North Norfolk District Council
Review of the
Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)
Service 2013
July 2013
1|
0|
CCTV Review 2013
Contents
1)
Introduction
3
2)
Current Operation
4
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
History of the Service
Current CCTV set up
Service users
Cost of the service
Data and results
Background context: National use of CCTV and its effectiveness
Other Considerations
• Public perceptions (reducing crime and community safety)
• Section 17 Crime and Disorder Act – Council responsibilities
3)
The Review
15
4)
Consultation
16
a) Key stakeholder statements
b) key stakeholder workshop
5)
Options appraisal – associated risks, basic costs & benefits analysis
17
a) Continuation of Service options;
i) Private management
ii) Shared working
iii) Retain in house (with revenue changes)
b) Discontinuation of Service (Decommissioning and closure)
c) Other revenue considerations
i) Camera rationalisation
ii) Opportunities for increasing revenue/funding
6)
Conclusions
29
7)
Appendices
31
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
1
Terms of Reference
Location Plans
Police Crime and Disorder Performance Indicators
Public Place survey response
Police letter
Stakeholder workshop findings
Private Management Proposals
Shared working Proposals
Wireless networking report excerpt
Camera Rationalisation
CCTV Review 2013
2
CCTV Review 2013
Introduction
1)
In 2012 a review of the CCTV service was requested as part of the current budget saving
proposals. The review was to include consultation with key stakeholders and included an options
appraisal for the future management of the service including closure.
The Cabinet meeting held on 7 January 2013 recommended the formation of a cross-party
working party which held its first meeting on 12 February where the Terms and Reference for the
group were agreed. (see Appendix A). The key drivers of the working party were as follows;
•
•
•
consider the options for the future provision of the CCTV service in North Norfolk;
identify savings, and;
steer the review process including stakeholder consultations
The stakeholder consultation was undertaken in the following manner;
•
•
•
a workshop with Town Councils and Chambers of Trade;
a statement from Superintendent Carl Edwards (for North Norfolk & Broadland) followed by
a question and answer session held at the Working Party meeting on 18.03.13;
written correspondence with financial contributors and local Safer Neighbourhood Action
Panels (SNAP);
This resulting document aims to summarise and clarify the current function and cost of the
service, considerations with regard to community safety including its effectiveness, an options
appraisal for the future management of the service and feedback from key stakeholders regarding
the service.
3
CCTV Review 2013
2)
Current operation
a)
History of the Service
In the early 1990’s companies trading on the Fakenham Industrial Estate formed a new company
to manage a CCTV system that covered the Estate and three of the Town Centre car parks in
Fakenham. The company, Industrial Security (Fakenham) Limited (known as ISFL) was operated
as a non-profit-making organisation by taking subscriptions from member companies with a
sharing of any surplus at the year end after allowance was made for renewals and other
management costs. The District Council was a shareholder in the company by virtue of its
ownership of the Town Centre car parks and land on the Estate, and as such was a major
contributor to the running of the service. The service operated from a temporary building located
on the Industrial Estate. Images were in black and white only and only one image could be viewed
at a time. Whilst this might have been acceptable at its inception, by 2000 such a system was outdated.
In 2000 the Home Office invited Local Authorities to bid for capital grant-aid towards the cost of
installing community safety CCTV systems in their town centres. North Norfolk took advantage of
this offer and made a successful application to install cameras in Cromer, Sheringham and
Fakenham. In a further round of bids a successful application was made to extend the system to
North Walsham and Wells and to upgrade the original system on the Fakenham Industrial Estate
and town centre car parks. The District Council made provision in its Capital Programme and
contributions were also received from some of the Town Councils and the Norfolk Police.
Award of the grant was conditional on there being sufficient funds made available locally to cover
the running costs of the system. This meant that as well as the District Council contributing, it was
necessary to gain confirmation from the Town Councils and business communities that they were
prepared to fund the running costs. Meetings were held in all of the towns and letters were sent to
all the town centre traders. The letters invited the traders to indicate on a pro-forma their
willingness or not to contribute towards the running costs of the system. Contributions were to be
based on rateable value and could be paid by installments. The letter from the Council indicated
that the contribution could be off-set against tax and that a contributor may receive a reduction on
their insurance premiums.
Five towns were canvassed, Cromer, Sheringham, Fakenham, North Walsham and Wells. In all
but Wells the response was sufficient to indicate that 75% of the running costs would be met. In
Wells this figure was only 66% but Members decided to proceed in any event.
Work on Phase 1 commenced in September 2000 and was completed 12 months later. A new
purpose-made Control Room was constructed on the first floor at Fakenham Connect. New
cameras were installed in Cromer, Sheringham and Fakenham town centres and the existing
cameras on the Fakenham Industrial Estate were connected to the new Control Room. The two
Operators from ISFL transferred to the District Council under Transfer of Undertakings (TUPE)
arrangements. These two, together with one additional full-time and two part-time Operators, now
meant that the Control Room could be manned 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It should be
noted that although provision was made for on-site supervision or management in the bid to the
Home Office, funding was never made available by the Council nor was overall management
integrated into the Departmental structure.
In September 2001 work commenced on the second and third phases, the upgrading of
Fakenham Industrial Estate, additional cameras in Fakenham town centre and new installations in
Wells and North Walsham. Due to pressures on BT, suppliers and installation contractors, work
was not completed until July 2003, 15 months later than anticipated.
Maps showing the current camera locations can be found within Appendix B.
4
CCTV Review 2013
Current CCTV set up
b)
The current set-up revolves around the Control Room which is based at the Connect Offices on
Oak Street in Fakenham.
The control room, which also houses a separate server room and staff facilities, is a selfcontained, air conditioned, secure unit. The main work station comprises of two banks of
monitors. The rear monitors show pictures from all 46 cameras. The front desk houses a panel of
five monitors which are used to view and control through a joy stick mechanism, specific cameras
in greater detail One monitor also has a direct feed to the Police HQ at Wymondham so that, on
request, the Police can view live footage of any event/incident taking place.
In addition the desk holds two PCs, one specifically for reviewing footage using Vigalent software
and the other networked and used for administrative purposes specifically logging all incidents –
using VTAS software. A Police Radio is also in place which is used by both static and mobile
police units enabling;
a) CCTV operatives to listen out for potential situations arising and visually monitor a situation
and take a proactive approach to the incident arising through filming and passing
information to the police on the ground (ie: informing police where suspects have run to);
and
b) Police to make specific requests to the Operative to observe or assist where possible in
‘real-time’ police activity (ie; monitoring stolen vehicles etc.)
c) CCTV operatives to contact Police HQ direct to raise concerns/identify incidents or
situations arising passing images to HQ when appropriate.
Since 2003 several cameras have been
replaced, with the older PTZ (Pan/Tilt,/Zoom)
cameras now only being in place on the
Fakenham Industrial estate and in Wells. As
would be expected, advances in technology
have brought about greatly improved
cameras with the most recent ‘metal mici’
cameras offering operational viewing to over
1 km (where there is a clear line of sight), are
vandal resistant and self cleaning.
Those cameras that are not ’fixed’ (which
relates to internal cameras only) operate on a
‘patrol’ system which means the cameras
move and film in a sequence looking at
particular trouble spots or public areas. Each
camera is set up individually and where appropriate privacy patches are applied to ensure the
windows of any private dwellings are obscured.
Each camera can be operated manually by a control room operative to permit specific viewing to
take place if required.
Captured footage is held on the server for a minimum of 28 days before being over-written. We
currently have three servers holding the footage from the 46 cameras, two are now obsolete but
still functioning to date, two others were replaced recently by one larger server purchased in 2012.
All cameras and control room equipment are covered by an annual service contract costing in the
region of £26k per annum. There are 46 cameras in operation, the type and location of which are
given overleaf (Figure 1):
5
CCTV Review 2013
Figure 1: Camera details
+ All Control Equipment in Control Room
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fixed
Internal - Fixed
External - Mici
External - Dome
External – Fixed Box
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Presets
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Auto-Iris
X
X
X
X
Zoom
George Edwards Rd (entrance)
George Edwards Rd (centre)
George Edwards Rd (south)
Garrood Drive
Millers Close
Wymans Way
Staff Car Park
The Drift
Enterprise Way
Connect
Connect (Covert Outside Control Room)
Queens Rd car park
Bridge St
Limes car park
Market Place
Norwich St
Oak St
Splash
Morris St car park
Clock Tower
East Cliff
High St
Station Rd car park
Church St (west)
Cadogan Rd car park
New St
Jetty Cliff
Meadow Rd car park
Church St (centre)
Church St (east)
North Lodge Park
Garden St (Budgen car park)
Gangway
New Rd
Church St
Vicarage St car park
St Nicholas Court
Market St
Kings Arms St
Market Place
Bank Loke car park
The Quay
Freeman St
Staithe St
Station Rd
Connect Reception
Lens Type
Colour
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
SH
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
CR
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
NW
W
W
W
W
F
Cam
Type
High Resolution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
51
52
53
54
55
Location/ Type
External - PTZ
F – Fakenham
SH – Sheringham
CR – Cromer
NW – North Walsham
W – Wells next the Sea
Mount
Cherry Picker
Location
Bracket
Town
Tower/ Pole
ID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CCTV Review 2013
Staffing
There are currently four SIA (Security Industry Authority) licenced operators employed, 2 fulltime staff members (37 hours per week) and 2 part-time (each 21 hours per week). In 2009
the service was reduced from 24 hour daily cover to 16 hour daily cover as part of a budget
saving exercise. Currently, the control room is covered on a shift basis with one operative
being present at any one time. The shift pattern is based on 16 hours per 24 hours coverage
as follows;
• Monday to Thursday 9.00am to 1.00 am
• Friday and Saturday 11.00 am to 3.00 am
Staff are contractually bound to comply with all aspects of the CCTV code of practice and the
Council’s procedural /operational guidelines.
d) Service Users
The Police - The most recent development of the service is the introduction of the Remote
Viewing Project implemented with the Norfolk Police Authority as part of a Norfolk wide
strategy. This project has allowed trained/authorised Police Officers to connect remotely to
the servers in the CCTV Control Room to review recorded footage. Whilst the Police have
paid for the necessary optic fibre cabling to enable this to happen it is a significant benefit to
the Police who previously had to send Officers across the District to the Control Room to
undertake their reviews or, alternatively, pay for Control Room operatives to undertake a
review on their behalf. The Remote Viewing Project is governed by the Local Authority Public
Space Visual Data Capture and Collection policy.
