Minutes:
The Committee received a
position statement on CCTV as contained within the circulated report.
Members raised a query in
relation to Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) sites and questioned
whether a levy could be placed on businesses to offset the cost to the
Authority for providing CCTV coverage. Officers informed the Committee that
CCTV coverage had not been offered to businesses to date and that companies
such as TATA Steel already had CCTV arrangements in place. Officers stated that
the Authority may be in a position to offer this service to external
organisations in future, but it had not been standard practice previously to
seek out business opportunities for the Council in relation to CCTV
provision.
Members queried whether the
mobile CCTV vehicle deployed by the Parking Department linked into the Control
Room, and if so, whether there were any income generation opportunities with
regard to providing footage to outside bodies and the Police. Officers stated
that the vehicle in question was the responsibility of the Parking Department,
and there had been no dialogue between the two sections in this regard.
Officers informed the Committee that the camera enabled vehicle was independent
from the CCTV Control Room, as the CCTV Department were only concerned with
public safety cameras and not responsible for traffic enforcement issues.
Members queried whether it
was possible to charge a fee for the footage shared with the Police. Officers
explained that charging a fee for the footage shared with the Police had been
explored but not progressed to date. Officers informed Members that requests
from the police to review CCTV footage had declined in recent times.
Members questioned whether
there were any plans to put any new CCTV cameras in place and queried what the
criteria was. Officers stated that grant money was received initially in order
to install CCTV cameras across the borough, but ongoing associated costs (e.g.
maintenance and replacements were not provided on that same basis for this
non-statutory service). Officers informed Members that an independent
consultant was commissioned as part of the CCTV review resulting in the number
of cameras being reduced from 100 to 50 to meet required necessity tests.
Officers stated that the remaining cameras were mainly located in both town
centre areas and on the Aberavon Seafront. Officers added that if any further
cameras were requested that they would need to satisfy specific criteria before
being approved along with identification of related funding to provide.
Officers stated that there were 12 guiding principles to consider when
installing CCTV cameras as outlined by the Surveillance Camera Commission.
Members queried what the process
was for requesting a CCTV camera and what criteria would need to be satisfied.
Officers stated that a necessity test would need to be undertaken first of all.
Officers explained that data would need to be provided to develop a robust
business case that demonstrated the need for a public space camera at a
particular site Officers stated that further information would be circulated to
the Committee in relation to the process and criteria.
Members queried what
information were the Police entitled to access from the CCTV Control Room.
Officers stated that the Police were entitled to view the footage captured by
the CCTV cameras in relation to their enquiries.
Members questioned why the
option to work regionally was never taken up. Officers stated that an option to
work jointly was explored in depth with Bridgend County Borough Council and the
City and County of Swansea, but unfortunately no agreement was reached .As part
of an Income Generating project, alarm system monitoring for buildings such as
schools in Neath Port Talbot which have been previously provided by external
suppliers was being examined. Officers added that bringing that in house would
also help to sustain the CCTV service.
Following scrutiny the
Committee noted the report, and requested for an early draft of the report
setting out the analysis and conclusions of the feasibility study to be brought
back to the Committee for comment in early 2019.
Supporting documents: