Minutes:
The Committee considered the presentation delivered by Councillor Paul Taylor, the Portfolio Holder – Public Protection & Community Relations. Detailed within the presentation were a number of actions taken which fell within his remit, including some of the following: Public Protection - Food Safety inspections and Permitted Installation inspections; a full review of CCTV provision; increased resource within Community Safety and Private Sector Housing Teams; completion of Safer Streets 4 and commencement of Safer Streets 5; ASB and actions taken; establishment of a new sanctuary scheme; involvement in the emergency and recovery response for Storm Babet and Storm Henk following which involvement in the Multi Agency Flood Partnership; lighting installed at St. Mary’s Church; domestic abuse housing alliance accreditation process; safety challenge event; review and implementation of PSPO; Community Development – Community Grant Scheme; Community Lottery; community group support; humanitarian assistance and responses; engagement with under-represented groups. Also included were the proposed actions to be taken during 2024/2025.
In opening his presentation, Councillor Taylor sought to clarify for Members the difference between Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and criminal offence, by reading out the definition for both, adding that the Police were responsible for enforcement in relation to criminal behaviour and that the Council enforced actions to prevent ASB.
In considering the presentation, Members raised a number of issues, many of which focussed on the review undertaken of CCTV, which included camera locations, the age, make and model of the cameras and the business case for the in-house CCTV monitoring. One of the issues raised was in relation to why there was an apparent disproportionate provision of CCTV in Newark compared to other areas in the district, with Ollerton being cited. The Portfolio Holder advised that there was an identified problem in Newark but would consider other areas if there were issues. He asked Members to encourage all residents to report any incidents of ASB so that behavioural patterns could be identified.
In relation to the control room for CCTV monitoring coming back in-house, a Member queried how this would work in practical terms and whether it would be 24 hours per day monitoring with Fixed Penalty Notices being issued when incidents were taking place. The Portfolio Holder advised that it would be newer more modern equipment that was to be monitored 24 hours per day. The Council’s ASB Officers would not be on duty for the same duration but the Police would be and therefore incidents could be referred to them. The Member queried the benefit of bringing the control room back in-house as there would be no additional Police resource to react to reports of ASB therefore the location of the control room would be irrelevant.
A Member queried whether the location of the cameras was dependent on the reporting of incidents, noting that Newark and Balderton had better coverage than any other areas in the district. The Portfolio Holder advised that choosing the location for the cameras was done scientifically. He added that the majority of the funding was from grants which with a set number of criteria, adding that some issues were beyond the Council’s control.
In noting the proposal to bring the control room back in-house, a Member queried as to whether the proposed new operation would be better as the current partnership arrangement offered an economy of scale. The Portfolio Holder stated that it would be better in-house and that the CCTV monitoring operatives would know the area better rather than being stationed at the Police HQ. In response the Member queried as to the evidence for that statement. The Portfolio Holder advised that notice to quit the agreement had already been given and that it was known that the current equipment would no longer be supported. The new equipment would be able to offer the Police with a better and quicker resource when they wished to view footage as they would be able to input filters into the search facility rather than trawling through hours of footage as was the case currently. The Member also queried what had been done to maintain the current provision. The Portfolio Holder stated that as it was known that new equipment needed to be purchased then there had been no discussions in relation to maintaining the existing provision.
In referring to the flooding events following Storms Babet and Henk, a Member queried what the embedding of internal improvements had been. The Portfolio Holder advised that there had been a lack of staff able to response to certain issues. Resource provision had been increased following a review of service provision. A meeting with the Mayor of the East Midlands Combined Authority was scheduled to discuss flooding responses. There had been an issue with partners not being proactive in their approach to flooding and work was ongoing to improve this. He noted that some work was at a national level, citing the Environment Agency. A review of how the Council communicated what was happening had also been undertaken.
In noting that Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) were the lead authority for flooding issues, a Member commented that whilst NSDC took on more responsibility, it needed to be made clear to residents where responsibility lay. The Portfolio Holder was in agreement with this and advised that this would be included in future communications. It was noted that NCC had recognised the efforts of NSDC in relation to flooding within the district.
In relation to ASB at Northgate, specifically the vandalising of charging points for Tesla vehicles, a Member ask whether anything could be done to help the company e.g. provision of surveillance. The Portfolio Holder advised he would speak with Officers about this matter.
In returning to the issue of bringing the monitoring of CCTV equipment back in-house, a Member stated that he would wish to see a full breakdown of the splitting of the existing partnership and the actual physical benefit of it being located in Newark, including the costs thereof as opposed to the partnership being unchanged. The Portfolio Holder advised that paper had already been considered at full Council and Cabinet but that a more detailed breakdown was being development. He noted that not all the benefits were financial.
A Member queried whether the reporting of ASB incidents had the potential to shift the issue to other locations and that this may skew the data used to choose the location of cameras. The Portfolio Holder advised that urban areas typically had more cameras. He again urged everyone to report any incidents of ASB or criminality as until they were, they could not be counted in statistical information.
A Member noted that partnerships were beneficial for a number of reasons, citing: intelligence; skills and expertise sharing and that buying equipment in bulk with partners would result in a cost benefit. The Portfolio Holder acknowledged the benefits of partnership working but that dissolving the partnership would allow NSDC to have better coverage for their district.
In closing the debate, the Chair commented that the Criminal Prosecution Service often let down residents and that ASB sometimes turned into criminal behaviour. He also commented that all Members had been affected by recent flooding events following reports from residents.
AGREED that Councillor Paul Taylor, Portfolio Holder – Public Protection & Community Relations be thanked for his attendance.