Archived decisions

HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Decision Report

Decision Maker:

Executive Member - Environment

Date of Decision:

24 March 2009

Decision Title:

Protocol and Procedure for the Temporary/Permanent Attachment of Closed Circuit Television to Street Lighting Columns

Decision Reference:

627

Report From:

Director of Environment

Contact Name:

Chris Lait

Telephone:

01329 824485

E-mail:

chris.lait @hants.gov.uk

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1) Summary of Decision Area

1.1. At present the County Council has no formal procedure regarding the attachment of temporary or permanent closed circuit television (CCTV) to street lighting furniture. Following a number of varied requests it has become apparent that a protocol and procedure would enable a fair and consistent response to such requests.

2) Issues Covered in Report

2.1 A number of requests have been received from parishes, villages and other organisations who have anti-social and low level crime issues which they consider may be ameliorated by the use of CCTV.

2.2 This is a county wide problem and the Eastleigh Hampshire Action Team (HAT) requested that a draft protocol and procedure be prepared. The protocol and procedure has been circulated to all other HATs for consultation and the comments have been considered and amendments made where appropriate.

2.3 An approved protocol and procedure will enable the County Council to manage all requests for temporary or permanent CCTV in a consistent manner.

3) Recommendation

3.1 That approval be given to the new protocol and procedure, set out in the report, with regards to the temporary or permanent attachment of closed circuit television equipment to street lighting columns.

MAIN REPORT

1) Contextual Information

1.1. A number of requests have been received from parishes, villages and other bodies who have identified problems of antisocial behaviour and low level crime issues which they consider may be ameliorated by the use of CCTV.

1.2. Technological advances have enabled CCTV to become very portable, operate either by battery or mains power supply and transmit images by remote technology enabling cameras to be mounted in a variety of locations.

1.3. Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 the County Council has a duty to embed crime and disorder prevention into service planning, delivery and decision making and so reduce crime and the fear of crime in all our communities.

1.4. Highways provide accessibility between destinations and the temporary or permanent location of CCTV cameras within the highway may assist with crime prevention. However it is also necessary to consider the matters of privacy to adjoining properties, levels of light within the neighbourhood and the possibility that the crime and anti-social behaviour may disperse to adjoining areas or out of view of the cameras.

1.5. To enable the deployment of these installations throughout the county in a consistent manner, and provide guidelines and procedures to the promoting body, a draft protocol and procedure has been prepared. This has been circulated to all HATs for comment. Those received are listed in the attached appendix and the final protocol and procedure has been prepared considering these comments.

2) Protocol

2.1. The County Council requires the promoting body to provide an analysis of crime and anti-social behaviour incidents, both in the area to have CCTV and the adjoining area. This information needs to include an analysis of types of crime and time of day at which the crimes occur. Where possible, trend data should be included. The request should contain an assessment of why CCTV is expected to reduce the incidence of crime and what alternative measures have been carried out or considered and rejected.

2.2. The promoting body will normally be the Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP). Where the CDRP is not the promoting body, the Partnership should be used to consider the crime analysis for the location and a copy of its advice should be included with the submission.

2.3. Information should be provided on the area and demonstrate the likely coverage of any proposed CCTV. The use of temporary CCTV requiring the regular moving of the equipment between locations will need to consider the practicality and effectiveness in reducing crime and the fear of crime.

2.4. The promoter must be fully conversant and comply with the CCTV Code of Practice, Revised Edition 2008 (or subsequent revisions).

2.5. If there is a demonstrable case for the provision of CCTV the County Council will discuss with the promoting body funding and management arrangements, including:

      (i) capital costs of the CCTV and its installation;

      (ii) maintenance costs and responsibilities;

      (iii) energy supply costs;

      (iv) operational responsibilities; and

      (v) public liability.

2.6. If there is a strong case for CCTV being made, the Council will facilitate the erection of the equipment on the street furniture. All costs, liabilities and operational arrangements are to be met by the local promoting body. An appropriate agreement will be drawn up with the responsible body.