The Police also fund the installation/licensing of the Police radio which is situated in the
Control Room. The CCTV operators have direct contact with the Police Control Room via the
police radio, and can pass images to them in connection with live incidents. This is a two-way
communication arrangement with the CCTV operators able to contact the police to alert them
to situations which they might be unaware of, or the police contacting the CCTV control room
asking for images in response to 999 calls or incidents in progress. This allows the CCTV
control staff to capture evidence before the police arrive on scene and allows better
deployment of police resources based on incidents as they are happening. The radio is
controlled and operated under strict guidelines. The Council’s Civil Contingencies Manager is
the Airwave radio Custodian and the radio is operated in accordance with the Airwave
Services Code of Practice and the TEA2 (s) sub licence for core users.
Welfare
The control room frequently get observation requests from the Police for missing persons,
usually involving “vulnerable” individuals which can be due to a young age, medical
circumstances and or perceived risk to “self-harm”. The records show nearly 100 cases have
been raised since 2003, which equates to an average of around 11 a year. The team have
had quite a good detection rate relating to missing persons saving considerable police redeployment into the area. On more than one occasion the police were able to stand down the
support helicopter prior to its arrival to view the area.
Norfolk Fire and Rescue Service – Have contact details of their Partner Agencies including
CCTV to enable them to liaise directly for assistance with fires and rescues.
RNLI / HM Coastguard – CCTV liaise with RNLI Lifeguards and Coastguards in situations
where public are at risk along seafront, harbour and cliff top areas. They have located
vulnerable missing persons, including those with mental health issues, and children separated
from their parents, saving many man hours for the emergency services. During the summer
months they monitor beaches and offshore areas and direct lifeguards to persons in difficulty.
7
CCTV Review 2013
Inrix (formerly Traffic link) – Broadcast traffic and travel bulletins on local and national radio.
They have an agreed partnership with NNDC to improve traffic information to resident and
visitors. There is a 2 way communication between them and the CCTV control room who
update them on congestion problems and road closures, especially useful during the summer
months at the coast and during large scale public events such as carnivals and the Cromer
New Year’s fireworks. In return they agree to credit the cameras during bulletins on the air,
increasing the awareness of the cameras among the public and demonstrating a positive use
of them.
Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership – CCTV have previously worked closely with
the NNDC Community Safety Team to target persistent offenders displaying Anti-Social
Behaviour. This work is now undertaken by the Police North Norfolk Operational Partnership
Team. In the early stage of the process the ASB Co-Ordinator, or Police, may agree an
Appropriate Behaviour Contract (ABC) or Good Neighbour Contract (GNC) with the offender,
details are passed to CCTV who monitor their behaviour in public and report back if they break
the conditions of the contract. This process is often enough to prevent the behaviour
worsening. If the behaviour continues or escalates a more serious intervention is required,
offenders are issued with orders such as an Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO), CRASBO
(Criminal version) or Restraining Orders. CCTV continues to monitor their behaviour, reporting
breaches of conditions to Police and providing recordings as evidence if necessary for Court.
CCTV also work with Police to monitor individuals who have been issued with A Section 27
Public Order. Section 27 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 provides that a Police
Officer can issue a direction to leave a locality to an individual who is in a public place and
who presents a risk of crime or disorder. The direction will prohibit their return to the locality for
up to 48 hours, failure to comply is an offence and the individual is liable to be arrested if they
return. CCTV also assists Police with enforcing NNDCs Designated Public Place Orders
(DPPO) where alcohol is linked to ASB/ Criminal activity.
The Environment Agency – CCTV back up the work of the Environment Agency by
supplying live pictures of seafront areas to Police HQ, in particular Wells Quay, during
excessive high tides/ flood warnings.
NNDC ‘Internal’ users – there are some positive benefits of the service to the functions of the
Council as follows;
•
•
•
•
8
Environmental Health - have occasionally made requests to the Service to assist with
identification /details regarding issues such as fly tipping, dog fouling etc.
Property Services – several of the cameras are situated on NNDC car parks although
they also offer cover to adjacent key streets and it is undeniable that they do add to the
security offer to users of the car parks. Property Services also uses CCTV to identify
failed car park lights and have undertaken reviews to try and identify those involved.
Insurance – reviews of CCTV footage are undertaken where possible to collaborate /
refute insurance claims against the Council.
Event Management – various NNDC services have used the CCTV service to provide
a watching eye on events, most notably (recently) the Olympic Torch relay.
CCTV Review 2013
e) Costs of service
The table below (figure 2) summarises the running costs of the service from 2011/12 and
includes the current 2013/14 base budget figures.
Figure 2 – CCTV running costs and income
2011/12
Actual
(£000)
95
8
2012/13
Actual
(£000)
96
6
2013/14
Budget
(£000)
96
8
104
79
25
84
67
14
95
65
14
Total Expenditure
311
267
278
I
Income
(43)
(42)
(41)
Net Expenditure
£268
£225
£237
A
B
D
G
H
Employee costs
Premises
Supplies &
Services
Support Services
Capital Financing
The evaluation of Support Services charges is outside the scope of this review and the Capital
Financing costs do not represent a ‘real’ cost to Council tax payers. For the purposes of the
table below therefore these costs have been removed to show only the direct costs and
income for the service.
Figure 2a – CCTV direct running costs and income (excluding Support Services and
Capital Financing costs)
2011/12
Actual
(£000)
2012/13
Actual
(£000)
2013/14
Budget
(£000)
95
8
104
96
6
84
96
8
95
Total
Expenditure
207
186
199
I
Income
(43)
(42)
(41)
Net Expenditure
£164
£144
£158
A
B
D
Employee costs
Premises
Supplies & Services
A. Employee costs for the four CCTV operatives represent 48% of the overall direct budget
costs (figure 2) of the service based on the 2013/14 base budget.
B. Premises costs relate to the control room and predominantly cover electricity usage.
D. The majority of the Supplies and Services cost relates to £56k for the BT fibre optic
connections and £26k for the service contract for the cameras and equipment.
G. Changes to Support Services are not included in this review process therefore for all future
options appraisals this is a standard inclusion based on 2014 budget.
I. The income is mainly derived from internal transfers from Car Parks and Industrial Units
amounting to £33.5k, the remainder is derived from local businesses and Town Councils
making voluntary contributions of around £9k/annum.
9
CCTV Review 2013
Since its inception outside contributions from local businesses, which were made on a voluntary
basis and based on rateable values of the business, have decline significantly from 172
contributors (£36,208) to 9 in 2012/13 (£8,236).
f)
Data and results
Recorded footage is held on the servers for a minimum of 28 days during which time it can be
reviewed and if appropriate copies of footage showing incidents saved on CD or as ‘snapshot’
photographs. This is undertaken in compliance with the Code of Practice and Operational
procedures and when required for evidential use. All control room activity and incidents observed
by the control room staff are logged on a recording system called VTAS. This system holds a
considerable amount of information, most of which is required to be kept under current public
space legislation. The information can be interrogated to provide a variety of reports, two
examples are given below.
Figure 3 shows the type of incidents recorded and number of incidents logged by staff
since 2005. NB In June 2009 staffing hours reduced from 24hrs to 16hrs per day.
Figure 3 No of Incidents logged
Alarm Activation
Arson
Assault
Breach of ABC
Breach of ASBO
Breach of Restraining Order
Burglary
Car Crime (theft of of from)
Criminal Damage
Dog Fouling/Littering
Drink/Drugs
Fire
Fly Tipping
Fraud/Deception
Ill or Injured person
Missing Person - Adult
Missing Person - Child
Murder
Public Order/ Disturbance
Public Safety
Robbery
Sexual Assault
Suspicious Action
Theft of/ from Vehicles
Theft Other
Theft Shops
Highways (accidents, spillages etc)
Wanted/ Bail
Weapons
Total
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
46
40
22
9
3
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
44
63
40
55
41
31
29
28
0
0
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
8
5
3
3
7
8
4
4
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
1
41
49
31
40
27
17
18
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
48
37
16
15
18
16
12
9
4
4
1
4
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1
3
3
2
2
3
0
4
4
14
22
6
10
8
6
6
11
8
8
5
6
5
7
6
6
4
8
1
1
12
5
3
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
163
114
87
116
80
53
38
29
0
0
10
14
15
8
3
4
2
2
2
1
5
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
49
70
39
39
37
18
20
15
4
3
0
6
1
2
2
3
17
17
14
11
12
9
7
11
8
5
1
9
8
7
7
10
37
34
33
48
35
46
34
40
3
1
4
5
7
5
3
4
4
11
6
6
9
6
2
1
508
498
325
406
340
255
209
204
As you can see there are several categories of incidents and it is important to consider the
number of incidents in relation to severity or impact. Without in depth analysis of each case it
is difficult to be specific concerning this but for the purposes of this report it was considered
the groupings that follow were most appropriate. Therefore Figure 4 indicates the percentage
of incidents grouped as follows;
10
CCTV Review 2013
a) Incidents directly related to people
b) Incidents related to property and public space
c) Incidents related to vehicles and traffic (including things such as highway incidents,
accidents, obstructions and unexplained tailbacks)
Figure 4 Summary of incidents as a % of total incidents recorded
Control room cover hrs/day
24
24
24
24
24/16 16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
No of person related incidents
121
139
84
112
107
82
As a % of total incidents
24% 28% 26% 28%
31%
32%
No of property related incidents
345
320
208
240
197
124
As a % of total incidents
68% 64% 64% 59%
58%
49%
No of Vehicle related incidents
42
39
33
54
36
49
As a % of total incidents
8%
8% 10% 13%
11%
19%
Total incidents
508
498
325
406
340
255
16
2011
66
32%
107
51%
36
17%
16
2012
64
31%
96
47%
44
22%
209
204
As can be seen from the table above since 2010 (2009 saw a reduction of hours part way
through the year) so the total number of incidents reported has been steadily decreasing, from
a total of 255 in 2010 to 204 in 2012, which represents a reduction of 20%.
