Council reveal plans for more CCTV cameras after spate of attempted burglaries in Malvern

Council reveal plans for more CCTV cameras after spate of attempted burglaries in Malvern

Council reveal plans for more CCTV cameras after spate of attempted burglaries in Malvern

First published in News
Last updated

ANGRY traders are calling out for heightened security measures after a spate of attempted burglaries in Malvern.

Traders in Barnards Green are lobbying for more protection from crime after would-be thieves attempted to break into three businesses - Cold Chef, Natural Choice and Barnards Green Optician - sometime between Friday night (July 25) and Monday morning.

Back in April, Barnards Green was targeted by would-be robbers wearing balaclavas who attempted to rip a cash point machine out of the ground using a cable attached to a van.

And frustrated traders say they are a frequent target for crime - particularly since a CCTV camera that used to monitor the area was removed.

Phil Saville, manager of Natural Choice, said: "I came in Monday to find my front windows smashed.

"They also damaged the back door as they tried to force entry through there.

"With the excess being so high, it's not viable going through insurance, so the windows had to be replaced with money coming out of the budget, which we do not need as we are an independent business.

"It's very frustrating and annoying that this happens, and it seems to be happening more regularly. We need more security here in this area to protect the traders."

After being contacted by the Gazette, Malvern Hills District Council has already said it will take steps to beef up CCTV coverage in Barnards Green.

Gordon Morris, the council's street scene manager, said: “We installed two CCTV cameras in Barnards Green in December 2013, one of which was taken out to be used in another location involving anti-social behaviour.

"We will be installing another camera in the next week, which will be set to view up and down all of Barnards Green Road.

"We only have a very limited amount of portable CCTV cameras and these are moved around the whole of the district where there might be anti-social hot spots.”

Andrew Brookes, owner of The Cheeseboard and an independent trader in Barnards Green for more than 30 years, hopes it will prove a deterrent.

"This seems to happen in repeat attacks, in spates," he said. "This area was hit in a similar vein around 12 months ago.

"Unfortunately there will always be people who do things like this, but the best way to tackle it is to have deterrents in the area, the best thing we can do is protect ourselves.

"We need more CCTV."

Police are investigating the attenpted burglaries and anyone with information should call 101, quoting incident 147s of July 28 for the Cold Chef incident or 85s of July 28 for the incidents at Barnards Green Optician and Natural Choice.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:38am Fri 1 Aug 14

Old-un says...

I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.
I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green. Old-un
  • Score: 1

11:02am Fri 1 Aug 14

Casmal says...

Whilst I can see your point, I think you're wrong. Supposing a member of the public had disturbed one of these would-be burglars, or the gang that attached the cash machine? We, the public are at risk from such law breakers, so it is in our interests to have the cameras. I also happen to prize our local shops very highly. They are excellent shops and the owners and staff do so much for the community. And don't forget they pay business rates. They, like all retailers have had a really tough time over the last few years and I am happy to support them. I'd certainly rather my money was spent on CCTV cameras in BG rather than increased allowances for District Councillors!!
Whilst I can see your point, I think you're wrong. Supposing a member of the public had disturbed one of these would-be burglars, or the gang that attached the cash machine? We, the public are at risk from such law breakers, so it is in our interests to have the cameras. I also happen to prize our local shops very highly. They are excellent shops and the owners and staff do so much for the community. And don't forget they pay business rates. They, like all retailers have had a really tough time over the last few years and I am happy to support them. I'd certainly rather my money was spent on CCTV cameras in BG rather than increased allowances for District Councillors!! Casmal
  • Score: 0

8:54am Sat 2 Aug 14

redtail says...

Old-un wrote:
I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.
spot on comment,,, with all the cut backs in local authority
[quote][p][bold]Old-un[/bold] wrote: I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.[/p][/quote]spot on comment,,, with all the cut backs in local authority redtail
  • Score: -1

4:07pm Thu 7 Aug 14

WorcsBorn&Bred says...

Old-un wrote:
I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.
A ridiculous argument. You seem to forget that local businesses are taxpayers too through their business rates, their own personal income tax, and the council tax they pay on their own homes. If a business is forced to pay its own way for protection from certain elements of society, why not extend it to individuals. Where does it stop? At the end of the day, crime against a business is a crime against the area you live in. Or are you content to live in an area where crime escalates as business is unable to foot the bill. It would be like me saying because I have no children in school, should I pay towards the education of other people's children through my taxes. Of course I should, because that's what living in a society is all about.
[quote][p][bold]Old-un[/bold] wrote: I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.[/p][/quote]A ridiculous argument. You seem to forget that local businesses are taxpayers too through their business rates, their own personal income tax, and the council tax they pay on their own homes. If a business is forced to pay its own way for protection from certain elements of society, why not extend it to individuals. Where does it stop? At the end of the day, crime against a business is a crime against the area you live in. Or are you content to live in an area where crime escalates as business is unable to foot the bill. It would be like me saying because I have no children in school, should I pay towards the education of other people's children through my taxes. Of course I should, because that's what living in a society is all about. WorcsBorn&Bred
  • Score: 3

6:29pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Old-un says...