3) Procedure

3.1. All installations mounted over or free standing in the highway, or mounted on street lights shall:

      (i) be approved in writing by the Highway Authority via a licence or agreement prior to the erection of the fixtures;

      (ii) be the sole responsibility of the body installing the CCTV and shall have adequate public liability insurance to indemnify the Highway Authority for the minimum amount for any one incident as required by the licence;

      (iii) be removed immediately upon request by the Highway Authority or its agent or be removed by the Highway Authority or its agent, at the owner's expense, if there is concern about the safety of the system;

      (iv) be manufactured with supports and mounting points capable of supporting the equipment suitable for a wind of K factor 2;

      (v) generally for protection against electric shock all systems shall be rated at 25v SELV. However, for systems sited a minimum of 3.5 metres above the highway, mains voltage (230v) may be used. In all such systems the installer must ensure that the requirements of BS 7671 are met and supplementary protection by the use of a 30mA RCD shall be given;

      (vi) all apparatus shall be erected in compliance with the following statutes and regulations:

      (a) Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

      (b) Electricity-at-Work Regulations 1989

      (c) BS 7671 Regulations for Electrical Installation

      (d) New Roads and Street Works Act 1990

      (e) Traffic Management Act 2000;

      (vii) an agreed set of inspection/emergency procedures shall be provided to the local highway management office;

      (viii) each installation shall be tested and the electrical test certificates and test results passed to the local highway management office on the day following installation to energising;

      (ix) power supplies to CCTV installations should not be derived from adjacent buildings, but from within the street lighting column acting as the support. Ongoing costs for the power supply are to be agreed;

      (x) all temporary fixings used to attach the CCTV equipment to street lighting columns must be free from corrosion at all times and must be removed at the end of the licence period. Any damage to the protective surface must be made good immediately after the removal of the apparatus;

      (xi) the Highway Authority has the right to request removal of such equipment at any time, which the responsible body must comply with within 28 days of the request.

3.2. In addition to the guidance for the erection of the CCTV equipment each applicant will satisfy themselves that:

    (i) it conforms with the CCTV Codes of Practice Revised Edition 2008 or subsequent updates;

    (ii) the necessary signage for overt CCTV usage is displayed appropriately;

    (iii) there is a protocol for viewing images of CCTV and storage of evidential and disclosure material compliant with Data Protection Act 1988, Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and Criminal Procedures & Investigation Act 1996 (CPI);

    (iv) Hampshire County Council Street Lighting Section has confirmed suitability and stability of lamp posts selected for potential CCTV use;

    (v) third party liability with regard to erection and any damage caused by the camera equipment is covered;

    (vi) the County Council is indemnified in respect to any claims that might be brought against the County Council attributable to the erection of the CCTV on the street lighting column(s).

4) Outline of Options

4.1. Option 1: Not to grant permission for the attachment of CCTV to street lights.

      The County Council has a duty to embed crime and disorder prevention into its service planning, delivery and decision making and so reduce crime and the fear of crime in all its communities. To unreasonably prevent the attachment of temporary or permanent CCTV to street lighting furniture would no be consistent with this duty or its corporate aims and could damage the reputation of the Couth Council

5) Conclusions

5.1. With increased requests to tackle crime and disorder issues by the use of portable CCTV, it is appropriate that the County Council considers requests in a consistent manner.

5.2 Street lighting columns are seen as a convenient platform to mount CCTV providing both the elevation needed for the images and an accessible power supply.

5.3. The use of street lighting columns raises a number of safety, and procedural issues to ensure the proper use of CCTV in a public place.

5.4. The protocol and procedure enables applicants to be aware of these requirements and the requests to be dealt with in a consistent manner.

6) Recommendation

Please see the Executive Summary for the recommendation.

1904Rpt/627/CL

CORPORATE OR LEGAL INFORMATION:

LINKS TO THE CORPORATE STRATEGY

Yes

No

Hampshire safer and more secure for all

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

Maximising well-being

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

Enhancing our quality of place

Corporate Business plan link no (if appropriate)

OTHER SIGNIFICANT LINKS:

Links to Previous member decisions:

Title

Ref

Date

Direct Links to Specific Legislation or Government Directives

Title

Date

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background documents

    The following documents discuss facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and have been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report. (NB: the list excludes published works and any documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.)

    Document

    Location

    None

COMPREHENSIVE RISK & IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

1) Equalities Impact Assessment:

    a) Assessment of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has been considered in the development of this proposal. No adverse impact has been identified in terms of race, creed or gender.

2) Impact on Crime and Disorder:

    a) The proposal facilitates the use of CCTV within defined parameters which would lead to a reduction in crime and disorder.

3) Climate Change:

    a) How does what is being proposed impact on our carbon footprint/energy consumption?

        CCTV equipment energy use is low and it is not expected there will be many installations countywide. However the energy will be more than offset by the savings in abortive calls to address antisocial issues.

    b) How does what is being proposed consider the need to adapt to climate change, and be resilient to its longer term impacts?

