Peaceful getaway or Fort Knox? Council seeks fewer CCTV cameras at £1.25m mansion for ‘at risk’ families

Tranquil retreat? Hackney Council’s idyllic Oxfordshire mansion. Photograph: Penny & Sinclair

A countryside mansion bought by Hackney Council as a tranquil retreat for “at risk” families will be surrounded by CCTV, an anti-climb metal fence and outside lighting after residents of some neighbouring properties expressed fears about security.

Silver Trees mansion in the quiet Oxfordshire village of Kennington was purchased by the council for £1.25 million using grant funding from the Department for Education’s Innovation programme.

Social workers will undertake specialist work there with the aim of repairing fractured relationships within Hackney families deemed “at risk of breakdown”.

The 19th century mansion was seen by the council as an ideal environment, free from distractions and a world away from the frantic streets of inner London.

But while some residents of the surrounding village have welcomed the scheme, others have been less favourably disposed towards it and have cited supposed safety risks and other adverse impacts.

In response, Vale of White Horse District Council, which is the planning authority for the village, now intends to impose a series of conditions on the plans.

Its latest plans show the property ringed by six dome cameras and one bullet camera – opening it up to accusations that the building will end up feeling more like the Big Brother house or Fort Knox than a relaxing place for a getaway.

Hackney Council is understood to be involved in quiet diplomacy to try and reduce the number of CCTV cameras but says it wants to be a “good neighbour” and so is taking all issues seriously.

In addition to the cameras, Vale of White Horse District Council wants 2.1m high “anti-climb metal mesh fencing” to be erected around Silver Trees.

A consultation is ongoing about these proposed features, and Kennington Parish Council has been asked to air its views.

Its chairman Colin Charlett admitted there were a “small minority of residents of the village who weren’t happy” about Hackney Council’s plans.

But he said many now question if the district council’s proposed security features are necessary.

Mr Charlett told the Hackney Citizen: “We are a bit concerned about the 2m security fence and whether there is a need for CCTV and floodlights.”

A Hackney Council spokesperson said it has submitted its own plans which it feels will meet Vale of White Horse District Council’s conditions.

“We feel what we have proposed strikes the right balance,” the council spokesperson said.

“Of course there will be some security measures in place. These will include one camera and we are in discussions about fencing, as requested by a local resident.”

The council spokesperson added that some of the security measures in question are now “outdated” and that discussions with the Vale of White Horse District Council are on-going.

“Discussions about our plans – funded by the DfE’s innovation programme – have been ongoing for nearly a year now. We’ve met with residents on a number of occasions and have been pleased that many have been very supportive of our plans,” the spokesperson said. 

““We bought the property in February 2016 and are still in discussions with Vale of White Horse District Council over a number of conditions relating to the change of use application. The security measures referred to relate to an outdated set of proposals. Whilst it has been agreed in principle to install a fence on one side of the building only, at the request of the neighbour, we have not agreed with requests made for the installation of similar fencing around the entire property and discussions on this are continuing.”

Vale of White Horse District Council’s planning department confirmed its consultation is continuing.