This is a Press Release from Cllr. Anthony Stansfeld, Executive Member for Performance at West Berkshire Council
There was anger this week at misleading claims by the Liberal Democrats that taxpayers money had been wasted in the transfer of the CCTV system to a control room in Windsor & Maidenhead.
Cllr. Anthony Stansfeld, Executive Member with responsibility for Strategy & Performance commented:
“The new and far better CCTV system is now up and fully operational. It has also been extended to cover areas such as Theale, Lambourn and Pangbourne. It is producing excellent results at a saving of £5000 a week to Council Tax payers. The changeover did not go entirely as smoothly as might have been wished, and took longer than expected but the causes were outside the control of West Berkshire Council and lay with the contractors installing the equipment.
Cllr. Rendel, hardly an expert in contractual matters, criticises the contract with BT in that it had no penalty clauses. He has omitted to mention that BT, who his party got to install the outdated system, has a monopoly. They were the contractor for West Berkshire Council CCTV and supplied the equipment. As such, they would have been most unlikely to have agreed to a contract with penalty clauses. He also omits to mention the considerable financial savings that are being made.
Lastly Cllr. Rendel conveniently forgets that CCTV is not a statutory requirement for Councils to supply. Many Councils have either cut back or completely removed their CCTV as a cost saving measure. West Berkshire has chosen to not only to keep its CCTV system, but also expanded it and greatly improved the quality of the images. These are now capable of identifying offenders and the imagery can be used in court.
As usual, Cllr Rendel is playing politics in an attempt to raise his personal profile. Others in his party, who were part of the CCTV handover process and understand it, have behaved more responsibly.
Suggest Mr Stansfield gets his legal department to contact telecoms companies to see how penalty clauses are dealt with where BT is also the monopoly provider.
This is a Press Release from Cllr. Anthony Stansfeld, Executive Member for Performance at West Berkshire Council
There was anger this week at misleading claims by the Liberal Democrats that taxpayers money had been wasted in the transfer of the CCTV system to a control room in Windsor & Maidenhead.
Cllr. Anthony Stansfeld, Executive Member with responsibility for Strategy & Performance commented:
“The new and far better CCTV system is now up and fully operational. It has also been extended to cover areas such as Theale, Lambourn and Pangbourne. It is producing excellent results at a saving of £5000 a week to Council Tax payers. The changeover did not go entirely as smoothly as might have been wished, and took longer than expected but the causes were outside the control of West Berkshire Council and lay with the contractors installing the equipment.
Cllr. Rendel, hardly an expert in contractual matters, criticises the contract with BT in that it had no penalty clauses. He has omitted to mention that BT, who his party got to install the outdated system, has a monopoly. They were the contractor for West Berkshire Council CCTV and supplied the equipment. As such, they would have been most unlikely to have agreed to a contract with penalty clauses. He also omits to mention the considerable financial savings that are being made.
Lastly Cllr. Rendel conveniently forgets that CCTV is not a statutory requirement for Councils to supply. Many Councils have either cut back or completely removed their CCTV as a cost saving measure. West Berkshire has chosen to not only to keep its CCTV system, but also expanded it and greatly improved the quality of the images. These are now capable of identifying offenders and the imagery can be used in court.
As usual, Cllr Rendel is playing politics in an attempt to raise his personal profile. Others in his party, who were part of the CCTV handover process and understand it, have behaved more responsibly.
It's not very often I would agree with Cllr Stansfield on CCTV, but he is right that it is saving money rather than wasting it. Why Cllr Rendel feels it is his place to suddenly criticise the council seven months after problems began is beyond me.
As for the Tories, I'm sorry but Cllr Stansfield has no right to take the moral highgfround. Whether he was misled by the officer in charge or not, there were fundamental errors in the process and the council tried to cover it up. The Lib Dems can try and claim credit for the review, but the very man who called for the review in the chamber is also the sameman who dismissed the need for a review for many weeks / even months. If anyone can take any credit for this is the retailers / licence holders who refused to be fobbed off and kept the pressure on the council.
Suggest Mr Stansfield gets his legal department to contact telecoms companies to see how penalty clauses are dealt with where BT is also the monopoly provider.
Yes, looks like WBC got mugged by the private sector yet again.
What is criminal is that no one is holding the Tories to account.
As the police love to tell us whenever they can...crime in West Berks went DOWN 14% last year. In particular, violent crime has halved during a period when we had CCTV images virtually useless as evidence. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
If CCTV is a tool to help detect more crimes (as it's sold to the public), then why have detection rates increased under the 'bad old analogue' system? Other techniques more successful perhaps?
Why weren't we offered the chance to save a lot more money by discontinuing CCTV?
In Newbury in December (apparently intermittent CCTV) there were 410 crimes. In Newbury in April (shiny new digital CCTV in place) there were 400 crimes.
Not much of a deterrant then is it?
Oh and....why are we paying for spycams in Pangbourne, where no one wants them?
I'll always support having CCTV, I think it's a very valuable tool. The one thing that is emerging loud and clear from this process is the blind are being led by the blind, and the officer in charge has been renamed teflon for his incopetance and ability to escape punishment despite misleading elected members, local organisations and the public. Apparently he had the cheek to try and blame the issue on the local elections!!!
What is criminal is that no one is holding the Tories to account.
As the police love to tell us whenever they can...crime in West Berks went DOWN 14% last year. In particular, violent crime has halved during a period when we had CCTV images virtually useless as evidence. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
If CCTV is a tool to help detect more crimes (as it's sold to the public), then why have detection rates increased under the 'bad old analogue' system? Other techniques more successful perhaps?
Why weren't we offered the chance to save a lot more money by discontinuing CCTV?
In Newbury in December (apparently intermittent CCTV) there were 410 crimes. In Newbury in April (shiny new digital CCTV in place) there were 400 crimes.
Not much of a deterrant then is it?
Oh and....why are we paying for spycams in Pangbourne, where no one wants them?
Sometimes it feels like the Emperor's New Clothes.
Agree with all the above points. The thing that is hard to stomach is that the council were totally economic with the truth to say the least and to put it very mildly. Taxpayers, ratepayers and local press were given completely misleading information and there were contradictory statements given out. Then to top it all we have an enquiry, the council investigateing the council. No No No Yes springs to mind?
Oh and....why are we paying for spycams in Pangbourne, where no one wants them?
"West Berkshire Council said that the camera was put up as part of a wider CCTV programme, which included two other villages, and was designed to improve safety and security for residents and businesses.
A spokesman said the large camera in Pangbourne had been chosen for coverage of the car park opposite.
"However, following a request from a local estate agent we have removed it. It will be re-located but not in the village."
The spokesman confirmed that the two other cameras in Pangbourne would remain.
“We took on board all opinions in the village and the overall wish seemed to be that two should remain, but the third outside the estate agent was superfluous. It will be re-used somewhere else.”
He said the cost of putting the camera up and taking it down was about £1,000. The camera would be used elsewhere, he added."
£1,000.00???? That is a Conservative estimate. You will notice I have used a capital "C"
Perhaps the quote of £1000.00 is correct. I hadn't noticed that the article was published in November 2009. At this point the camera and associated wiring would not have been connected.
WBC would have only been paying for the erection and subsequent removal of the pillar.
It's not really about WBC and cost though. The point is not everyone wants more CCTV, and when WBC turned up to impose their will, they met resistence and were sent packing.
Logged
Male
