---

Detector-Activated CCTV Alarms Versus Conventional Systems

Matthew Holliday, Director of Approval Schemes at the National Security Inspectorate (NSI), explains the advantages of detector-activated surveillance alarm systems with police response and their operational benefits versus conventional building alarm monitoring systems.

Until recently, facilities managers have largely been unable to take advantage of detector-activated CCTV with police response. Relatively few police URNs (Unique Reference Numbers, which qualify them for police alarm response from their local constabulary), have been issued to such systems since the first version of British Standard 8418 – covering the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of detector-activated video surveillance systems (VSS) – was introduced in 2003.

Since then, take-up of these VSS has been held back by onerous technical and operational requirements and the consequent relatively high cost of compliant remote video verification equipment when compared with alternative technology.

Last year a significantly revised version of BS 8418 was introduced; BS 8418:2021 made several major changes (FMUK, September 2021). Key among these was the introduction of a two-tiered risk-based approach: ‘Type A’ and ‘Type A+’ systems. In essence, a ‘Type A+’ system design includes additional security features designed to suit higher risk industrial, military, utilities and other similar sites, while a standard ‘Type A’ system involves the use of image transmission to alarm receiving centres (ARCs) and dedicated remote video response centres (RVRCs), with alarm verification operators at these centres screening out false alarms using recognised detection techniques.

Operational Comparisons

CCTV technology’s technical evolution over the past 30+ years means FMs and other end-user customers can now cost-effectively specify the installation of equipment that’s reliable, with low-light capability, high resolution images, pre- and post-event recording, and both stand-alone and networked operational capability – i.e. integration with other systems including IT, mobile/remote comms, visitor management and access control.

Connectivity options such as shared structured cabling using IP (Internet Protocol) also enable quick and easy relocation of cameras without costly/disruptive re-cabling/infrastructure alteration issues, e.g. to cover changes in building use and/or the evolving nature of specific site-based risks.

These technological advances have led to video surveillance progressing from a costly, standalone, disconnected method of providing security to a cost-effective, connected solution able to offer primary event verification – and importantly, being accepted by the Police as eligible for an immediate response to a confirmed intrusion event using a URN. Video surveillance solutions offer buyers, end users and specifiers a more informed decision-making option in comparison with traditional detector-activated intruder alarms.

Additional comparative advantages of VSS include the ability to clearly see what is happening within a building/premises when compared, for example, with the information provided by a sequentially confirmed alarm, which may only indicate that an intruder has passed two points within a premises. Similarly, audio confirmation can be difficult to make sense of, in terms of understanding what the sounds indicate – potentially causing a delay in response.

Compared with sequential and audio methods, visual confirmation has moved to the fore in terms of its technological abilities, including reducing false alarm calls to the Police due to the advanced interrogation capability when monitored by an NSI-approved video monitoring centre (ARC or RVRC). It’s a reliable and proven method – hence the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s confidence in allowing it to be used as primary event confirmation.

---

---

Proactive Measures

VSS also offers the chance to use this equipment in external, perimeter-based situations as a proactive tool capable of determining, for example, whether a person loitering should be reported as a potential risk/threat, thereby proving a more preventive tool, potentially avoiding a break-in and subsequent damage and related losses. This could be handled by an ARC/RVRC operator viewing VSS images to warn the person that they are being monitored, using a public address system at the site and/or summon a keyholder as well as a commercial response provider.

These benefits to end users protected by a monitored VSS are also an advantage to the Police: the opportunity to detect and deter break-ins at the perimeter helps reduce pressure on police response resources by negating the escalation of incidents into intrusion attempts that subsequently warrant police alarm response to a confirmed break-in. Taking this preventative approach could also offer positive insurance premium implications.

For more information visit: www.nsi.org.uk