      There are no effects with respect to climate change

COMMENTS ON DRAFT PROTOCOL: CCTV ATTACHMENTS TO STREET LIGHTING COLUMNS

       

Name

Member/District/Agency/CDRP

Area

Comment

Eastleigh HAT

All HAT

Eastleigh

Fully supports and endorses draft protocol.

Jon Riddell

LAC Co-ordinator, Eastleigh Borough Council and PRIME partner.

Eastleigh

Fully supports and endorses draft protocol.

Councillor Fraser

CDRP Chair

Eastleigh

As both cabinet lead and CDRP Chair I am fully in support of this approach This would give us and partners greater flexibility in responding to Hot Spots and obtaining evidence. It would be particularly useful in situations where witnesses are reluctant to come forward. It also would be of use to managing this particular PRIME. The Cruiser Group have caused a considerable amount of distress to residents in neighbouring roads and as you know there have been a number of RTAs that have been attributed to the young persons driving culture being replicated.

Cllr Ted Gale

Chair Havant HAT

Havant

Supports the protocol.

Tim Pointer

Havant Community Safety Manager

Havant

This is remarkably similar to the alley gating one. My views are similar in that it would be helpful to have a Hampshire County Council single point of contact and pro forma. I would also suggest that as it is intended to be county-wide it is forwarded to Police HQ for their view and possibly the County CDRP strategic group.

Cllr Keith Gill

Member

 

This will need very close and careful monitoring to make sure all Health and Safety regulations are followed and all legal aspects are covered.

 Cllr Broadhurst

 

Eastleigh

Looks like common sense to me.

Sharon Davies

Youth Manager, HCC (CDRP Member)

New Forest

Seems fair and reasonable to me

Martyn Powell

Licensing and CCTV Manager

New Forest

I cannot comment on the technical specifications etc. but from an operational point of view I can see problems with signage and viewing as the protocols look to the applicant and police/CDRP.
Signage is required and must conform to the Codes of Practice - I would have thought that the responsibility for this best lies with the owners/installers, otherwise if it is left up to the applicant time will be lost in making signs up and they will vary in content. If the signs are already produced by the owners/ installers then it can all be done at the time the equipment is installed and to the same standard and then taken down with the equipment and moved on, etc.

Viewing equipment is expensive and could cost CDRPs a load of money. Again the police should be centrally responsible for this.

Sarah Jackson

District Commander for Hart

Hart

Supports the protocol

Jill Baldry

Chief Inspector

Basingstoke and Deane

Supports the protocol

Cllr John Maxwell

HAT Chairman

Basingstoke and Deane

Seems very reasonable.

Jon Whale

Assistant Head of Regulatory Services

Hampshire County Council

There are no cost implications for the County Council, and it is very thorough.

Lesley Trusler

Community & Partnerships Manager with specific responsibility for Hart District Council CCTV Section

Hart

1. It would seem a good idea for there to be a protocol that sets out the situation across Hampshire.

2. Hart District Council will always seek to work with partners and agencies with regard to establishing a joint approach to the deployment of CCTV in the district and, where applicable and possible, the Council will seek to establish agreement with residents or businesses who may be impacted by the siting of any CCTV equipment.

    3. The CSP will undertake to provide the necessary supporting data when making a request. This process will not be part of the remit of the CCTV Service UNLESS a request is being made by the CCTV Service.

4. The CCTV Service at Hart does not, at present, own any mobile CCTV equipment.

5. Page 2 - final paragraph - It may be prudent to include the responsibility for payment of power supplies here - they are mentioned at no. 9 further on in the document but given the current escalating cost of electricity a "double-header" may be a good idea! Also, many authorities in Hampshire are currently embroiled in correspondence with the local electricity supplier with regard to what is termed an "unmetered" supply of power - this may have an impact on the protocol?

6. There may be a conflict between the siting of CCTV equipment and "other" equipment deployed on street furniture - for example, Christmas lighting and a balance may need to be struck?

7. Will the protocol be applied retrospectively?

8. Who will be responsible for fitting and maintaining the RCD in each SLC (no. 5) and test certificates (no. 8)? I would assume it to be the authority requesting permission but this arrangement may need to be spelled out a bit more in the document. When we erect Christmas lights on SLCs in the district, we enter into a licence with the Street Lighting Manager at the County who ensures that we have met the requirements of the licence prior to authorising the lights to go up. would the same be required for CCTV or does this document cover both arrangements?

9. Page 4 no. 2 mentions conformity with a CCTV Code of Practice Revised Edition 2008 - is that a police document? We have our own Code of Practice for Hart?

10. Page 4 no. 5 looks like County will cover any third party liability.