A PROJECT to help cut crime and anti-social behaviour in the centre of Launceston has hit funding problems and upset town councillors, writes Keith Whitford.

The CCTV project put forward by the police with the support of community organisations had been to have four cameras — but a funding shortfall then reduced this to two and then halved it again to one. The single camera would be positioned near the White Hart Hotel in the Square.

But, Launceston Town Council was told by police about this latest cut in an e-mail and some councillors believed this information should have arrived in the shape of a formal letter.

Two police officers, Sgt Aaron Ward and PC Matt Kingdon attended the February meeting of the council to give an update on the CCTV scheme.

Sgt Ward explained that there were originally five cameras, including one in the Castle grounds but English Heritage had now installed their own system so the project did not need to provide one.

'HOT SPOT'

The initial survey had indicated the White Hart area as "a hot spot" for anti-social behaviour and crime at that time.

"We must put them in a place where they will be most effective and most beneficial," he explained.

PC Kingdon told the meeting that they replied to e-mails with an e-mail — if they had received a letter, they would have replied by letter.

They were just short of funding for two cameras but, possibly with one, it would build, added the PC.

Cllr Brian Hogan said a letter to the council in January referred to two cameras but a subsequent e-mail referred to one.

Sgt Ward said that was really to reduce the costs again as they did not have enough (funding) for two cameras. They wanted to install one in the best place to reduce crime figures and anti-social behaviour and, once it was started, it would attract the support of further businesses and gain further funding. Penny­gillam Industrial Estate was waiting to get on board and Newport Industrial Estate had shown an interest.

'UNSYMPATHETIC'

Cllr Graham Facks-Martin said he was "unsympathetic with this." They had said there would be £10,000 funding from outside sources and £10,000 from the town council.

He asked about the admissability of evidence gathered by the camera and whether police cover would be reduced because of the camera coverage.

Sgt Ward replied that the evidence was 100 per cent admissable. The digital system was secure and could not be tampered with.

They were now looking at monitoring the system from Launceston Police Station and not Bude and this would be run by a community group for Launceston Comm­unity CCTV. The town council would have no ownership or be responsible with regard to data protection and insurance would be provided by Devon and Cornwall Police with no burden on the council.

Launceston had ten response officers, six neighbourhood officers, and four Special Constables, as well as another ten officers on traffic — but not just covering Launceston, he added.

In a perfect world they would have four cameras in the town plus a mobile camera with a power supply as a joint venture with Bude — but that was in an ideal world.

Cllr Mary Williams asked why couldn't the police come up with more money for cameras and why did voluntary bodies have to come up with the money?

"I am unhappy there is only going to be one camera. It is not a good place."

Cllr Rob Tremain: "Two cameras I could have gone along with, but one camera will not achieve a lot — everybody will move to the next street where it will not see along."

FORMAL

The town council decided to ask the police to send an updated formal proposal for the CCTV project for Launceston, explaining the costings and funding shortfall for the provision of two cameras.

The town clerk, Rita Skinner said they had to make a decision at the next council meeting (on March 17) because the funding would not be available after the end of March.

After the two police officers left the Guildhall Chamber, Cllr Facks-Martin asked why this matter was not dealt with by the police at senior level — a chief inspector or a superintendent.