WorcsBorn&Bred wrote:
Old-un wrote:
I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.
A ridiculous argument. You seem to forget that local businesses are taxpayers too through their business rates, their own personal income tax, and the council tax they pay on their own homes. If a business is forced to pay its own way for protection from certain elements of society, why not extend it to individuals. Where does it stop? At the end of the day, crime against a business is a crime against the area you live in. Or are you content to live in an area where crime escalates as business is unable to foot the bill. It would be like me saying because I have no children in school, should I pay towards the education of other people's children through my taxes. Of course I should, because that's what living in a society is all about.
I was deliberately being provocative as the headline for this article is misleading. The Council is not revealing plans for more CCTV cameras. The truth lies in this statement:

"We only have a very limited amount of portable CCTV cameras and these are moved around the whole of the district where there might be anti-social hot spots.”

It follows that another area in the District, where there has been anti-social behaviour, will lose its camera. Like most sensible organisations, the Council will place cameras where there are known issues. For their part, when cameras are deployed, the anti-social elements who carry out these activities will move on to somewhere else where the risk of detection is low. Sadly, we live in an age of reducing public resources, that is why I suggested that businesses need to take on more responsibility for their own protection. Many businesses in larger towns, for example, have pull down metal shutters to avoid the possibility of criminal damage which I do not believe the local Council will have paid for.

I may not be a business owner but, as a house owner, I do pay for the protection of my own property. I have an alarm, security lights and I have insurance. If I thought it necessary, as some people in Malvern do, I would also pay for security cameras.

In an Ideal World, you are of course correct, Government, at all levels, does have a duty to protect its people and property from external and internal threats. The bigger question is 'are we the British people prepared to pay significantly more in taxes to fund the additional security resources needed?'. My own view is 'I doubt it'.
[quote][p][bold]WorcsBorn&Bred[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old-un[/bold] wrote: I shall tread where Angels fear. Whilst the attacks on Barnards Green' businesses are to be regretted, the cost of protection should not fall to local taxpayers. That is what insurance is for. If the excess is too high then one might say that this is a judgement that we all have to make whether we need to claim on an insurance policy. Perhaps the owners of these shops need to look at (a) their own cameras which are not expensive these days (£500 for 6 HD cameras with day/night capability with a DVR) or (b) making a contribution towards additional Council operated cameras in Barnards Green.[/p][/quote]A ridiculous argument. You seem to forget that local businesses are taxpayers too through their business rates, their own personal income tax, and the council tax they pay on their own homes. If a business is forced to pay its own way for protection from certain elements of society, why not extend it to individuals. Where does it stop? At the end of the day, crime against a business is a crime against the area you live in. Or are you content to live in an area where crime escalates as business is unable to foot the bill. It would be like me saying because I have no children in school, should I pay towards the education of other people's children through my taxes. Of course I should, because that's what living in a society is all about.[/p][/quote]I was deliberately being provocative as the headline for this article is misleading. The Council is not revealing plans for more CCTV cameras. The truth lies in this statement: "We only have a very limited amount of portable CCTV cameras and these are moved around the whole of the district where there might be anti-social hot spots.” It follows that another area in the District, where there has been anti-social behaviour, will lose its camera. Like most sensible organisations, the Council will place cameras where there are known issues. For their part, when cameras are deployed, the anti-social elements who carry out these activities will move on to somewhere else where the risk of detection is low. Sadly, we live in an age of reducing public resources, that is why I suggested that businesses need to take on more responsibility for their own protection. Many businesses in larger towns, for example, have pull down metal shutters to avoid the possibility of criminal damage which I do not believe the local Council will have paid for. I may not be a business owner but, as a house owner, I do pay for the protection of my own property. I have an alarm, security lights and I have insurance. If I thought it necessary, as some people in Malvern do, I would also pay for security cameras. In an Ideal World, you are of course correct, Government, at all levels, does have a duty to protect its people and property from external and internal threats. The bigger question is 'are we the British people prepared to pay significantly more in taxes to fund the additional security resources needed?'. My own view is 'I doubt it'. Old-un
  • Score: 0

6:58pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Casmal says...

Maybe not, but much of it is a question of the way the pot is shared. We didn't get asked if we wanted to pay our Cllrs, more!!! There are ways the money MHDC has could be allocated differently, without causing significant harm. Trouble is, The leading group is not open to discussion, reasoned argument or looking at alternatives.

Watch this space and see how much our CEO gets in his redundancy package. This is a CEO whom they now believe could halve his workload. Hmmmmmm.
Maybe not, but much of it is a question of the way the pot is shared. We didn't get asked if we wanted to pay our Cllrs, more!!! There are ways the money MHDC has could be allocated differently, without causing significant harm. Trouble is, The leading group is not open to discussion, reasoned argument or looking at alternatives. Watch this space and see how much our CEO gets in his redundancy package. This is a CEO whom they now believe could halve his workload. Hmmmmmm. Casmal
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree