Agenda item

Community and Environment Board – 10 January 2024

Policy and Organisation Board – 23 January 2024

The Part II Minutes of the Community and Environment Board on 10 January 2024

be presented and accepted by the Council.

The Part II Minutes of the Policy and Organisation Board on 23 January 2024 be presented and accepted by the Council.

A Member advised that as the former Chairman of the CCTV Partnership and seeing that there was a campaign to reinstate the CCTV Monitoring, it should be noted that whilst the reduction in CCTV live monitoring happened in July 2021, at a Board of the Council. The Council being constituted as a fourth option Council take decisions at Board meetings of Boards and Committees that are cross party, the decision in July 2021 was undertaken in this manner, on confidential papers to avoid highlighting the hours monitoring was not being undertaken. The decision to remove live monitoring entirely was not made by a Board, so under what authority was it taken and why was it not a Board decision.

The Council advised that the report published to Policy and Organisation Board had not been confidential as there was a right to know the information.

The decision had been taken to end the live monitoring as the CCTV monitoring tender had expired and it did not need to be taken back to Board. If it was to be reinstated it would come back to a Board, but it would need to be for 24/7 coverage, not half coverage and it would be requested that the Police and Crime Commissioner paid for it. A campaign had been undertaken to install a camera in Alver Valley and Grange Ward, by the Police and Gosport Borough Council, however this funding had been refused by the Police and Crime Commissioner.

A Member advised that there was lots of misinformation circulating about the subject, so requested to put it into context.

The decision to reduce monitoring in July 2021 was taken because Fareham Borough Council pulled out of the partnership. In October 2022 the Liberal Democrat run Council had cancelled the CCTV completely without taking it to a Board and no one was made aware this had happened. The situation in July 2021 was sensibly taken in a confidential meeting so as not to alert criminals to when the monitoring was not being undertaken, but also not to alarm the public. However, in 2022 the decision taken was not considered by a Board at all and now the public were more concerned as it had been realised there was no monitoring at all.

It had been claimed that to reinstate monitoring would cost £200k however the report to the Policy and Organisation Board stated that the previous costs were £82.5k. The public were not interested in the who, what and when, they just simply wanted to feel safe in their community. Would the Liberal Democrats be bringing back, acknowledging the concerns of the 1400 people that had signed the petition.

A Member raised a Point of Explanation to remind the Council that the CCTV cameras had not been switched off, they were no longer monitored.

A Member advised that that they felt it was a Borough choice and deferring the responsibility to the Police was unfair. The sums involved were questioned as the report had stated previous costs were £82500. The issue had also been raised to the Minister of Women and equalities in Parliament, who had been dismayed at the live monitoring removal.

Members of the public were urged to read the report to the Policy and Organisation Board on the 23 January 2024 to understand the difference between the removal of some of the monitoring and all of it. As previously advised the reduction in 2021 was a choice made by the Board covering at a level of 84 hours at peak time to offer reassurance.

The value of the monitoring had been described as immeasurable and this was an efficiency saving made at the cost of safety. The adverse workload to the community safety team had not been considered, and prioritisation should have been made over the continuation of the 84 hours monitoring instead of the choice of spending money on the community skips or the Criterion.

A Member advised that there was CCTV located all around and that the coverage provided by GBC was a fraction of what was available. Door bells, dash cameras, shops, pubs and car parks. Even in London, with its extensive network of CCTV cameras, the recent perpetrator in the acid attacks remained at large.

It was reiterated that the cameras would be operated, 24/7, 365 days a year, recording constantly and Gosport Borough Council shouldn’t have to cut services to pay, the Police and Crime Commissioner should use their £50m budget.

A Member advised that they had previously worked in the CCTV control room and that there were three sets of screens to cover and requests would be received from officers to view specific angles by operatives, or if there were no officers in the locality, directed filming could take place, the Police could then request copies of the footage as evidence.

A Member advised that they were astonished that the Conservatives could be so concerned about safety on the streets when they had decimated safety on the streets through a reduction in Police on the streets, probation officers, and street lighting.

A Member advised that they also felt that there had been misinformation and misrepresentation, the minutes of the meeting of the Policy and Organisation Board described the Police’s response to the removal of live monitoring as immeasurable, when it had actually previously been quoted as unmeasurable, not possible to be measured. This suggested that the Police felt the live monitoring was more important than it was to train new Police Officers, of which Gosport had been allocated one.

