CCTV camera at Mundy Playing Fields

Dear Thornbury Town Council,

Mundy Playing Fields has a dome type CCTV camera mounted on the
chimney stack of the pavilion.

Please provide answers to the following questions about that
CCTV camera:

● Which company supplied the camera?
● Did the town council make the initial contact to the supplier
company (i.e. was the council actively seeking a source of
surveillance camera), or did the supplier company make the initial
contact to the town council (i.e. was the company seeking new
business)?
● Exactly which council meeting (and date) approved the acquisition
of the camera prior to installation?
● Was there a contract document that covered the conditions of the
initial trial supply of the camera, signed by both parties, and if
so, what was the date of the document?
● Which body mounted the camera on to the chimney stack – the
company or the council – and on which date was this?
● What was the agreed length of time of the trial period?
● Was there any contractual provision whereby the camera could have
been returned, at the end of the trial period, without obligation?
● Exactly what tendering, benchmarking or other quotation-seeking
exercise was carried out to ensure value for money with regard to
CCTV surveillance in Mundy Playing Fields, and on what date(s) did
that exercise take place?
● What exactly does the £1,369, which was added to the precept for
2010/11 (as reported by the Thornbury Gazette in January 2010),
represent (i.e. is it just purchase, or is more included)?
● What are the maintenance arrangements for the camera (i.e. is it
repair, as and when required, or is there a formal service
contract), and what are the estimated annual maintenance costs?
● At what location is the CCTV imagery monitored, and how often
does that monitoring take place (please indicate in the answer
whether any monitoring takes place during the hours of darkness)?
● From the date of installation until 31 March 2010, how many times
has video footage from the camera, been shown or given to police
officers, with the aim of apprehending suspects of an observed
crime?
● What is the council’s asset life policy for the camera?

Yours faithfully,

David Martin

Dear Thornbury Town Council,

This is to remind you that a formal response to my request for
information (about the CCTV camera in Mundy Playing Fields) is now
overdue. Would you kindly update me about the progress being made
in providing me with the information?

Yours sincerely,

David Martin

Dear Ms. Payne,

I sincerely thank you for your response.

I have some comments to make, as follows, but I leave it entirely
to your discretion whether you wish to add further clarification.

Since the council has not purchased the Advance Security Systems
camera, although it is still using it, then it would appear that
the free, no obligation, trial period has been extended from the
summer of 2009, through the autumn, winter and into the spring of
2010.

£1,369 was the amount of the unsuccessful grant application to the
Safer Stronger Initiative Fund, and the minutes of the grant
decision-making meeting suggest that the council intended to
purchase the Advance Security Systems camera with that amount:
“Thornbury Town Council would now like to purchase the equipment”
[1]. This seems to conflict with your statement that “the Playing
Fields and Cemetery Committee is actively seeking quotations for
comparative equipment”, unless there was a change of mind somewhere
along the way. The Thornbury Gazette reported the increase to the
precept as £1,369, in order to “cover the costs of a CCTV system
fitted at the Mundy Playing Fields”[2]. That suggests to any
newspaper reader that the existing camera was going to be
purchased.

You have not stated the date of the supplier letter, even though I
had asked for the date of the contract document. I wanted to know
whether members had given formal, prior authorisation for the
camera’s installation, and so the date of the letter and the date
of the Playing Fields and Cemetery Committee meeting are relevant,
in that regard.

Although the “press reports of vandalism and anti-social behaviour
at the Mundy Playing Fields” were mainly about the incident of
broken glass in the paddling pool [3], the main complaints about
anti-social behaviour referred to youth activity at the top of the
fields, near The Close. I refer, in particular, to the September
meeting of the Safer Stronger Community Group, Thornbury &
Alveston, when it was minuted: “A problem continues with the top
end of the Munday [sic] field which is a separate issue from the
paddling pool. The lights seem to make it easier for young people
to congregate” [4]. Now that there is no illumination at the top of
the fields, I fail to see how the CCTV camera will record any
credible evidence, if there are people engaged in anti-social
behaviour in the darkness. What’s more, according to your own
council’s Finance & Policy Committee, meeting on 17 September 2009,
the nocturnal anti-social behaviour in Mundy Playing Fields may
well be rowdy, boozed-up adults, leaving the Knot of Rope, and
urinating against the park wall: “It appeared that the majority of
problems were not caused by youngsters but coincided with the local
public houses closing at 1 or 2 am” [5].

1.
http://groups.southglos.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/...
2.
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/4861...
3.
http://www.gazetteseries.co.uk/news/loca...
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Vand...
4.
http://groups.southglos.gov.uk/gf2.ti/f/...
5. Minutes no longer available online [stated for the information
of any third party reader]

Yours sincerely,

David Martin