Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Marian Spall.

There were no substitute members.

If you have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest* in an item of business:

§  if it is not yet on the council’s register, you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent;

§  you may choose to declare a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest that is already in the register in the interests of openness and transparency. 

In both the above cases, you must leave the room without participating in discussion of the item.

If you have a personal interest in an item of business and you intend to speak or vote on the item you must declare both the existence and details of it at the start of the meeting or when it becomes apparent but you may participate in the discussion and vote on the item.

*(a)     Employment, etc - Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit or gain.

(b) Sponsorship - Any payment or other financial benefit in respect of your expenses in carrying out duties as a member, or of your election; including from a trade union.

(c) Contracts - Any current contract for goods, services or works, between you or your partner (or a body in which one of you has a beneficial interest) and the council.

(d) Land - Any beneficial interest in land which is within the council’s area.

(e) Licences- Any licence to occupy land in the council’s area for a month or longer.

(f) Corporate tenancies - Any tenancy between the council and a body in which you or your partner have a beneficial interest.

 (g) Securities - Any beneficial interest in securities of a body which has a place of business or land in the council’s area, if the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body or of any one class of its issued share capital. 

This applies to all members present at the meeting.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the Environment and Regeneration Scrutiny Committee meeting on 1 February 2016 be confirmed as an accurate record of proceedings and the Chair be authorised to sign them.

Public questions would be taken during the relevant agenda items.

There was no chair’s report.

Joe Dignan from Future Cities, Catapult gave evidence.

In the presentation and discussion the following points were made:

·         Catapult worked to accelerate innovation, to grow business and the economy and to make cities better. It undertook practical projects across 12 UK cities and 4 continents.

·         The Urban Innovation Centre was created by Catapult and was a place for businesses, academics and city leaders to discuss and develop the cities of the future. Urban innovators could work there together to turn new technologies and processes into real products and services that would be scaled up and used in cities around the world. These urban innovators included data scientists, urban designers and anthropologists. The resident innovators were Ordnance Survey Geovation Hub, Intel ICRI, Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities, Hypercat City and Igloo Regeneration.

·         The Urban Innovation Centre had hosted 25 visits from overseas delegations in the last 6 months. Networking events were held at the centre each week.

·         PAS 181 provided standards to benchmark against.

·         In Belfast, a project had been undertaken in relation to business rates and ascertaining whether buildings were live.

·         Smart cities worked best when there was an innovation team which solely focussed on smart cities work and reported to the Chief Executive. They could become an income generating team.

·         One project involved creating and building air sensors. They were being used to monitor air quality outside schools.

·         Last year Catapult had worked with Bristol. Bristol had 1,500 street assets with sensors and this would be increased to 47,000 which would create a mass of data that could be turned into information.

·         A planetarium in Bristol had been upgraded to be a data visualisation centre. The gaming community and small and medium enterprises had been asked to explore the potential uses of the data.

·         A 3D model of Bristol had been produced.

·         Bristol had an elected mayor who provided a lead on smart cities work. The mayor received his allowance in local currency – the Bristol Pound.

·         The Treasury’s Digital Transformation Plan would be published soon.

·         In Scotland, there was an alliance of seven cities plus a virtual smart city. 

·         It was anticipated that in the future there would be more recognition that smart cities were critical to economic growth, that IT companies would no longer be seen as the leaders of smart cities and that cities would look for funding in a different way.

·         An all party parliamentary group had been set up.

·         In Vienna there was a super department called TINA which ensured collaborative working between departments.

·         Peterborough had won a 2015 World Smart City Award for its Living Smart and Circular Urban Laboratory.

·         Catapult Future Cities ‘City Academy’ had been attended by Camden and Islington. Suppliers were invited in and were given a challenge. They were invited to come back with a plan and any plans would then go through the procurement process.

·         In London, work was being done on the future of stations.

·         Work was taking place in Glasgow on the future of university campuses.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

Garrett McEntee, Technical Services Manager gave witness evidence.

In the presentation and discussion the following points were made:

·         The CCTV service had over 1,000 cameras. There were 12 concierge sites; two of which were managed by TMO’s with the remaining 10 managed by the council. The offices were opened between 16-24 hours a day. The CCTV was in operation on 33 estates. There were 6 roof access systems which included 11 cameras.

·         Maintaining CCTV helped to support crime prevention measures, helped to address anti-social behaviour, improved the quality of residents’ lives, provided a crime and anti-social behaviour deterrent and assisted with crime investigation.

·         Capital Improvement Work involved maintaining the existing equipment rather than implementing new schemes.

·         CCTV repair works were carried out by the Housing Repairs Team. Maintenance works included six monthly maintenanceand an annual service. Responsive repairs were undertaken to address minor repair works i.e. breakdowns and equipment failure.

·         When repairs work was undertaken, all the equipment i.e. cameras, recording equipment and the PA systems were serviced and cleaned

·         Breakdown information was recorded and sent to repair officers.

·         Data was uploaded into the maintenance programme.

·         The CCTV Capital Improvement Strategy considered capital investment availability, the forward improvement plan, any technical need for the proposed works, resident and stakeholder feedback, crime and anti-social behaviour, officer consultation feedback, other capital improvement projects and alternative security measures.

·         The service was trying to work more closely with stakeholders, particularly when upgrading installations.

·         The Capital Improvement Strategy allocated resources to the places it was most needed.

·         When CCTV was being considered there had to be a clear stated purpose for CCTV plus consultation and engagement with the public and partners. The solution had to be proportionate and have the potential to meet the stated purpose and there had to be a regard to privacy and family life. Home office guidance stated that deployment should not continue for longer than necessary, however it was impractical to remove cameras and the problem could then return.

·         There had to be a balance between public protection and individual privacy.

·         Different sites required different solutions. Scheme design considerations included a clear understanding of security concerns and the options available, the size of the site to have CCTV coverage, equipment specification (which was a changing field), assessment of operational issues, assessment of managerial implications and clarification on objectives and outcomes to be achieved i.e. crowd control, theft reduction and unauthorised entry.

·         On the Elthorne Estate, a wall which had been used by congregating youths linked to gangs had been removed and this had stopped them from congregating there.

·         Following a request from residents on one estate to install more CCTV, the Crime Prevention Officer put forward a number of recommendations which included a small increase in cameras plus a number of alternative security measures including an ‘A’ frame which would allow cyclists through but only if they dismounted. Pushchair and wheelchair access was more restricted but this could be alleviated by having the base a little wider. Another alternative  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

RESOLVED:

That the work programme be noted.