The Member felt that the issue had been made into a political game and that the administration would do all they could to make women, children and men safe.

They advised that they had recently been speaking to a resident about local shortcuts and that the resident had advised that they did not use them at night as there was no street lighting, similar issues were faced with those in jobs that finished after 1am, faced with walking home in dark roads. It was felt that the English language had been distorted to exaggerate and scare people. The benefit of CCTV monitoring was unmeasurable, as you could not tell what was missed if it wasn’t being monitored.

A Member advised that a lot had been commented on how safe Gosport was as a Town but it had been the most dangerous town in Hampshire in 2022/23 and 24^th dangerous overall including cities and other areas. They also advised that the statement given to the Head of Corporate Policy and Community Safety had stated that the value of the monitoring was immeasurable in response to a Member’s question at the Board. It was acknowledged that CCTV was good, but live CCTV monitoring was very very good with evidence in its efficiency in helping to solve crime.

It was unfair to suggest that the PCC was not supporting safer streets, when they had funded additional cameras including in Leesland Park. There had been a very significant impact on the Community Safety Staff, handling footage requests. The cost predicted in the report were for 84 hours monitoring and would allow for identification of times that were most risk.

A Member advised that they believed that there were three elements that were important, Police, Lighting, and CCTV Cameras. The College of Policing advised that Hampshire had the 3^rd lowest amount of Police Officers per 100000 people and that street lights were a successfully reducing crime and that whilst CCTV were successful reducing crime a considerable amount of the Borough was not covered by them. Improved lighting would be an improvement for all, and crimes would take place whether or not CCTV was monitored.

A Member advised that they felt that it was important for the Council to focus on things it could change. The Council could not change Police numbers, or the lighting, but it did have powers over the CCTV cameras in Gosport and the support thy provided to hotspots in the Borough. The cameras had the ability to rotate and could zoom in when live monitored. Reinstatement would also free up Council staff.

A Member advised that they felt there had been a lot of backwards and forwards with regard to the CCTV monitoring, whether 50% was acceptable, or 100% and recognised that the ideal would of course be100% monitoring, if it was achievable.

The small Community safety team did an excellent job and recognised there was to be an increase in staff and also that the previous monitoring had allowed the police to report matters directly to the control room. In addition it was acknowledged that they could not deter criminals or arrest them and that only active police could do this. If police could not respond to incidents happening nor was monitoring effective if places such as the esplanade were dark. The County Council needed to address the lighting situation within the Borough.

A Member advised that they had served as a Police Officer and welcomed the value of the cameras as they had used them previously to request support in monitoring ongoing incidents and that the reintroduction either of full or 84 hours monitoring would be beneficial.

It was suggested that to deflect to the Police and Crime Commissioner to pay was not acceptable as it was a function of GBC and that the use of monitoring was valuable. It was felt that if the live monitoring supported anyone in either not being a victim of crime, or in the resolution of crime it was worth it at any cost.

This was not to disagree that there was a desire for improved lighting and increased policing, but felt that the monitoring needed to also be reinstated.

The debate concluded with a Member reiterating that it had been the Conservative Council that had cut the monitoring 3 years ago and that this was also being seen in other councils including Basingstoke and Fareham. The issue had turned into a political football, and safer streets affected everyone but now the issue had been publicized further criminals had been advised the coverage had been removed.

The petition wanted full coverage, as did the Liberal democrat group, but the Conservatives were happy with half coverage. The full coverage quote was estimated to be £200k allowing for the cost of price increases and inflation if the Police and Crime Commissioner brought it back. The budget of the PCC was £50m, which far exceeded that of the Council and should also use their funding for more officers in the Borough, rather than just the one extra that had been provided. The Police station was currently closed, despite being told it would reopen and was decaying badly.

Bringing back 24/7 monitoring would allow for safer streets, as would turning back on the street lights and more police officers to ensure people felt safe.

There were 44 cameras in the Borough including four new ones, Gosport Park, Jackie Spencer Bridge, Elson Park and Leesland Park. A request had been made for Grange but this had been refused, though it was deemed important not only for crime prevention but for things like fly tipping.

The impact of CCTV monitoring on crime was not debatable, but there was still no assurance that the police would attend any incidents. In addition one of the most useful benefits of the monitoring was when a vulnerable person went missing, the cameras were incredibly supportive in locating them. For all of these important reasons the Police and Crime Commissioner should pay for the reinstatement of live monitoring.

The Council adjourned between 20:00 and 20:10