It could be argued that this is due to the effectiveness of the CCTV service. However it could
also reflect, amongst other things, a general reduction in crime levels in the area or the fact
that the crime has moved to areas not covered by CCTV (or a combination of both). It is
however extremely difficult to clearly demonstrate this one way or the other.
Breaking this down further over the type of incident reported between 2010 and 2012, the
number of person related incidents has decreased from 82 to 64 (a reduction of 22%). Over
the same period the property related incidents have also reduced by a similar percentage from
124 to 96 (a reduction of 23%). The number of vehicle related incidents reported has also
decreased slightly from 49 to 44, which is a decrease of 10%.
Whilst reported incidents have reduced across the board generally, as a percentage of the
actual overall incidents reported, person related incidents have remained fairly constant at
around 31% since 2010. The number of property related incidents has been declining over the
same period from 49% in 2010 down to 47% in 2012 while the number of vehicle related
incidents recorded has increased slightly from 19% to 22%.
Of the 44 vehicle related incidents reported during 2012, 40 relate to Highway incidents,
representing 90% of this type of incident, which covers issues such as, accidents,
obstructions, unexplained tailbacks etc. During the 3 year period from 2010 to 2012 the total
number of incidents recorded of this type was 129. Of this total 2% (2 incidences) related to
car crime, 6% (8 incidences) related to theft of/from vehicles, and the remaining 92% (155
incidences) related to traffic incidents.
To equate this into purely financial terms given that the services costs approximately £200,000
to operate (excluding support services and capital charges) then each reported incident costs
approximately £1,000 (based on the 204 cases for 2012). If you exclude the 40 traffic related
incidents (40 incidences representing 20% of the total), then this increases to around £1,220
per reported incident (£200,000 divided by 164 incidences). Again however, as with the
causes of the general reductions, it is too simplistic just to consider the service in these terms
due to the individual incidents, their nature and severity.
11
CCTV Review 2013
Figure 5 below shows breakdown of incidents recorded by Town (external cameras only)
Town
Cromer
Fakenham
NW
Sheringham
Wells
Total
Total number of incidents recorded by Town
No of
2009
2010
2011
2012
cameras
10
100
61
59
53
14*
70
73
64
46
8
89
56
46
43
6
58
46
28
39
4
23
19
12
23
42**
340
255
209
204
* 8 cameras on the Industrial Estate, 6 in Town Centre ** excludes 4 cameras covering NNDC reception areas
It should be noted that out of the 75 business contacted on the Fakenham industrial estate
(which has 8 cameras), only three responded to say that they were happy to make a
financial contribution towards maintaining the service in that area, although they did not
quantify the level of that support. A further two responded to say that they would or could
not contribute financially.
In addition the following reviews of footage have taken place by or on behalf of the Police
service. Unfortunately it is not possible at this point in time to know whether the incidents
were successfully used to bring about prosecutions as the police have not historically
recorded their crime figures in this way, although recording of this data commenced in 2012
there is insufficient data to report at this time.
Figure 6: Summary of reviews undertaken and how many reviews lead to evidential
copies being taken
Reviews of footage
undertaken
YEAR
Internal
3rd Party
Total
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
246
216
124
119
135
122
122
105
131
113
112
190
147
214
194
207
377
329
236
309
282
336
316
312
Working/ Master
Copies created
VHS
231
262
150
1
0
0
0
0
CD
0
0
7
188
184
176
146
148
Total
231
262
157
189
184
176
146
148
% Evidential
Copies
of Reviews
61.27%
79.64%
66.53%
61.17%
65.25%
52.38%
46.20%
47.44%
Reviews of footage are an important aspect of the CCTV operator’s role and, whilst the
Police now have some access to footage remotely, many still attend the Fakenham control
room to undertake this work, using the operators experience and the Council’s superior
viewing system. CCTV operators also undertake any other requests fed through other
services, internal and insurance requests. A review of footage can often disprove the
occurrence of an incident as well as prove it. Copies of footage can be used for a variety of
reasons including;
•
•
•
•
12
Identification of offenders and/or offending vehicles
Evidence to support cases for orders such as ASBOs
To refute false and malicious allegations
To prove or disprove alibis
CCTV Review 2013
The following graph illustrates who observes/reports every incident recorded in the past five years.
This clearly shows the majority of incidents observed are through the CCTV operator viewing the
cameras live or through subsequent reviewing of footage and identifying an incident has occurred.
Figure 7: No of incidents noticed/logged by source
g)
Background Context: National use of CCTV and its effectiveness
There is considerable public debate concerning the effectiveness of CCTV as both a means of
capturing incidents and as a deterrent, with effectiveness being difficult to determine and often
based on anecdotal evidence.
There is no doubt the police have routinely praised the use of street cameras and it is generally
acknowledged criminals are more likely to plead guilty when faced by the undeniable evidence of
being caught on camera. In addition the Home Office says this saves money, according to Hugh
Marriage, the Home Office's crime reduction officer for the south-east of England, a court hearing
with a guilty verdict saves around £3,000 to £5,000. CCTV pictures have also resulted in an
enormous increase in guilty verdicts. 1
A Parliament Briefing paper (2010) concluded that the use of closed circuit television cameras for
the purposes of tackling crime has greatly increased over the last decade. There is no official
figure for how many cameras are in use, although a figure of 4.2 million, based on academic
research, is often cited.
Although the rationale for CCTV use is that it “prevents crime”, a number of studies have
questioned the assumptions underlying this claim and drawn attention to a complex range of
factors that should be taken into account when assessing CCTV’s effectiveness. A 2007 report by
the Campbell Collaboration claimed that CCTV has a “modest but significant desirable effect on
crime” but that its use should be “more narrowly targeted” than at present.2
1
2
Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2071496.stm
Source: www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05624.pdf
13
CCTV Review 2013
One of the issues concerning collecting meaningful data on CCTV effectiveness is that CCTV can
work on a number of different levels across a range of different contexts. In addition any results
have to be reviewed in the context of North Norfolk and, as an area it is acknowledged, that North
Norfolk does enjoy low levels of crime compared to national averages.
As part of the stakeholder engagement process, a letter was received from Superintendent Carl
Edwards from Norfolk Constabulary (included within Appendix E) stating that the police felt that
the presence of CCTV in the majority of market towns in North Norfolk had a positive contribution
towards reducing crime and disorder. Mr Edwards did however also highlight the difficulties of
providing first hand evidence to support this.
h)
Other Considerations
It‘s difficult to argue a direct relationship between CCTV presence and crime levels. Moreover, in
an area of low crime, it could be argued that CCTV has less direct benefits than in high crime
areas. The view of the Police is clearly that CCTV has a range of benefits in promoting community
safety, reducing crime and increasing convictions. Until recently it has not been possible to obtain
data concerning police investigations, resulting convictions and the use of CCTV during the
process, this is now being addressed but we do not have meaningful data available at this stage.
It is also difficult to know how far public awareness of CCTV coverage has an impact on feelings
of safety in public places. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that in general people do feel a
greater degree of safety where CCTV cameras exist. However, there are also perceptions of “big
brother” which is regarded as intrusive and oppressive and in many cases people are not aware
cameras are in operation so may not benefit from any reassurance CCTV could offer.
•
Public Perception - Results of the Place Survey 2008/9
Public attitudes toward CCTV and its role in improving community safety can be gathered from the
2008/9 Place Survey.3 This was a national survey which asked as series of questions about
people’s perceptions of where they live and the local services provided.
The results for North Norfolk suggest that community safety is regarded as very important by
North Norfolk residents, and also that they are relatively satisfied with the service and issue of
Community safety within the area. Over half of respondents placed community safety including
CCTV and tackling anti-social behaviour in the top 5 priorities in a list of 17 items. 74% of
respondents were either very satisfied, satisfied or neutral about the service.
This level of satisfaction needs to be considered in the context of crime in North Norfolk which has
been consistently low for many years. The police report on a number of crime indicators and those
which may be affected by CCTV use are shown in Appendix D for recent years. It can be seen
that North Norfolk performs well against the County as a whole and that the rate has been
declining steadily since 2005. CCTV has been operational in 5 towns in North Norfolk since 2001.
•
Section 17 (Crime & Disorder Act) and the Council’s responsibilities
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder
reduction in the exercise of all their duties and activities. Clearly, CCTV is closely linked to this
issue. However, the Act does not require Councils to either provide or not provide CCTV in their
areas. In practice this means that:
3
http://intranet.northnorfolk.org/cs/files/folders/performance/entry1144.aspx
14
CCTV Review 2013
•
•
Each local authority must take account of the need to reduce crime and disorder in
the exercise of all its work. The duty is to consider the impact of a decision rather
than not make that decision. Where practical, Councils should seek to reduce any
negative impact; in effect leading to better decision making.
All decisions must be taken in light of their likely impact on (local) levels of crime
and disorder.
Within the CCTV review, Options 1 and 2 (as detailed above) would see a continuation of the
CCTV service, albeit at a reduced level, but Option 3 would result in the cessation of the service.
In all of these options, members need to consider what effect CCTV has on crime and disorder in
the District and whether any negative effect can be reduced.
