Agenda item

The Committee was provided with a draft scoping report for the purpose of the review which would be updated to reflect discussion at the meeting.

 

The Council’s Anti Social Behaviour & Investigations Service Manager attended the meeting and provided Members with information on the possible scope of the review.

 

Members were informed that this Council as a Strategic Partner to the Police provides resources and equipment to Hillingdon Police for crime prevention purposes in the Borough. These included the following:

 

CCTV vehicles

 

The first of two CCTV vehicles was purchased in 2003.  The cost was £55,000 for the CCTV equipment. The cost of the vehicle itself was in the region of £30,000 which included a service package.

 

The first vehicle being fully liveried can only be driven by police personnel.  Members were informed that after purchase by the Council it was handed over to the Metropolitan Police who were the registered keeper and covered all maintenance, insurance and road tax costs.

 

The vehicle was a Vauxhall Movano van with Metropolitan Police livery and London Borough of Hillingdon logos.  Being fully liveried it was found that its usefulness was mainly as a deterrent and tended to have the effect of displacing trouble makers out of an area to which it is deployed.  It was of less value in producing evidence for criminal investigations due to its visibility.

 

The Committee was informed that historical documents suggested that it was used to good effect since being purchased by the Council and donated to the Police, but there had been some initial problems associated such as confusion over driving classification, which police personnel were authorised to drive it, lack of ‘ownership’, day to day administration, difficulty with garaging.

 

However, in August 2005, a Police CCTV van manager was appointed with the task of raising the profile and to increase the use of the van and this was successful with a PC solely responsible for the van and making sure drivers looked after it.  Initially only qualified Response Drivers were allowed to drive the van but this changed to allow other Police Staff including PCSOs and Special Constables to act as drivers.

 

Following the success of the first van, a second van was purchased, second hand in 2006 with CCTV equipment already installed.  The cost was £32,000 plus £12,000 for 5 years service package.  This vehicle was smaller in size and only “semi-liveried” to make it more effective by being less visible and easier to park in small spaces.  It was a Mercedes Vito model.

 

In 2009, Automatic Number Plate Recognition equipment was added to the second vehicle at a cost of £11,500.

 

The second vehicle’s ownership was retained by the Council which pays the road tax and maintenance costs (since the expiry of the 5 year service package in 2012) which were in the region of £1,000 per year, although insurance was covered by Met Police’s fleet policy whilst their staff are driving it. 

 

Members also discussed CCTV cameras in the Borough and asked officers for a complete list of CCTC cameras in the Borough. It was suggested that this could be a possible review in the future.

 

Crime Prevention Bus

 

In 2003 the Council purchased a converted Optare passenger service type vehicle to act as a Crime Prevention Bus as a replacement for a previous model.  Purchase cost was about £34,000. It was operated by and liveried for the “Hillingdon Crime Prevention Panel” which was a sub-group of Hillingdon Community and Police Consultative Group.  The Panel had now been wound up as crime prevention was now effectively run by the Council and Police jointly under the Safer Hillingdon Partnership. 

 

Members were informed that the Council had taken over ownership of the vehicle and was the registered keeper.  Road tax and maintenance were covered under the Council’s fleet management arrangements at a cost of about £1,000 per year.

 

The vehicle was heavily used by Police Crime Prevention Officers and Safer Neighbourhood Teams for public events, dispensing crime prevention advice and re-assurance.  However, over the last 12 months its use had dropped significantly due to pressures on Safer Neighbourhood Teams and it would be valuable to assess whether it was likely to be useful under the new Local Policing Model to be introduced in 2013.  The vehicle was now 10 years old and maintenance costs were likely to rise in future years.

 

Liveries

 

The Crime Prevention Bus still carried its now out of date livery, so there was a question about whether expense should be incurred to change the livery to reflect the Council and Police’s identity, which depends on the future use of the vehicle. This could be explored at future witness sessions

 

The second CCTV vehicle had been considered for new livery, but this proved problematic to achieve agreement from the Metropolitan Police as it does not meet the MPS standard corporate livery requirements.

 

Speed meters

 

The Committee was informed that four speed meters were purchased in 2010 costing £2,000 each.  These were in the hands of Safer Neighbourhood Teams to use when speeding traffic was an issue in wards in the Borough. 

