Agenda item

For the Panel to raise any issues or queries concerning crime and policing in Surrey with the Commissioner.

Note:

The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (31 January 2022).

Witness:

Lisa Townsend, Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Kelvin Menon, Chief Finance Officer – OPCC

Alison Bolton, Chief Executive – OPCC

Ellie Vesey-Thompson, Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner for Surrey

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. A Panel Member asked for the total costs incurred by the abandoned project to move the Force’s headquarters to Leatherhead and whether any value could be retrieved for the benefit of the Force or the Leatherhead community. The Chief Finance Officer (CFO) explained that the responses to the Member’s questions were under question 46 and 47 of the supplementary agenda. The CFO explained that the total spend on the project so far was £1.5 million, which had been charged as revenue over a number of years. The senior responsible officer had provided a list of areas where the consultancy work could be reused. The Chairman noted the upcoming visit to Mount Browne for Panel Members to receive an informal briefing on the project.

2. A Panel Member asked about the review of Surrey Police’s CCTV strategy, as well as the revenue and capital expenditure included in the proposed budget for CCTV monitoring and infrastructure. The CFO responded that there was £800,000 in the revenue budget for CCTV for the whole of the county and there was nothing in the capital budget for CCTV. Funding was not allocated on a district and borough basis and the OPCC was working with district and borough councils to secured funding for CCTV, such as from the Community Infrastructure Levy. The PCC added that this topic was covered in the recent performance and accountability meeting.

3. A Panel Member requested information on the use of CCTV by Surrey Police and expressed his view that the Force’s contributions were not proportionate to  the investment of district and borough councils. The PCC responded that there had been conversations at the Surrey councils Leader’s Group around CCTV, where it was a standing agenda item. The PCC explained that the provision and funding of CCTV was not a cost to be borne by the Police alone and a county-wide approach was required, with the Districts and Boroughs leading it. The Vice-Chairman raised that this was a burden which had been increasingly shifted onto the Districts and Boroughs and there would be an advantage to having a clear policy across Surrey between the Police and Districts and Boroughs.

4. A Panel Member highlighted that other Police Forces around the country held a register of residents who had ‘Ring Video Doorbells’ and personal CCTV. The PCC shared that Surrey Police did not maintain such a register but frequently used both personal and commercial CCTV footage and agreed with the usefulness of Ring doorbell footage. A Panel Member asked whether there would be a CCTV register, as he was aware of local issues around accessing CCTV from different sources. The Chairman suggested that this point could be raised at the Leader’s Group.  

5. A Panel Member asked whether Surrey Police would operate a similar system to Kent Police whereby vehicles could be confiscated as a result of unsafe driving by young people. The Deputy Police and Crime Commissioner (DPCC) explained that Surrey Police had a different process in place whereby there were attempts to resolve issues by other means prior to confiscation. The DPCC would provide further information following the meeting.

6. A Panel Member sought assurance that the PCC and Chief Constable had discussed police culture in light of reports of inappropriate behaviour by Met Police officers and that a zero-tolerance approach was adopted within Surrey Police. The PCC replied that this was discussed with both the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable at the recent performance and accountability meeting, and it was taken seriously. Work had been undertaken with Surrey Police around workplace culture and the PCC assured the Panel that she had not witnessed anything troubling by a police officer or staff member of Surrey Police.

Actions/requests for further information:

1. R4/22 – The OPCC to provide information on the Force’s use of CCTV in the county.

2. R5/22 – The DPCC to provide further information, including data, on Surrey Police’s approach to tackling unsafe driving by young people.