Surveillance methods to tackle problems such as benefit fraud, fly-tipping and noisy neighbours were approved by councillors this week.

At a meeting of Hertsmere Borough Council’s executive on Monday, councillors approved guidelines to regulate the authority’s use of undercover and open devices, such as CCTV cameras, in its investigations.

The agreed policy sets out procedures governing the use of both secretive methods, such as concealed cameras and recording devices, as well as more overt surveillance such as officers in uniform and visible recording methods.

Addressing the meeting, Jill Coule, head of legal and democratic services, said: “It is a very important policy for the authority because, occasionally, activities need to be carried out such as planning enforcement or investigations into benefit fraud, where surveillance may need to take place as part of an investigation.”

Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), local authorities are allowed to use information-gathering methods to help prevent crime When RIPA was passed by Parliament in 2000, its powers to conduct operations and intercept communications were available to only a handful of organisations, including the police and security services. But former home secretary David Blunkett extended the list in 2003 to include a wide range of bodies, including councils.

A report compiled by Hertsmere officers states: “Use of surveillance needs to be carefully balanced against the risk of interference with human rights of both the person under surveillance, and others who may be caught by the surveillance activity.

“Failure to adhere to standards and procedures set out in the policy document could render the evidence gathered inadmissible in court.”

From April this year, hidden cameras have been used by the authority to crackdown on flytipping, benefit fraud, and to investigate theft.

Councillor Morris Bright, leader of the council, said: “Hertsmere has always been a carrot and stick authority, we don’t go out and cause issues in relation to residents unless we have a very good reason to do so in the interest of all residents. I am reassured these are the right reasons — not to be difficult or intrusive to the vast population who are law-abiding.”