Minutes:
Two requests had been made to receive statements as follows –
(A) From the Leader of the Council, Councillor Colin Smith, on the Council’s preparations and contingency plans given the now-likely exit of the UK from the EU without a deal, requested by Councillors Simon Jeal and Angela Wilkins.
Councillor Smith stated that he had nothing to add to his earlier comments in response to Councillor Dunn’s question – there was nothing to report and project fear did not live here.
Councillor Jeal stated that the Government had given local authorities a total of £77m to prepare for no deal, and asked whether the Leader thought that this was a waste of money – project fear or project common sense? Councillor Smith stated that this was a waste of money – Bromley had held every penny in reserve and he hoped to be able to spend the money on something useful for the residents of Bromley.
Councillor Wilkins asked whether Councillor Smith could substantiate his accusations about project fear. Councillor Smith responded that there had been a constant attempt to put fear into the people of Bromley, and that this was a disgrace.
Councillor Simon Fawthrop asked whether the Leader had read project cheer on the Brexit Central website – Councillor Smith replied that he had not.
(B) From the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement, Councillor Kate Lymer, explaining why, given recent increases in muggings, a spate of burglaries in Chislehurst and the theft of antique horse troughs, she persisted in refusing to accede to requests from councillors, the public and the police to increase use of CCTV cameras in the Borough, requested by Councillors Kathy Bance MBE and Angela Wilkins.
Councillor Lymer explained that she was not personally impeding anything, and that mobile CCTV had been used in Chislehurst in the last two years to tackle anti-social behaviour and fly-tipping. The Independent Surveillance Commissioner had to be satisfied that CCTV was appropriate or it could be removed. Councillor Sharma had been vociferous in support of CCTV from his first month in office; earlier this year she had asked the Council’s independent CCTV consultant to review Police crime statistics for Chislehurst High Street and his view was that it would not meet the legal parameters. Since then, she had asked for the crime statistics to be reviewed and a meeting to discuss options was being arranged.
Following claims of an increase in muggings and burglaries in Chislehurst, Councillor Lymer had requested ward specific data from the Police. Due to the climate change protests in central London, the Police had not had the capacity to provide these statistics for this meeting, but data on the Metropolitan Police website showed that in September 2019 there had been 12 burglaries, below the average for the borough and for London. Burglaries across the borough had fallen from 203 in August 2018 to 182 in August 2019. There had been one mugging reported in Chislehurst across the summer. The Police reported 15 shop burglaries in Chislehurst within the last six months – in comparison, there were often that number each day in Bromley town centre. They had offered crime prevention advice to shop owners, including moving high value goods away from the front door, but not all shop owners had accepted the advice. Chislehurst shop owners had, collectively, decided not to use pull-down metal blinds as they were not visually appealing. Nearly all the shops that had been burgled had their own CCTV systems, indicating that CCTV was not deterring criminals.
Councillor Lymer concluded that it was essential that the restricted budget for CCTV was used appropriately and where it was most needed. The situation in Chislehurst would continue to be monitored and reviewed.
Councillor Bance complained that the statement had focused entirely on Chislehurst, and had not covered requests for CCTV across the borough. The Police in Penge had requested that the CCTV that had been moved away three times to cover other urgent areas, should be reinstated and this had been agreed, but the equipment could not be moved back for a couple of weeks due to the climate change and Brexit protests in central London. Councillor Bance felt that CCTV was needed in Bromley to safeguard residents and traders. The Penge BID Team did not understand why they were now responsible for providing CCTV in a black-spot high crime area such as Penge High Street, rather than the London Borough of Bromley. Councillor Lymer responded that the camera was a Police camera, so she could not comment on their tactics. There were already numerous Council-run cameras in Penge, but she would look into the position regarding the BID.
Councillor Wilkins asked the Portfolio Holder to concede that CCTV provided a third function – evidence for the Police to use for prosecutions. Councillor Lymer agreed, but it was still not possible to just install it without the right legal case.
Councillor Tickner asked whether the Police could not provide and pay for their own CCTV – was it always necessary for the Borough to deal with CCTV? Councillor Lymer responded that the Council was continually making this case, although the Police were refusing so far.