Bi-Borough Integration of the CCTV Service PDF 42 KB

London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
SELECT COMMITTEE
12-02-2013
TITLE OF REPORT
Bi-borough integration of the CCTV Service
Report of the Divisional Director David Page, Director for Safer Neighbourhoods
Status of Report: Open Report
For Scrutiny Review & Comment
Key Decision: No
Wards Affected: All
Accountable Executive Director: Lyn Carpenter, Bi-borough Executive Director for
Environment, Leisure and Residents’ Services.
Report Author: Emma Kirby, National Management
Trainee, Environment, Leisure and Residents’ Services.
Contact Details:
Tel: 020 753 6419
E-mail:
emma.kirby@lbhf.gov.uk
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. H&F operate a CCTV service that currently has around 800 CCTV
cameras, 200 of which are pro-actively monitored town centre cameras. It
is not a statutory service, but plays a vital role in reassuring residents and
contributes to the safety and security of the borough. Appendix 1 includes
statistics from residents’ surveys and KPIs to support this.
1.2. The CCTV Control Room in Hammersmith Town Hall has recently been
refurbished, with the cost of £120k apportioned between H&F and RBKC.
H&F operate a 24/7 service.
1.3. The RBKC CCTV service has 58 public safety CCTV cameras. Currently,
this service operates from the RBKC CCTV Control Room in Pembroke
Road. It operates 10 hours per day, between 15:00 and 01:00. Cameras
are not monitored outside of this period.
1.4. The bi-borough CCTV service review project team has recommended that
consideration is given to merging these two CCTV services, forming one
bi-borough CCTV service based in the refurbished control room in
Hammersmith Town Hall. Discussions with members are on-going at this
stage as to what an integrated service offer may look like in each borough.

1.5. A range of options for integration are being considered. All options involve
co-locating to Hammersmith Town Hall. Option 1 involves H&F remaining
24/7 and RBKC remaining 10/7, with separate rotas. Option 2 involves
H&F remaining 24/7 with RBKC adopting a 12/7 service, once again with
separate rotas. Option 3 proposes that the services integrate and operate
one 24/7 rota.
1.6. These options offer potential savings of £60k - £100k. The highest savings
will be achieved by option 3, the lowest by option 2.
1.7. The final decision for which option is selected will be made on March 26 th
at the Members’ Steering Group.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1. That the committee notes the proposals for the bi-borough integration of
the H&F and RBKC CCTV Services, and reviews and comments upon
these proposals.
3. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
3.1. The proposal to integrate the H&F and RBKC CCTV services was a
recommendation of the CCTV Service Review, which is part of the biborough
Environment Programme of Transformation Service Reviews.
3.2. On 16 th July 2012, an information paper about the CCTV Service
Transformation Review was presented to this Select Committee.
3.3. The vision for the service presented in that document has been realised
through the work of the CCTV Service Review project board and the
recommendations they have made.
4. PROPOSAL AND ISSUES
4.1. The CCTV Service Review considered the following:
• The RBKC CCTV Service remaining in their current location and
adopting a 24/7 service.
• The RBKC CCTV Service moving to the Control Room in
Hammersmith Town Hall and maintaining their current service level.
• The RBKC CCTV Service moving to the Control Room in
Hammersmith Town Hall and adopting a 12/7 rota.
• The RBKC CCTV Service moving to the Control Room in
Hammersmith Town Hall and integrating fully with the H&F 24/7
service.

• The cost to close the service (all non-statutory services are required
to look at this).
• Jointly procuring a maintenance contract.
• Alternative Service Delivery models.
• New technologies
4.2. The following model for the integrated bi-borough CCTV service was put
Core bi-borough
integration
outcomes
Bi-borough benefits Risks/Issues Financial Savings
• Co-location in the
Hammersmith
Town Hall CCTV
Control Room for
all options
• Option 1 – H&F
operating 24/7,
RBKC operating
10/7.
• Option 2 – H&F
operating 24/7,
RBKC operating
12/7.
• Option 2 – one
integrated team
operating from the
same 24/7 rota
• Ability to track
incidents and task
uniformed
services
seamlessly across
both boroughs.
• By jointly
procuring a
maintenance
contract, reduce
camera downtime
in RBKC from
current figure of
10.64% to nearer
the H&F figure of
0.02%. 24/7
service means any
issues are
reported
immediately.
• Impact on
service delivery
the transitional
period will have
• Dependency on
RBKC’s
cameras and
network being
upgraded in
time for
implementation
.
• 2 IT systems
• Salary
Inequalities
• Total bi-borough savings of
£60k-£100k, depending on
which option is selected. Option
3 will deliver the most savings,
option 2 the least.
• This saving is to be achieved
through service re-structure and
savings from jointly procuring
the maintenance contract.
• No recharging process has yet
been established for RBKC to
rent space in the H&F control
room. This will need to be
discussed by the tri-borough
property board.
forward:
5. CONSULTATION
5.1. The CCTV Service Review Project Board consulted with a number of
internal and external stakeholders during the course of the service review.
5.2. H&F consulted the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), Parking
Enforcement, TfL, Housing/Concierge, Hammersmith BID and the Parks
Police. RBKC consulted the MPS, the Parks Police and the Safer
Neighbourhood’s Team.

5.3. The views collected in these consultation meetings were used to inform
the outcomes of the Service Review. The main contributions from
stakeholders were:
• Increase CCTV camera monitoring to 24 hours per day in RBKC
(RBKC MPS, Parks Police). These stakeholders believe there is benefit
in being able to communicate with the CCTV service at all times, and
more pro-active monitoring can prevent situations from escalating if an
operator is able to inform the police.
• Improve camera quality and siting flexibility (RBKC MPS and Safer
Neighbourhood’s Team). These teams believed that many of the
cameras are not in the right place in RBKC, and are not focused on the
areas that would most benefit from cameras. Priorities change so siting
flexibility would be useful.
• Increased stakeholder input in the siting of cameras (H&F Parking,
RBKC Parks Police, RBKC MPS). Priorities change and problems can
arise in certain areas and then move on. These stakeholders believe
they might have pertinent information about the ideal siting of cameras
and would like to have more of an input.
6. EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS
6.1. There are no perceived negative equality implications. Further, it is not
believed that CCTV infringes article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (the
right to respect for private and family life). In the proposals detailed within
this report, there are no extensions being made to the hours that the
CCTV cameras are on and recording, only the hours that the cameras are
pro-actively monitored.
7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
7.1. The CCTV Service is a non-statutory service. There are no perceived legal
implications.
8. FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS
8.1. The proposed integration of the H&F and RBKC CCTV Services will result
in a bi-borough savings of £60k - £100k, depending on which option is
selected when the report returns to the Members’ Steering Group on
March 26 th .
9. PROCUREMENT AND IT STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS

9.1. The procurement of a bi-borough maintenance contract is being prioritised
over the next 6 months in order to be in place by January 2014.
9.2. The current H&F Contract with Chroma Vision has been extended for
another year from 1 st January 2013 until such time that a bi-borough
contract can be procured.
9.3. The RBKC contract is currently with Tyco, and has been extended on a 3
month rolling basis since April 2011.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS USED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT
No.
Description of
Background Papers
Name/Ext
file/copy
of holder of
Department/
Location
1. None
LIST OF APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 – CCTV statistics and KPIs.