 

Speed meter can be used in two ways.  One was with the intention of issuing penalty charges and penalty points for speeding.  This required the officers who use the equipment to be formally trained so that enforcement would stand up to scrutiny, and also for the meters to be formally calibrated for accuracy, which had to be done at requisite intervals. 

 

Members were informed that the training and calibration issues were sometimes a barrier to the meters being used as frequently as might be desired.

 

The Committee was informed that the current Borough Commander was supportive of using them more often in a second way.  This was without the intention to impose the penalties.  The meters could then be used by a wider range of officers and without re-calibration.  The officer would take a speed reading, a vehicle stop would be executed and “words of advice” would be imparted to the driver about his or her speed.  

The Committee was assured that the Police would still have powers which could be used for more serious driving offences such as driving without due care and attention which would not require a speed meter.

 

Police Officers funded by the Council

 

Members were informed that the Council funded 11 Police Officers in the Police Tasking Team at a cost of around £450,000 a year. This area would be further explored at a future witness session.

 

Older Peoples Burglar Alarms

 

Members were provided with background information for this initiative and asked that this form part of the Committee review.

 

Members were informed that the project started in 2008.  Initially, an agreement was made with Age Concern to fit the alarms using their Handyman, and a payment was made to Age Concern for them to employ a second person.  The popularity of the scheme was high, and the demand for alarms outstripped Age Concern’s ability to deliver fittings in a timely manner, so approval for a contracted out service was obtained from year two onwards.

 

The Committee was informed that in Phases 1 to 5, 4,000 alarms had been fully installed, in Phase 6, 500 alarms would have been fitted by mid April 2013.  For Phase 7, 1,000 alarms have been ordered and would be installed during 2013/14 making 5,500 alarms in total.

 

Members were provided with details of the costing of the scheme which worked out at around £163 per alarm.

 

The Committee was informed that the Council had an agreement with the installers to carry out a free service and battery replacement in the internal movement detectors (room sensors) 18 months from the date of installation. After this, recipients of alarms would be responsible for all maintenance of the alarm unit (including battery replacement) and any costs involved and this was explained at the outset.

 

All recipients of burglar alarms through the Hillingdon Council scheme were entitled to a discount of 10% off of any purchases from Response Electronics and also received a free Home Fire Safety visit from Hillingdon Fire Service.

 

Effectiveness

 

Discussion took place on the assessment of the success of the scheme. It was acknowledged that this would be difficult to quantify as when even when 5,500 alarms had been fitted, this was still less than 5% of the households in the Borough so it would not be realistic to expect that the burglary rate for the Borough as a whole would reduce as a result of the scheme. 

 

However, there should be a reduction of burglaries affecting older people now that a substantial number of older people’s properties are secured.

 

Reference was made to a satisfaction survey which each recipient of a free burglar alarm was asked to fill out to which the response was overwhelmingly positive. Members asked that the results of this survey be reported to the Committee.

 

Action for forthcoming meetings

 

Members asked for more information on the mobile CCTV vehicle and an assessment of its current serviceability. This area could be covered by PC  David Tennyson who would be invited as a witness.

 

Members asked for more information on the use of speed meters and details on the training which was required for PCs to use them. Chief Inspector Rob Wilson of the Police would be invited to attend a future meeting to provide more detail on this area. In connection to this Members asked for any data on the effectiveness of speed strips in the Borough, in terms of reducing speed. An officer from the Council’s Transportation Team would be asked for information on this area.

 

On the effectiveness of the Council funded 11 police officers Inspector Kevan Baillie of the Police would be invited to a future meeting to provide details on this area.

 

In relation to the Older Peoples' Burglar alarms, details of results of satisfaction survey to be provided to the Committee for the review. The Council’s Community Safety and CCTV Manager would be asked to provide this information for the Committee.

 

The Council’s Anti Social Behaviour & Investigations Service Manager was thanked for the presentation and the information he had provided for the review.

RESOLVED –

 

1.   That the draft scoping report be updated to reflect discussion on the presentation given by the Council’s Anti Social Behaviour & Investigations Service Manager.

 

2.  That officers be asked to undertake the actions outlined above and relevant witnesses be invited to the next two meetings of the Committee.