answer: This is the sort of behaviour that happens because there is an upcoming election, why are you wasting people’s time when you already know the answer.
Question in the name of Councillor Hammond to the Leader of the Council.
Would the Leader agree that the decision by the Conservative-run Hampshire County Council to switch off street lights overnight leaving many residential streets in Gosport in complete darkness poses a threat to pedestrians, male and female, walking home late at night?
Answer: Yes I would agree and condemn that there is not street lighting available for people to use. It is unsafe, creates a greater risk of crime, the 3 Members that are also Hampshire County Councillors, plus Cllr Meenaghan voted to reduce street lighting.
A great percentage of women and men feel unsafe as a result when the street lights aren’t on, and this was as well as falling over all of the pot holes present. There is a clear link to street lighting provision and safer streets, but the County Council was cutting £125million in services, this would mean that people would not be safe walking home, the cuts to the buses would mean there were no buses to take and the campaign to reinstate street lights should be carried forward as a serious issue.