The Chairman will advise the meeting of the evacuation procedures to follow in the event of an emergency. This is particularly important for visitors and members of the public who will be unfamiliar with the building and procedures.

The Chairman will inform the meeting whether there is a planned evacuation drill due to take place, what the alarm sounds like (i.e. ringing bells), where the closest emergency exit route is, and where the second closest emergency exit route is, in the event that the closest exit or route is blocked.

The Chairman will inform the meeting that:

(a) in the event of the alarm sounding, everybody must leave the building via the nearest safe available exit and gather at the Assembly points at the far side of the Car Park; and

(b) the lifts must not be used in the event of an evacuation.

Any officers present at the meeting will aid with the evacuation.

It is important that the Chairman is informed of any person attending who is disabled or unable to use the stairs, so that suitable arrangements may be made in the event of an emergency.

The Chairman drew attention to the evacuation procedure.

Councillors should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves or their spouse, civil partner or person with whom they are living with as a spouse or civil partner.  They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

The Chairman will ask Members if they have any interests to declare in respect of items on this agenda, under the following headings:

(a)          Disclosable Pecuniary Interests (DPI) under the Localism Act 2011.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DPI, the Member must leave the meeting and not take part in the discussion or vote.  This applies even if there is provision for public speaking.

(b)          Disclosable Non Pecuniary (DNPI) under the Code of Conduct adopted by the Council in May 2012.  The nature as well as the existence of any such interest must be declared.  After declaring a DNPI interest, the Member may stay, speak and vote on the matter.

Advice to Members:  If any Councillor has any doubt about the existence or nature of any DPI or DNPI which he/she may have in any item on this agenda, he/she should seek advice from the Director of Corporate Services as Monitoring Officer, the Head of Legal or from other Solicitors in Legal Services as early as possible, and in advance of the Meeting.

No interests were declared.

CCTV Effectiveness Cabinet Delegated Decision.

The Chairman welcomed the Head of Legal Partnership, visiting Members, the Leader, the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Health and the Safer and Stronger Communities Officer.

The Chairman outlined the purpose of the meeting which was to consider a call-in of a Cabinet Delegated Decision taken by the Leader on the 2 December 2015 to consult on the decommissioning of the CCTV cameras identified as being ‘low effectiveness’.  Three of the five non-executive members of the Council that instigated the call-in were present and the Chairman invited them to speak.

A Member highlighted the lack of specific information in the Cabinet report, sought clarification on how the 21 cameras identified as being low effectiveness had been assessed and where they were located, and suggested that the consultation was too limited. He further considered that the resolution did not cover the details in the report.

Another Member agreed that there was insufficient specific information on the cameras identified for decommissioning and spoke of the low incidents of crime in areas where cameras were installed.  A Member gave full support for the call-in and considered that more cameras were required, particularly in the western end of the High Street, Sittingbourne.

The Chairman invited the Leader to speak.  The Leader explained that Officers had considered the effectiveness of the current CCTV cameras and along with the Community Safety Partnership had agreed it was logical to consult the public.  He advised that there was a restricted budget and details of the specific cameras identified would have been released as soon as the consultation had been agreed.  A discussion ensued and a Member felt that all details should have been provided in order for an informed decision to be made.

The Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Health advised that information on the low effective cameras could have been requested. Information had been provided by Kent Police and Medway CCTV Control Room that had led to the decision that some cameras were not fit for purpose. There was also a legal requirement for cameras to be reviewed. 

The Safer and Stronger Communities Officer added that information received from the CCTV operators and crime statistics were not necessarily enough evidence to justify a final decision on decommissioning of any cameras and that a consultation of the public was required to gain further evidence.

Further discussions ensued and Members made the following points:

·         Privacy laws required that if a camera was no longer necessary, it should be removed

·         There were minimal costs of removing a camera from a non-effective location to a required location

·         Some agreed with the review and consultation

·         Levels of technology of individual cameras should be considered - were older cameras sited in ineffective areas?

·         Wider consultation was required – i.e. not just with Members in affected wards

·         New hotspot areas should be considered for cameras

·         The Data Protection 1998 Act Section 29 required a consultation

·         There should be more regular consultations and reviews in line with Police changes

·         Under the Surveillance Code  ...  view the full minutes text for item 418.