As has been discussed, in this regard, CCTV is linked to two areas. Firstly, its very presence
potentially having an effect on reducing crime and disorder in certain areas. An absolute link is not
proven but it is generally accepted that it may have a positive effect. Secondly, the use of CCTV
by the Police in investigating criminal activity. In North Norfolk, this amounts to around 150
criminal cases a year where the Police gain some benefit from the use of CCTV. Both of these
should then be balanced against the current overall cost of CCTV provision and the proposed
costs and savings of the three Options under consideration.
In addition, the Act provides the expectation that Councils will work in partnership with other public
bodies such as the Police to reduce crime and disorder in their areas. Whilst the Police are given
access to the Council’s CCTV footage for investigative purposes, this is not the only partnership
activity the Council undertakes and these other activities will continue for as long as both parties
feel they are of benefit.
The Review
3)
The Review of the CCTV Service was instigated in early 2012 when a Project Proposal was
submitted to Cabinet (30.04.12). Cabinet considered the potential risk of adverse publicity of such
a review during the build up to the Police Commissioner elections (15.11.12) and the review was
deferred until after the elections had taken place.
In January 2013 Cabinet agreed to the setting up of cross-party CCTV Working Party.
working party was duly formed and the inaugural meeting was held 12.02.13.
The
Members of the working party are;
• Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds CHAIR (Con)
• Cllr Mike Baker (UkIP)
• Cllr Lindsay Brettle (Con)
• Cllr Brian Hannah (Lib Dem)
• Cllr Peter Moore (Lib Dem)
• Cllr Richard Shepherd (Con)
• Cllr Robert Stevens (Con)
The terms of reference of the group is given in Appendix A and copies of the minutes are available
to view on the Councils website.
15
CCTV Review 2013
CCTV Review – Key Project Dates
Working Party
Officers
Working Party
Working Party
Working Party
Working Party
Officers
Working Party
Working Party
Officers
Reporting
Overview &
Scrutiny
Cabinet
Full Council
Detail
Inaugural meeting
Contact stakeholders to seek opinion/ ascertain support
Meeting with Police
Stakeholder Workshop Event
Consider stakeholder responses and project timeframes
Consider draft option proposals
Commission wireless survey
Consider finalised option proposals and review draft document
Approval final document and make any recommendations
Let Stakeholders know decision process
Date
12.02.13
March
18.03.13
17.04.13
23.04.13
21.05.13
June
04.07.13
23.07.13
19.08.13
Report and Review documents considered
11.09.13
Consider comments/ recommendations and make decision
For Member information
07.10.13
23.10.13
4) Consultation
One key element of the review was to undertake consultation to ascertain the views relating to the
provision of CCTV in five of the District’s towns. There has been a two pronged approach to
consultation through written correspondence to those who contribute financially towards the
service and some interested parties and meetings with key stakeholders. It has been assumed
that current direct users of the service (see Section 2d) are all supportive of it.
a) Stakeholder statements
We wrote to all those who make a financial contribution to the CCTV service requesting them to
make comment on the future provision of the service. We received no response.
We also contacted the Safer Neighborhood Advice Panels (SNAP) requesting their thoughts on
the provision of CCTV in the area. Again, we have received no response.
The CCTV Working Party met with Carl Edwards (Superintendent for North Norfolk and Broadland
Policing Commands) who spoke to the working party regarding his thoughts on the usefulness of
CCTV both to the Police and as an important community safety support mechanism. He
understood the Council needed to make financial savings and was happy to provide what
information/data he could.
Previously the new Police Commissioner had held a meeting with Sheila Oxtoby where the
provision of CCTV was raised. Following this stating the Police Authorities case and this is
included in Appendix E.
b) Key stakeholder workshop
Local Town Councils and Chambers of Trade were invited to a workshop hosted at North Norfolk
District Council on Wednesday 17 April at 6 pm.
The workshop requested that attendees consider and discuss the following questions;
Thinking of community safety:
i) What are the problems facing market towns today?
16
CCTV Review 2013
ii) For North Norfolk market towns, what do you think are the most effective ways of
addressing crime and fear of crime that are currently used? And which do you feel are
most effective?
Thinking of current CCTV provision;
iii) Who do you think benefits most from CCTV?
iv) How do you think people benefit?
v) Who then should pay for it?
The summary of findings are given in Appendix F.
Conclusion
The stakeholders acknowledged the funding crisis but generally supported the continuation of the
CCTV service in some form. They made a specific request to be consulted / informed of the
decisions of the working party at the point where a preferred way forward. This was subsequently
built into the project programme.
5) Options appraisal
This section looks at the various options for future management of the CCTV service. The options
that have been considered include the following;
•
•
•
•
Private management of the service
Shared working opportunities with Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council
Keeping the service in house and reducing operational costs through a combination of
capital investment in new technology and reduction in operating times
Decommissioning of cameras and equipment and closure of the service
Each section below summarises the relevant proposal, gives associated costs and anticipated
savings and indicates advantages/ disadvantages/ associated risks and points of discussion,
followed by a conclusion.
a) CONTINUATION OF SERVICE OPTIONS
i) Private management proposals
The Working party requested officers explore the possibility of the service being managed by a
private company. For the purpose of this review officers approached GYBC whose own CCTV
service is managed by an arms-length CCTV management company (Community Safety (Great
Yarmouth) Ltd). Officers requested draft proposals for the transfer of the operational management
of the service to the GYBC CCTV systems / management arrangements.
The initial proposal received from Great Yarmouth CCTV management in conjunction with
Quadrant (our current equipment service providers) was based on the following provision;
• a continued 16 hours reviewing plus a reactive service during the remainder of the 24 hour
period;
• installation of wireless equipment purchased through a lease agreement (as GY currently
employs);
• the servers would transfer to GY and the Connect control room at Fakenham would close
completely.
Further details are given in Appendix G.
17
CCTV Review 2013
Considerations
Great Yarmouth have been in contact with Freeclix4 who have indicated that wireless technology
could replace many, if not all, of our current optic fibre installations (which currently cost NNDC
£56k per annum).
Great Yarmouth uses Remploy to supply staff for the control room. These staff are paid
considerably less than our current staff and the savings they projected were based on NO staff
transferring under TUPE. However if the service is transferred then the HR team and Legal have
confirmed that TUPE DOES apply.
At a meeting with GYBC and Quadrant held on 7th May it was acknowledged that;
a) Remploy are unlikely to be interested in any arrangements that include the transfer of staff
under TUPE due to impending company changes
b) GY would not pursue this proposal if TUPE applies
It should however be noted that the cost of the GY proposal was costed at £218,420 pa, and that
assuming internal recharges remained at current levels (£64,960 13/14) this would actually
represent a slight increase in the total cost of c£283k compared to the 2013/14 base budget cost
of c£279k.
4
Freeclix is a Norwich Based ISP, Telecom and IT service provider and has worked heavily on WiSpire; a joint venture between the
Diocese of Norwich and Freeclix and aims to provide better broadband services to the whole of the county as opposed to just the
highly populated areas.
18
CCTV Review 2013
ii) Shared working with Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council
Option 1 Shared Working Proposal (proactive monitoring)
When initial discussions with Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council (KL&WN) regarding the
transfer of the service were undertaken, they were requested to provide proposals based on the
following;
• a continued 16 hours reviewing plus a reactive service during the remainder of the 24 hour
period;
• cost of installation of equipment at Fakenham Connect to allow cameras to be operated
from KL;
• TUPE of current staff to KL&WN (if appropriate);
• Liaison with Police as appropriate to facilitate their use;
• Liaison with other users as current/appropriate;
• An understanding that the servers (storing footage) would remain at Fakenham connect
and feed through of controls and images would use the new optic fibre link originally
installed for the Revenues and Benefits shared services project.
Considerations
A meeting was held at the Fakenham Connect offices on 30th April to discuss the draft proposals,
with representatives from NNDC (Duncan Ellis and Max Collis) and KL&WN (Martin Chisholm and
Karl Weeks). At this meeting Kings Lynn indicated they were unable to offer NNDC any savings
on provision of the service based on the requirements outlined above due to the TUPE
requirements.
However, they stated that should Members wish to consider a complete change to the service
provision then the current service would not be continuing and redundancy, rather than TUPE,
would apply. Further details are explored in Option 2 below.
Option 2 Shared Working Proposal (reactive monitoring only)
For provision of;
• A purely responsive 24 hr service
• Cost of installation of equipment at Fakenham Connect to allow cameras to be operated
from KL;
• Liaison with Police as appropriate to facilitate their use;
• Liaison with other users as current/appropriate;
• An understanding that the servers (storing footage) would remain at Fakenham connect
and feed through of controls and images would use the new optic fibre link originally
installed for the Revenues and Benefits shared working project.
• Additional viewing as required (at cost plus a management overhead)
This revised proposal was to look at a ‘responsive only’ service which would mean that the current
KL&WN operatives would only view the NNDC monitors when they were alerted to a
potential incident /emergency. Otherwise cameras will work on remote ‘tour’ (ie they continue
to film various pre-set views without intervention). Initial discussions with HR have indicated that
such a change to the service provision would mean that redundancy would apply (as opposed to
any TUPE provisions) because the service provision would have changed so significantly.
This option would represent a reduction in service from that received at present. Initial revenue
savings have however been estimated at around £73k per annum although with a provision for
200 hours pre-arranged dedicated viewing (for key events) this figure falls to £69k. Any additional
19
CCTV Review 2013
hours would be at cost of approx. £21/hour. This proposal also assumes savings of around £5k
per annum due to camera rationalisation and a recharge of £5k per annum to the police for the
dedicated police line. The capital/one off costs for this proposal are in the region of £140k, as
there have been no camera purchases for the last few years this includes £50k for various camera
upgrades.
Further details are given in Appendix H.
