You Said, We Did

Learn more about the impact of this engagement!

We asked:  

The public consultation for the draft CCTV Policy took place over 5 weeks, between the 16th of December 2025 and the 19th of January 2026.  During this period, we launched an online survey seeking feedback on the draft policy. 

Key objectives of the consultation included: 

• Engaging stakeholders to gather insights and concerns about the proposed policy. 
• Promoting awareness and understanding of how CCTV systems are, and will be, deployed and managed. 
• Using the input gathered to refine the policy, ensure it addresses safety priorities, while respecting privacy and transparency.

Engagement with the online survey was facilitated by five drop-in sessions held in local Housing Offices, covering North, Central and South area to enable equal access to the opportunity of sharing their perspective. Alongside these sessions, we shared the information about the draft policy with Ward Councillors, Resident Associations, Resident Panel, and was promoted through the MyWestminster newsletter over the course of the consultation period. The online survey included several open-ended and multiple-choice questions. The survey was divided in two sections.  Section 1 focused on awareness, both policy development as well as the general risks associated with the use of CCTV systems.  Section 2 focused on testing the respondent’s understanding of the policy, starting from the 4 key policy objectives and later descriptions of each service-specific policy.  

You said:

Section 1 - Awareness

Over 70% of respondents (70.2%) was not aware that the Council was developing a new CCTV Policy.  Almost quarter of all respondents (24.2%) was aware of the policy development and learnt about it though mainly MyWestminster newsletter (27.5%), a community group engagement session (22.5%), a consultation email (17.5%).

The survey asked stakeholders to share their views on the following risks commonly associated with CCTV systems: Misuse of footage, Oversurveillance, Data Security Issues and Privacy Issues.  123 respondents completed this question. 

Section 2 – Understanding 

Question 1 – Four key objectives:

First question of section 2 focused on the four key objectives of the policy and their clarity and accessibility to different stakeholders.  The majority of respondents (62%) felt the objectives of the CCTV policy are explained very clearly, while 29% believed they are explained fairly clearly.  Only 8% thought they are not very clearly explained and 1% felt they are not at all clearly explained. Out of those who provided additional feedback (18 respondents), half commented on the need for greater detail or examples that relate to each of the four objectives.  A few respondents mentioned the need to simplify certain parts or wording (e.g. ‘AI-powered’) to ensure accessibility for all. 

Question 2 – Public Realm CCTV:

The majority of respondents find the description to be “Very clear” at 63% while 32% consider it to be “Fairly clear.”  Only 5% feels it is “Not very clear”, and none reported it as “Not clear at all”. 23 respondents provided additional feedback on this question.  Feedback mentioned support for use of CCTV in public realm, with some respondents highlighting the need for clear metrics and transparent criteria for when cameras are moves or removed. 

Question 3 – Housing Estates CCTV

Most respondents find the description of policy around housing estates CCTV cameras to be “Very clear” at 57%, while 32% consider it “Fairly clear”. Only 9% and 2% feel it is “Not very clear” and “Not clear at all,” respectively. 19 respondents shared their reasons for their response. Feedback included calls for more plain-language and transparent communication about residents’ privacy and CCTV coverage.  Some comments focused on operational aspects such as choices of location across the estates. 

Question 4 – Traffic Enforcement CCTV

The majority of respondents find the description of policy around traffic enforcement CCTV cameras to be clear with 60% rating it as “Very clear” and 32% as “Fairly clear”.  Only a small percentage of respondents feel it is unclear, with 5% stating “Not very clear” and 3% stating “Not at all clear”. There have been 20 additional comments shared regarding this question. Some responses highlighted the importance of traffic enforcement cameras in deterring dangerous driving; however, some responses highlighted the need for greater detail to explain aspects such as signage and ANPR use.

We did:

The final policy has been updated based on the consultation feedback analysis as follows: 

• All policy documents have been reviewed with the focus on accessible language.  Following the review, technical terms such as ‘metadata’ or ‘AI-powered analytics’ (and others) have been added to the Terms and Definitions section to enable greater accessibility and understanding for all.
• Policy Introductions for Appendices A-C as well as the four key policy objectives, have been reviewed to reflect the consultation feedback regarding the necessary level of detail.  This has been achieved by adding short examples under each objective, so it reflects on the connection between use of CCTV against safety, traffic and environmental enforcement. 
• Appendix A has been revised to incorporate stakeholder feedback emphasising the importance of transparent, well-defined decision criteria and metrics for deploying cameras.  It also clarifies the factors evaluated when assessing the effectiveness of the cameras after the deployment period ends.

You can read the main policy together with the relevant appendix on this page. Click here to view the Public Realm, Housing, or Traffic Enforcement versions of the policy.