To agree to adopt use of mobile surveillance equipment as a long-term measure to support fly-tipping investigations and enforcement and to consider the request from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to increase the number of cameras in use.

1. That use of mobile surveillance equipment be ADOPTED as a long-term measure to support fly-tipping investigations and enforcement.
2. That the request from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to increase the number of cameras in use be APPROVED.

21.1          The report of the Head of Service: Environmental Health, circulated at Pages No. 108-112, summarised the results of the trial of mobile surveillance equipment to assist with fly-tipping enforcement and the recommendation from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding its future use.  Members were asked to adopt the use of mobile surveillance as a long term measure to support fly-tipping investigations and enforcement and to consider the request from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to increase the number of cameras in use.

21.2           In proposing the report recommendation, the Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment advised that, in October 2021, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had approved the trial of two CCTV cameras to assist with fly-tipping enforcement.  This had been agreed on the basis that the Court fines the Council had been able to obtain using traditional investigative methods had been disappointing - several local authorities had achieved much higher fines, and custodial sentences, as a result of the high quality evidence produced by CCTV surveillance.  The trial of two rapid deployment CCTV cameras had commenced in autumn 2022 with the cameras installed at two locations known to be “hotspots” for fly-tipping.  In accordance with legal requirements, the presence of the cameras at each location was advertised by signage.  This had acted as a deterrent and resulted in a dramatic decrease in reported fly-tips in the six months following installation with one incident at location one, compared to 11 in the 12 months prior to installation, and no incidents at location two compared to three in the 12 months prior.  The camera at location one had also obtained clear footage of a fly-tip incident that had taken place and was currently being investigated.  The results of the trial suggested that the presence of camera and signage represented an effective deterrent to fly-tippers; furthermore, the trial demonstrated that the cameras were capable of capturing high quality evidence of fly-tipping incidents.  The cameras used were overt rapid deployment cameras powered by a lithium battery; they were easy to install and could be deployed or moved at short notice.  Each camera connected to a secure server hosted by Vodafone and footage could be reviewed remotely by Officers via an app.  The benefit of these cameras compared to covert surveillance was that footage could be reviewed remotely without the need to be retrieved and downloaded regularly from the cameras; no material was stored on the cameras thus mitigating the data protection risk to the Council should they be lost or stolen; and there was no requirement to apply to the Court for covert surveillance approval under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA).  A privacy impact assessment had been completed and approved for the cameras.  In March 2023, the Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommended to the Executive Committee that the Council adopt the use of mobile surveillance equipment as a long-term measure to support fly-tipping investigations and enforcement; and that consideration be given to increasing the number of cameras in use.  The cost of two further cameras, hardware and data subscriptions was £6,985 which could be accommodated within the current budget.

21.3           The proposal was seconded and the Chair invited questions.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 111, Paragraph 2.6 of the report which referred to one of the cameras being stolen during a fly-tipping incident and she asked whether it had been recovered and if it was insured.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health advised that the camera had been stolen on the first night it had been installed and had not been recovered.  It had not been insured at the time but the cameras were now included on the Council’s insurance schedule.  It was noted that the camera had captured good evidence of the perpetrator which should assist with prosecution.  The Member felt this was a good example of a quick lesson learnt and she asked how much would be saved by using the cameras in terms of the cost of clearing fly-tips.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health indicated that he would need to request that information from Ubico but it was likely to be several thousand pounds each year, particularly if the fly-tips contained material such as asbestos which required specialist contractors for removal.  Another Member felt it was important to also acknowledge the non-financial benefits of investing in the cameras in relation to removing the blight of fly-tips from the countryside.  In his view, the more that could be done to eradicate the problem, the better.  The Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment indicated that, in terms of financial savings, the fact that the cameras could capture useable evidence would mean the Council could pursue prosecution in the most cost-effective way and would be better able to secure substantial fines.  A Member asked if there was any evidence of increased fly-tipping in other areas as a result of cameras and signage being erected in certain locations.  The Head of Service: Environmental Health advised there was no evidence currently that fly-tips were being displaced; however, that was a risk which needed to be monitored.  A Member queried if there were trackers on the cameras and the Head of Service: Environmental Health confirmed that was something which could be investigated.

21.4           Upon being put to the vote, it was