Financial Forecast
Shared Working Proposal
500
KLBC
Estimates
7,894
250
Supplies & Services
95,189
95,189
4000 Equipment Purchases
4010 Equipment & Tools - R&M
4510 Telephone Rentals & Maint
13,955
26,500
54,734
13,955
26,500
54,734
64,960
64,960
14,590
Revenue Implications
2013/14 Base
budget
95,513
7,894
Employee Costs
Premises
Transport
Internal Recharges
Depreciation
14,590
KLBC Monitoring costs
Event cover approx £21.20/hr (200 hrs/annum)
27,489
4,240
Total Expenditure
278,646
214,612
Total Income
Pension defecit funding
Assumed camera rationalisation
Net cost
-41,294
-46,294
£
237,352
Anticipated annual saving
Return on capital
Redundancies
TOTAL
20
-£
69,034
79.8%
Estimated Payback (in years)
Capital costs
Integration cost
New server
Camera upgrades
One off cost
Pension strain
£
5000
-5000
168,318
1.3
19,500
17,000
50,000
20,000
33,000
139,500
CCTV Review 2013
Advantages
• This would enable the Council to retain a responsive service (24hrs) whilst allowing the
management of the operational side of the service to transfer to KL&WN, along with
retaining the ability to continue to record images via the NNDC equipment. Dedicated
direct management and supervision of the service will sit with KL&WN.
• Estimated revenue savings of around £69k per annum.
• The optic fibres required between KL&WN and Fakenham Connect are already in place
following the Revenues and Benefits shared services project.
• Potential use of additional resources if required.
• Retains the Local Authority ethos.
• Dedicated CCTV Management.
• Possible opportunities for economies of scale in respect of BT and maintenance charges in
the future.
Disadvantages
• One-off cost for redundancy payments (approx. £33k) plus pension strain costs (approx.
£20k).
• On-going optic fibre transmission costs - does not move the service forward with regard to
technology.
• Requires capital investment to redirect control of cameras, undertake camera upgrades
and provide a new server (est. £86.5k).
• Server room still required at Fakenham Connect.
• Possible issues in managing server and other equipment remotely.
• Additional provision will need to be agreed/made for a proactive service during events (200
hours included in costings). However this may not be sufficient to cover all key events and
additional hours may need to be factored in/budgeted for in the future.
• Control Room located remote from NNDC and North Norfolk.
Risks
• It must be considered that a reduction in service may result in a reduction in contributions
from outside businesses/organisations. This may result in a drop in income levels of up to
£9k.
• Recordings taken from cameras on tour are often inadmissible as evidence unless
cameras focus in on individuals to a greater level. General touring is not carried out at this
level and needs operator assistance to zoom in for clear identification purposes.
• Over 50% of incidents, (those presently picked up by CCTV operators), will be missed
completely or only caught on tour. Operators often prevent incidents by anticipating a
problem and passing this information to the Police can then act before a situation
escalates. e.g. people building up for a fight can be calmed or dispersed before it gets
serious or before any criminal damage is caused.
• If cameras aren’t monitored then there is a risk that when Camera faults/problems occur,
or when cameras need washing/ wiping (a particular problem at the coast), these will not
be picked up. Currently staff regularly have to reset the BT cabinet as North Walsham
cameras lock up intermittently and don’t move (BT can’t find out why this occurs).
• If the Fakenham connect control/server room is unmanned any failings in servers, the BT
cabinet or the air conditioning will not be noticed and may result in equipment/camera
failure.
• Kings Lynn staff are unlikely to have local knowledge regarding the geography of the area
and local crime issues/ ASB problems, therefore their response will be less efficient/ useful
to Police.
• A reactive response may give the public a false sense of security.
• ASB/Crime may increase if CCTV not used preventatively.
• Reduction in service should current staff choose to leave in the interim period.
• Police use a basic version of the Vigilant software for remote viewing. They cannot view
on fast forward and can only download 10 minutes of data at once. Because of this they
21
CCTV Review 2013
•
•
still visit the Control Room at Fakenham for reviews and ask for copies. Moving this facility
to Kings Lynn will be very remote to some of the District’s Stations, although it is accepted
that this is an issue for the police and not NNDC.
No active monitoring of seafront or liaison with RNLI Lifeguards during tourist season. No
standard monitoring of public events, ie. carnivals, Christmas lights etc, although provision
has been made for a minimum additional 200 hours to cover some ‘special events’.
Possible reduction in picture quality with relaying images to Kings Lynn.
Considerations
On a basic level this proposal does offer the greatest savings of all those options reviewed other
than complete decommissioning and closure of the service. Members would need to determine a
required level of pro-active service and budget accordingly.
This options may be unpopular with stakeholders and current users because of the reduction in
proactive viewing and remoteness to the district.
The proposal does include the installation of a new server and some camera upgrades but there is
no provision for improving the transmission elements so the optic fibre costs remain and are
unlikely to reduce.
iii) Retain in house service through management & technology changes
Given the high cost of investment in the original system, the investment since that time, and the
desire of stakeholders to see service continuation, the option of continuing with the service in
house needs to be considered. The option below considers maintaining the proactive ‘in house’
service but with reduced control room coverage and investment in new technology to achieve
revenue savings.
This proposal would include;
• Continuation of the active service but with control room coverage reduced by 20 hours per
week;
• The introduction of wireless technology;
• Continued liaison with Police as appropriate to facilitate their use;
• Continued liaison with other users as current/appropriate;
• Upgrades to camera / equipment as necessary to facilitate wireless technology
This option considers a variety of ways to reduce revenue costs whilst maximizing opportunities
for using wireless and broadband technology.
Two of the main costs of the service are staff wages (£96k) and the BT optic fibre cost (£56k).It
would need to be considered whether reduced cover in the control room is acceptable. A
reduction of 20 hours per week would in effect mean one part-time post redundancy and save the
service approximately £16k in salaries, while a reduction of the overtime budget would save an
additional £2k.
A survey has been undertaken by Freeclix to ascertain where wireless technology could be
employed. There is no doubt that the future for CCTV lies with wireless technology and this has
been successfully deployed by Great Yarmouth Borough Council.
The survey undertaken in June 2013 indicated that connectivity could be established through a
combination of light licence radio equipment and long range microwaves. The system requires
the access/use of eight key transmission points which ideally have been identified as; Trunch
Church, Cromer Church, Fakenham Church, Wells Quay residential flats, Burlington Hotel,
22
CCTV Review 2013
Aylmerton Water Tower and Walsingham grain silo. The full Survey Report is available on request
from Maxine Collis (xtn 6256).
Financial Forecast
Keeping in house (wireless)
Total staff hours/week (worked)
2013/14
Base
budget
116 (112)
Proposal
95 (92)
Revenue Implications
Employee Costs
95,513
Premises
7,894
Transport
500
Supplies & Services
57,500
13,955
26,500
0
54,734
5,000
26,500
26,000
-
Internal Recharges
64,960
64,960
Depreciation
14,590
14,590
278,646
-18,794
221,780
-18,794
-5,000
22,500
Total Expenditure
8131 Income - Other Contributions
8250 Charges - Other Recoverable
8822 Income - other services
Total Income
Net cost
-22,500
-41,294
£ 237,352
Anticipated annual saving
aginst 2014 budget
Installation of all equipment
New server
Camera upgrades
redundancy = 1 p/t post
TOTAL
-46,294
£ 175,486
24.5%
4.1
Capital Cost
Provisionof wireless equipment
-
-£ 61,866
Return on capital
Estimated Payback (in years)
23
7,894
95,189
4000 Equipment Purchases
4010 Equipment & Tools - R&M
4477 Other Fees & Charges
4510 Telephone Rentals & Maint
One off cost
76,836
71,000
115,000
17,000
50,000
7,000
260,000
CCTV Review 2013
Advantages
• This option would enable the Council to retain and continue to manage the service in
house, allowing greater flexibility for future management changes.
• Updates the system to make greater use of technological advances.
• Estimated revenue savings of just under £62k per annum.
• Likely to be popular with stakeholders keen to see NNDC continue running this service
• Control continues to be situated in the District and operated by staff who know the area.
• Continued liaison with RNLI Lifeguards during tourist season and monitoring of public
events, ie. carnivals, Christmas lights etc.
• Continued access to the Fakenham control room for local Police and other users
• Reduced redundancy outlay.
• Opportunity to pursue providing service to other businesses (although reduced service
hours will make this less attractive).
• No on-going optic fibre costs.
• Cameras will be monitored more frequently enabling faults to be picked up/dealt with
sooner.
• Having operators at Fakenham reduces the lone working risk for other Connect workers
and makes the internal cameras more effective.
Disadvantages
• One-off cost for redundancy payments (approx. £7k)
• Significant capital outlay for wireless equipment / camera upgrades estimated at £253k
• Some uncertainty regarding successful implementation – relies on negotiation etc
• It is likely that this system would take 9 – 12 months to install from order to completion.
Risks
• The implementation of wireless technology in such a rural location may be deemed to have
additional risks. The question was posed to Freeclix and their response is given in
Appendix Ia). In addition if the system can be made to work there is a risk that the erection
of new structures in the future (buildings, wind farms etc) may interfere with the current
‘line of sight’. This might then require the network to be reconfigured slightly and although
it is not anticipated that this would represent any major expenditure it would be dependent
upon alternative sites being available to use to bounce the signal off.
• This proposal does suggest a further reduction in the service provision which may not be
sufficient to enable the Council to seek additional revenue (through private contracts),
funding opportunities or keep current contributions.
• No defined costs available until negotiations take place with aerial sites – although £130k
over 5 years includes these costs and is considered by Freeclix to be a pessimistic
estimate.
• Third party cooperation is not forthcoming or proves expensive meaning alternative
locations have to be identified /negotiated.
• It must be considered that a reduction in service may result in a reduction in contributions
from outside businesses/organisations. This may result in an income reduction of up to
£9k.
