A WOMAN who installed CCTV on her council-owned property because she felt unsafe has been ordered to take the cameras down in case they breach neighbours’ privacy.

Dawn Barton insists cameras on the outside of her ground-floor flat in Roedale Court, Hollingdean, do not monitor beyond her flat and is “furious” about being ordered to take them down.

She had the cameras installed about three weeks ago at personal expense after hearing rumours about burglaries nearby.

She said: “I had heard about burglaries in Roedale Road. The cameras are directed right at my window – not anywhere else.

“I am not doing this to watch the public. I don’t want my place to be burgled. I haven’t got much to take but I feel quite vulnerable as I live alone.

“Now I feel safe with them when I go out because I know my place is protected.”

Ms Barton said the council had written to her telling her to take down the cameras and that, if not, they would send someone to do the job and bill her for it.

She added: “I am furious about this. I am not going to take them down. The back of the building is pitch black.”

A spokesman for Brighton and Hove City Council said it felt in Ms Barton’s case there was “a risk of the CCTV cameras monitoring beyond the property itself, which could potentially be a breach of other people’s privacy”.

He said: “In general terms, CCTV can be used to monitor a tenant’s own property but must not monitor anything beyond the tenant’s property.

“Our policies in this area are detailed in our tenant handbook and are guided by national law and advice from the Ministry of Justice.

“We would be happy to visit Ms Barton to discuss acceptable CCTV placement if she would like us to do that.

“Our housing department works closely with local police community support officers where crime or the fear of crime is evident.”

Tenants are able to request CCTV in their own properties and all applications are assessed.

A Sussex Police spokesman said he could not find on records of burglaries in Roedale Road between December 19, 2013, and December 18 this year on the database.

He could not, however, rule out the possibility they had been reported on another system which was not immediately searchable.