• The control room will be un-manned for up to 12hrs/day – Recordings taken from cameras
on tour are often inadmissible as evidence unless cameras focus in on individuals to a
greater level. General touring is not carried out at this level and needs operator assistance
to zoom in for clear identification purposes.
Considerations
The survey has proven that the use of wireless technology is possible in North Norfolk, if not
straightforward. Topography and breadth of the area does hinder the easy transmission of signals
and although this is not insurmountable it does add to the costs as third party cooperation is
required for several of the ‘hub’ points. Inevitably as more wireless technology and masts come
into being this situation may ease and become less expensive to use.
24
CCTV Review 2013
This option would indicate that the Council is committed to the future of the service, bringing in
21st century technology and ensuring the equipment is fit for purpose for the foreseeable future so
may be popular with Stakeholders wanting to see the service continue. However it has to be
acknowledged that this option is reliant on a capital outlay of up to £253,000. As there have been
no camera purchases for the last few years this includes £50k for various camera upgrades.
In addition this proposal suggests a reduction in current staffing hours (from 112 hrs/week to 92
hrs/week) in order to save £18k which inevitably results in a poorer/reduced service offer, which
in turn, may hinder any attempts to increase revenue through contributions or through selling the
service to businesses seeking private coverage.
This option does however does lay solid foundations for future service improvements and still
provides options to increase revenue and explore opportunities for increasing revenue through the
monitoring of commercial cameras. This is an area not explored as part of this current review.
The Executive summary of the report in Appendix I.
25
CCTV Review 2013
b) DISCONTINUATION OF SERVICE
When reviewing a non-statutory service as part of a spending review it would be necessary to
consider the closing and decommissioning of the service. In the case of CCTV this would bring
about revenue savings in the region of £189k per year, based on the following;
Financial Forecast
A
B
D
Employee costs
Premises
Supplies & Services
Expenditure saving
I
Add back loss of direct CCTV income
Add back pension deficit funding
Remove additional insurance saving
Total forecast saving
One–off Costs
Redundancy
Pension strain
Decommissioning of equipment
Possible income from sale of equipment
2013/14
Budget
(96,000)
(8,000)
(95,000)
(199,000)
9,000
5,000
(4,000)
(£189,000)
33,000
20,000
105,000
(10,000)
£148,000
The forecast above excludes Support Service charges as these would remain, Capital Financing
costs have also been removed as these would not represent a real cash saving to the authority.
The loss of income is only estimated at £9k as the remaining income is recharged from other
budget areas ie car parks, and would therefore remain with the Council regardless of whether the
CCTV service was in operation.
There is also a £5,000 cost included above that relates to pension deficit funding that is included
within the staff salary costs but which would remain with the authority even if the staff were to be
made redundant. This is mostly offset by a £4,000 insurance saving which would result from the
removal of the equipment and which is not reflected within the Supplies and Services budgeted
cost.
Such an undertaking would obviously involve the closure of the control room, likely redundancy (if
redeployment is not possible) of the four members of the Control Room staff and
decommissioning and removal of the cameras, the mounts and poles.
It is estimated that the cost of decommissioning the cameras would be up to £99k with a further
£6k to clear the control room under WEEE legislation. There may be some resale value of the
most modern cameras / equipment which may return up between £10-£15k, which, based on the
lower income estimate would require a one off cost of around £148k that would have a payback
period of less than a year based on the forecast saving of £189k per annum. It should however be
26
CCTV Review 2013
noted that the decommissioning costs estimated are ‘worst case’ and should this option be
pursued competitive quotes will be sought to ensure value for money is achieved.
The one off redundancy costs for the staff would be in the region £33k with a further £20k relating
to pension strain costs.
Advantages
• Significant cost saving of approximately £189k per annum.
• May allow for alternative rental opportunities at Fakenham, although at this point no
additional income has been factored in in relation to this and levels would be relatively low
even if they could be achieved due to the space currently occupied by the service.
• Some officer time would be released to focus on alternative corporate projects and
initiatives, such as income maximisation.
• The alternative options above all include a £50k capital budget for the replacement of old
equipment and this money would not need to be spent under this option
Disadvantages
• Unpopular choice with stakeholders.
• Once decommissioned it is unlikely to ever be resurrected.
• Council may be considered to not be mindful of its obligations under Section 17 of the
Crime and Disorder Act.
• Incidences go unreported and crime levels increase in those areas currently covered by
CCTV
• One off costs of around £148k.
Risks
• Considerable reputational risk to the Council.
• May be seen as a short sighted policy being contrary to other local authorities who are
increasing/installing CCTV equipment (South Norfolk District Council installing CCTV in
2013, although they are assuming the service provided can operate on a minimal budget
and will be supported mainly by contributions from local businesses).
c)
Other revenue considerations
As part of this review and as a result of the Stakeholder consultation, we have undertaken a
review of the opportunities to reduce costs through camera rationalisation and opportunities to
increase revenue.
i)
Camera rationalisation
As part of the review it was appropriate to consider saving costs through a study of camera
usefulness, age and cost of running. The table in Appendix J shows the camera age, type, annual
cost of the optic fibre cable and the number of incidents recorded against that camera in the past
3 years. The summary clearly indicated the cameras situated on the Fakenham Industrial Estate
are old and levels of incidents recorded in those locations are low in comparison to those situated
in town centres. In addition cameras on North Lodge Park, Cromer and at Sheringham Splash are
under utilised. Removal of these cameras (excepting the one on the entrance to the Industrial
Estates which may be prudent to keep) would bring about an annual saving of just over £5k.
27
CCTV Review 2013
Because the Industrial Estate cameras cover many businesses we wrote to the occupants asking
their views on the importance of the cameras and whether they would consider contributing
financially. We received 5 responses. Three supported the service with two offering
contributions. Two companies stated they would not require it, one because they had their own
24hr CCTV coverage.
If the service were to continue, further work could be done to consider repositioning of cameras for
greater effect. In addition the removal of the cameras indicated would free up more server space
to take on additional privately funded cameras is appropriate.
ii)
Opportunities for increasing revenue
Unfortunately, since its installation, the CCTV service has not benefitted from a proactive
approach to securing additional funding or revenue through the monitoring cameras for private
businesses or organisations. The funding streams identified at set up where based on voluntary
contributions which has dwindled over the years starting with in excess of 170 contributors falling,
in 2012 to just 11.
Only two Town Councils currently contribute to the service despite representatives of those
organisations at the Stakeholder consultation workshop agreeing that all Town Councils should
contribute something.
It is difficult to estimate whether there would be any requirement for monitoring of cameras in what
is essentially a rural area. Kings Lynn Borough Council does monitor a significant number of nonCouncil cameras but has several large industries and services that require such a service. There
have been some enquiries in the past few years to NNDC but it is difficult to be certain about any
projected increases without actively promoting the service to users. Given the current economic
situation and the fact that small CCTV cameras can be purchased for very little it would be
necessary to take a cautious approach to forecasting any significant increases in income from
selling the service externally.
In addition to external contributions, the main income for CCTV comes from car park contributions.
This contribution to the service has remained static since 2001 despite many car parks and their
users benefiting from the service. It may be considered that a rise in this payment or possible link
to income could be considered if the CCTV service remains functional although it is appreciated
that this would have no impact on the income levels of the Council overall.
It must also be considered that following this review and any resulting reduction (not closure) in
the service provision, may result in a withdrawal/reduction of current contributions from
businesses and Town Councils.
28
CCTV Review 2013
6) Conclusion
Context
North Norfolk District Council faces tough and challenging times in the current financial climate
and it is essential that we continue to ensure we are getting value for money for the taxpayers and
local residents in relation to all our services. Currently the Council has to make an estimated
£1.2m of revenue savings by 2016/17.
As part of the on-going drive for efficiencies Cabinet requested a review of the CCTV service,
which resulted in the CCTV Working Party being established. The objective of the review was to
identify savings and to provide a comprehensive report regarding the future provision of the
service, shared working options and possible options for attracting additional income.
Undertaking
The CCTV working party met on six occasions since February 2013 to undertake a review of the
current NNDC CCTV service. With the assistance of officers we have undertaken consultation
with stakeholders including Town Councils, Chamber of Trades, financial contributors and SNAP
(Safer Neighbourhood Panels) and met with the Police Superintendent for the North Norfolk and
Broadland District.
Generally we have found stakeholders to be very supportive of the service and most wish to see
its continuation. We have had some support for suggested increases in contributions for the
service but these are limited. A specific written consultation with businesses on the Fakenham
industrial Estate resulted in 5 responses (7%) and of those respondees, three were in favour of
keeping the cameras and two were not.
Superintendent Carl Edwards acknowledged that the Police were frequent users of the service
and that it did help them in their enquiries however he was clear that no financial contribution
would be forthcoming from the Police Authority indicating that he felt the service was a local
community safety benefit rather than solely of benefit for Police work.
To provide overall context the net cost of the service as per the 2013/14 Base Budget is
approximately £237,000, with the actual cost for 2012/13 being £225,000. Direct budget costs for
the service (excluding management unit charges and capital charges) are around £199,000.
It has been difficult to prove the effectiveness of CCTV despite statistics on incidents being
available there is little data available to link incidents to criminal prosecutions and on a national
level opinion on its effectiveness is divided. This is equally apparent with the working party who
have different views and opinions on its effectiveness in dealing with local issues. Whilst statistics
show there is a small decline in the number of incidents recorded on a year by year basis, it is
difficult to know if this is due to its deterrent effect or a general trend in reduced crime in the North
Norfolk area. In addition it would appear that the number of highway related incidents are
increasing and person/property related incidents are decreasing.
Conclusion A number of alternative options and potential working arrangements have been
considered as part of the review process and these are given above. The review has identified
three potential options as discussed above including shared working, internal investment (wireless
option) and decommissioning, all of which achieve efficiency savings for the Council.
29
CCTV Review 2013
Service
Provision
Proposal
Annual
Revenue
savings £
One off /
Capital
requirements
£
Conclusion
Private Management
16hr proactive
24hr reactive
£0
N/A
Not a viable
option to pursue
Shared working with
KL&WN
16hr proactive
24hr reactive
£0
N/A
Not a viable
option to pursue
Shared working with
KL&WN
24hr reactive
service
(£69,034)
£139,500
Management changes /
move to wireless
Ave 13hr
proactive service
(£61,866)
£260,000
Closure
Nil
(£189,000)
£148,000
The shared working option would enable a 24 hour reactive service, maintain a local authority
ethos, have dedicated direct management and have potential economies of scale for the future (in
relation to things such as maintenance contracts). The option would however require the current
staff to be made redundant and there are some associated one off costs along with a capital
investment. The server room would still be situated at Fakenham but the control room would be
based at Kings Lynn. There would also be a significant change to the current service, with the
switch from proactive to reactive monitoring.
The in-house option would retain the management of the active service and minimise
redundancies although there would still be a loss of one part time post. It would take advantage of
wireless technology and increase the future flexibility of the service while also being popular with
stakeholders. This proposal does however involve a slight reduction on the hours covered, and
require a significant capital investment. It would involve the introduction of a wireless system in a
rural area, although the feasibility study does indicate that the system would work in the area,
subject to negotiation in relation to aerial sites. A visit was undertaken by myself to Great
Yarmouth Borough Council’s CCTV control room which recently moved from optic fibre to a
wireless system. The visit allowed me to assess the success of this venture and confirm that
there was no loss in quality of picture or service. It should be noted that other Norfolk CCTV
systems are also considering wireless options.
As can be seen from the summary table above the discontinuation option results in the highest
saving. It would allow for the space currently occupied by CCTV to be let out (although this has
proven difficult in the past at Fakenham) and would mean that the £50,000 for camera upgrades
would not be required. This option does however come with a significant reputational risk for the
Council and involves making all of the staff redundant. It is likely to be unpopular with
stakeholders and once decommissioned it unlikely to ever be resurrected.
Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds
Chairman of the CCTV Working Party
30
CCTV Review 2013
7) Appendices
Appendix A: Terms of Reference
CCTV Working Party Terms of Reference
Purpose
The Council will establish a working party to;
• consider the options for the future provision of the CCTV service in North Norfolk;
• identify savings, and;
• steer the review process including stakeholder consultations
•
Remit
As part of the budget savings exercise a review of the current CCTV operation has been
requested by Cabinet as part of the overall review of services. The working party is therefore
required to identify savings and to consider options and propose appropriate changes for the
future of the service.
The working group will oversee the production of an options appraisal paper which will include;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A detailed summary of the current service provision including financial breakdowns;
A review of the service in a District and County context including details of the extent of
services provided to others;
Overview of crime and disorder in North Norfolk along with consideration of any Section 17
obligations;
A summary of activities undertaken including incident data;
An appraisal for Member consideration on the future options for the service including
shared working options and decommissioning along with the potential savings from each
option;
Assessment of the risks to the Council for each option discussed;
The results of all Stakeholder consultations;
Conclusions
Recommendations
Once agreed by the working party the options appraisal paper will be presented to Overview and
Scrutiny prior to going forward to Cabinet and Full Council.
Membership
Chair: Cllr Annie Claussen-Reynolds,
Members: Cllr Mike Baker, Cllr Lindsay Brettle, Cllr Brian Hannah, Cllr Peter Moore, Cllr Richard
Shepherd, Cllr Robert Stevens
Timescales
At present the working party is scheduled to meet 4 times, the draft timescales are for the working
party to have their final meeting by the 6 June 2013. The purpose of this meeting will be to review
the final draft report and agree recommendations prior to the report going forward to Overview and
Scrutiny at the end of June and then Cabinet and Full Council in July.
31
Appendix B: Locations of Cameras
32 |
33
CCTV Review 2013
34
CCTV Review 2013
35
CCTV Review 2013
36
CCTV Review 2013
37
CCTV Review 2013
SPI 5d
NI 20
BVPI
127b
5.01
10.50
3.51
7.72
2.71
4.46
2.14
4.79
2008/09
4.49
6.12
Vehicle crimes per 1000
population
North Norfolk
Norfolk
2.69
5.67
2007/08
4.97
7.19
3.24
4.13
2.75
6.49
2006/07
6.68
9.34
Assaults with Less Serious Injury Crime per 1000 population
North Norfolk
not collected prior to 2008
Norfolk
Violent Offences in a public place per 1000 population
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
North Norfolk
6.29
5.99
7.11
Norfolk
9.76
10.98
10.49
APPENDIX C:Crime and Disorder Performance Indicators
2.58
4.42
3.10
4.75
2009/10
3.67
5.83
1.93
3.87
2.87
4.28
2010/11
3.00
5.49
1.55
3.19
3.23
4.56
2011/12
3.42
5.76
38 |
Appendix D: Results of the Place Survey 2008/9 for North Norfolk
District Council
Q7 North Norfolk District Council and Norfolk County Council are also key providers of public
services locally, so we would like your views on some of the services they provide. How
satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following services provided or supported by
your local councils?
Bases
Community Safety e.g. CCTV,
Tackling anti social behaviour
%
(772)
Very
satisfied
Fairly
satisfied
Neither
satisfied
nor
dissatisfied
5
34
35
Fairly
dissatisfied
Very
dissatisfied
17
9
Q8
In the current climate of public sector spending cuts, which of the 5 things
below would you most like to see protected, as far as possible, from cuts.
Q9
And which 5 things would you be least concerned about cutting?
Top 5
priorities
Community Safety e.g. CCTV, Tackling
anti social behaviour
Bottom 5
priorities
%
%
(995)
(906)
54
11
39 |
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix E: CCTV – Police Statement
40
CCTV Review 2013
41
CCTV Review 2013
42
Appendix F: CCTV - Stakeholder Workshop findings
Date of Workshop: 17 April 2012
Stakeholder Attendees:
Andy Bullen
Barry Starling
Chloe Nelson
Dave Robertson
David Cubitt
David Pritchard
Greg Hewitt
Jayne Cubbitt
Julie Nelson
Pauline Grove-Jones
Rodney Craffer
Tracey Khalil
Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Sheringham Chamber of Trade
Holt Chamber of Trade
North Walsham Town Council
Fakenham Town Council
Cromer Town Council
Wells next the Sea Town Council
Fakenham Town Council
Holt Chamber of Trade
Stalham Town Council
Wells next the Sea Town Council
Cromer Chamber of Trade
NNDC Attendees:
Annie-Claussen Reynolds
Brian Hannah
Lyndsay Brettle
Richard Shepherd
Peter Moore
Rhodri Oliver
Nick Baker
Duncan Ellis
Maxine Collis
Jeanette Wilson
Summary of responses to workshop questions
Part 1: Thinking about Community Safety….
1) What and where are the crime and disorder problems facing North Norfolk’s towns today?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Underage alcohol related issues in town centres predominately around pubs/clubs
Other anti-social behaviour
Minor drugs issues
Criminal damage to property
Break-ins (sheds & beach huts) – predominantly along promenades
Boy racers - mostly on car parks, driving through town centres
Graffiti /vandalism – public toilets, public spaces
Church vandalism and theft
Low level/low grade crime – tends to be more annoying than serious issues
2) What do you think are the most effective ways of addressing crime and fear of crime?
•
•
•
•
PCSOs working in schools
CCTV
Local police knowledge
Local police presence
43 |
CCTV Review 2013
Part 2: Thinking of the current CCTV provision….
1) Who do you think benefits most from CCTV? (Then rank in order of greatest use)
• Public
• Police
• Residents of town
• Businesses where covered
• Tourists
• Justice system
• Insurance companies
2) How do you think people benefit?
• Feeling safer
• Captures evidence
• Assistance with insurance claims
3) Who then should pay for it and how?
• Could increase Town precept
• All Town Councils where CCTV installed should contribute equally (or on pro rata for
cameras)
• Consider income from Town Council including capital contributions
• If for good of all then everyone should pay towards service – ie Council Tax
• Police
• Businesses
• Contributions from pubs/supermarkets or those business covered by the cameras
• Fakenham Ind Estate businesses should pay for those cameras or lose them
• Who ever pays - it equates to an additional tax burden
General discussion points and queries
•
•
•
•
•
•
Holt Town Council reportedly not keen to have CCTV historically
Difficult to prove how successful CCTV is
Difficult to measure levels of fear of crime
Difficult to prove deterrent effect
No direct links from footage to convictions
Not enough Police on the streets
The majority of Stakeholders who attended felt that the CCTV cameras should stay. The following
information/action was requested:
1. Can we find out which cameras are most effective? (With a view to losing those that do not
pick up incidents)
2. This stakeholders group would like to be consulted about proposed option before it is
ratified through the Council process
3. Copies of the presentation slides to be sent out to all attending
44
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix G: Private management proposals
North Norfolk Integration into Great Yarmouth
This document summarises how the camera system currently monitored at Fakenham for North
Norfolk DC (NN) can be connected into the system at Great Yarmouth CCTV control room. It is
based on 46 cameras in total.
The intention is to connect the cameras back into the Great Yarmouth system using licensed long
distance radio equipment. The images and the control of these cameras will then reside at Great
Yarmouth.
North Norfolk
The cameras currently use BT fibre optics on a point to point (P2P) basis to connect them to the
control room at Fakenham. The fibre optics transmits that video image and the telemetry data.
To converge the two we need to encode the video before we connect it to the wireless equipment.
This is best done at each camera location itself and then relieves the need for the BT fibre enabling
a substantial saving on revenue.
In all there are 46 cameras on the NN network located in:
•
•
•
•
•
Fakenham
Sherringham
Wells on Sea
Cromer
North Walsham
A single channel video encoder will be installed at each camera location in the base of the camera
pole or in an adjacent equipment box. These encoder units match the type of system installed in
Great Yarmouth enabling the cameras to be integrated.
A small radio transmission unit will be attached to the camera pole or wall adjacent to the camera
and connect to the video encoder. This configuration will then convert the existing video signal and
data into an IP (internet protocol) stream which enables it to be sent using the wireless system.
These IP streams will be collected locally from the cameras at a hub point. From there they will be
sent to Great Yarmouth and link into the existing wireless network that is configured for the Great
Yarmouth cameras.
We have also made allowance for an option for the upgrading of 36 North Norfolk cameras to the
latest technology. It is known that the existing cameras are 10 years old and we have already
replaced a number in the past few years.
45
CCTV Review 2013
Great Yarmouth
Once the IP streams come into the Great Yarmouth wireless network they can then be treated like
their own cameras. The images will be recorded at Great Yarmouth onto a storage unit. This will
give access to them locally or via the existing Police link up.
A local unit could be installed into the council offices at NN to allow for access by authorised NN
staff.
For live viewing images will be displayed on 3 large LCD monitors in the control room. The
cameras will be controlled from the existing Great Yarmouth control system.
Financials
The model that we would suggest would enable the council to relocate their monitoring service,
improve equipment, reduce overall costs and require little capital outlay.
This is achieved by a leasing package which will cost the council less per year than the current
commitment and enable them to spread the costs of the works. At the end of the leasing package
the equipment purchased becomes the property of the council. The project has a number of cost
reduction programs to help reduce the ongoing costs.
1. The introduction of the wireless network locally to transmit camera images will remove the
existing BT fibre optics circuits which have costly ongoing revenue.
2. The introduction of wireless networks to interconnect the towns will remove the existing
BT fibre optics circuits which have costly ongoing revenue.
3. The relocation of the monitoring services to Great Yarmouth CCTV will reduce ongoing
staff and accommodation costs.
Conclusion
The move to Great Yarmouth seems logical and should reduce the costs to North Norfolk. The
camera estate could also be refreshed and the service will be in a good position to continue. Great
Yarmouth CCTV control room uses the latest technology and already has established links with the
Police.
The wireless technology used will provide a more cost effective solution and allow for additional
cameras to be interconnected quickly and a lower cost than if using traditional fibre optics.
The works to receive the cameras can be completed without disruption to the existing service in
North Norfolk and can be phased across to reduce any disruption.
I hope that the information in this document is a suitable guide to progress discussion further
David Rolfe CPP
Business Development Manager
46
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix H: Kings Lynn Borough Council Shared Working Proposal
47
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix I: Freeclix Survey excerpt
Executive Summary
After looking at each location we have established routes of transit that can backhaul the data from
each town to the Fakenham Control Centre. We believe it is possible to do this wirelessly with a
combination of 5.8ghz light license radio equipment and long range microwaves placed at strategic
locations.
Third party co-operation is going to be required in order to secure four strategic locations for our
use i.e. Walsingham grain silo, Aylmerton water tower, The Burlington Hotel and the Quayside
building at Wells; these will require rentals that are not known at this time without further
investigation. For example, in order to price access at Aylmerton water tower we need specific
manufacturer information for the microwaves to be used and before that can be finalized Ofcom
approval for frequency usage. For the purpose of this scope, we have estimated the costs and
included them in the figures.
We will also require a number of church locations to provide bounce points to backhaul the signals.
WiSpire has already a proven background in securing faculty applications for churches through its
rural broadband business and will assist with this process for us. Installation costs and site rentals
will be included in the overall running costs.
Finally, two new mast installations for North Walsham and Fakenham will be needed. Quadrant
have suggested could be possible as part of their works, but may require additional planning
permission due to the heights required. Up-stands on some camera posts and roof mounts were
cameras are located on building fronts will also come into play.
Capital expenditure for the Project has been estimated at circa £71,000 +VAT
5 years maintenance would be in the region of £130,000 +VAT
This included site rentals, licenses at best estimate at this time.
There is no inclusion of new mast installation costs or Quadrant equipment and installation charges
in these figures.
48
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix I a) Freeclix response to question concerning reliability of going wireless
in North Norfolk
Rural connectivity is being achieved for WiSpire our rural broadband company and we can get
enough throughput over these distances ensure a service. Some links are already specified to have
licensed microwave equipment installed to ensure high throughput and quality over the longer
distances. We could move to licensed microwave for all the backhaul equipment, this would give a
very high guarantee services but I think it’s over specifying the network for now. If in the future
we find that a link is getting interference, breaking down or latency is too high, then we can
substitute a link for licensed equipment at that time. It would mean some more capital expenditure
and a little more for annual license costs to Ofcom, but it’s feasible if necessary. For each town
location I don’t believe we’ll have these issues as we are running over 60 cameras in a small
footprint location over at Gt. Yarmouth for GYTCP. Most of your town locations do not have
anywhere near that number of camera sites so the network traffic should be reliable.
49
CCTV Review 2013
Appendix J: Camera Rationalisation
Tower
fixing
No of
incidents
2010
No
incidents
2011
No of
incidents
2012
Ind. Est. George Edward Road (Ent.)12 yrs
Dome
yes
Fibre optic
cost
see below
7
5
5
17
Ind. Est. George Edward Road (C) 12 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
5
2
3
10
Ind. Est. George Edward Road (S) 12 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
4
1
2
7
Location
Age
Camera Type
Total
incidents
Ind. Est. Garrood Road
12 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
1
2
1
4
Ind. Est. Millers Close
12 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
0
1
0
1
consider
decom?
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Ind. Est. Wymans Way
10 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
3
3
1
7
Connect - Car Parks
12 yrs
PTZ
yes
nil
2
5
2
9
The Drift (S) Ind. Est.
12 yrs
PTZ
yes
see below
1
1
8
10
YES
Enterprise Way
?
Dome
yes
YES
Connect - Outside Main Entrance
12 yrs
Fixed
Spare
Connect - CCTV Entrance Internal 12 yrs
11 yrs
£
Fixed
Connect - CCTV Room Internal
Queens Road Car Park
Fixed
Metal Mici
3 yrs
Bridge Street and Car Park
Limes Car Park
3 yrs
3 yrs
Metal Mici
Market Place
3 yrs
11 yrs
Metal Mici
Norwich Road
Dome
Oak Street
10 yrs
Dome
Splash
Morris Street Car Park
Clock Tower
East Cliff (Sea front)
High Street
12 yrs
12 yrs
3 yrs
3 yrs
12 yrs
Dome
Dome
Metal Mici
Station Rd Car Park
Spare
Spare
2 yrs
Metal Mici
684.90
2
1
2
5
nil
0
0
2
2
nil
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
2
25
3
12
10
8
3
64
15
yes
£
nil
477.00
yes
£
£
477.00
477.00
27
4
£
846.90
30
17
23
70
£
673.20
19
15
19
53
£
588.60
21
17
13
51
£
£
£
£
£
962.10
612.90
523.80
612.90
588.60
1
3
26
10
23
1
3
19
6
12
2
4
17
9
7
4
10
62
25
42
£
607.50
22
12
20
54
yes
Spare
Metal Mici
Dome
Metal Mici
YES
Spare
Spare
Church Street (W)
10 yrs
Dome
Cadogan Road Car Park
12 yrs
New Street (Sea front)
Jetty Cliff (Sea front)
Meadow Road Car Park
Church Street (C)
Church Street (E)
3 yrs
3 yrs
2 yrs
2 yrs
12 yrs
Dome
Metal Mici
North Lodge Park
Garden Street (Budgen Car Park)
Metal Mici
Metal Mici
£
523.80
28
20
16
64
yes
£
607.50
5
5
5
15
yes
yes
£
£
£
£
£
673.20
523.80
523.80
523.80
523.80
21
10
18
24
9
20
17
19
24
13
18
16
16
19
17
59
43
53
67
39
£
£
756.90
501.30
2
3
1
4
7
7
5
15
£
652.50
5
5
9
19
£
523.80
10
3
9
22
£
588.60
11
13
8
32
523.80
5
7
7
19
Metal Mici
Dome
yes
yes
12 yrs
10 yrs
Dome
Mini Dome
yes
Gangway (Sea front)
8 yrs
Metal Mici
New Road and Car Park
6 yrs
Dome
Church Street
6 yrs
Dome
Vicarage Street Car Park
6 yrs
Dome
yes
£
yes
yes
St Nicholas Court Precinct
6 yrs
Dome
£
523.80
9
10
7
26
Market Street
6 yrs
Dome
Metal Mici
£
673.20
13
6
5
24
£
588.60
22
14
17
53
£
£
588.60
523.80
28
5
25
8
28
2
81
15
£
£
£
721.80
721.80
618.30
13
8
6
10
4
1
16
5
1
39
17
8
£
618.30
nil
8
0
479
3
0
6
0
17
0
393
394
1266
Kings Arms Street
3 yrs
Market Place
Bank Loke Car Park
Spare
3 yrs
6 yrs
Metal Mici
Dome
yes
2 yrs
6 yrs
6 yrs
Metal Mici
PTZ
PTZ
yes
yes
Station Road
6 yrs
Connect - Reception Internal
6 yrs
PTZ
Fixed
Spare
The Quay
Freeman Street
Staithe Street
Charges from exchange to FC
Charges from exchange to FC
Industrial estate junction box
Charges from exchange to FC
Charges from exchange to FC
Charges from exchange to FC
Fakenham to Wymondham
50
£ 4,564.80
nil
£ 2,792.70
£ 5,814.00
£ 8,370.00
£ 7,590.60
£ 4,444.20
£ 54,733.50
£ 5,196.60 Consider Decomissioning
£ 4,444.20 Saving by recharging
£ 45,092.70
Yes