RESIDENTS on crime plagued estates in Bolton may have to pay for the introduction of CCTV security cameras.

Tenants on the Hall i'th' Wood ciouncil housing estate could be asked to pay £143 a year for the 15 cameras that already in place to keep their area under 24-hour surveillance.

And if the scheme is successful, it may be extended to other estates throughout Bolton.

Residents, however, say the eye-in-the-sky deterrents should be paid for by the council. They have bitterly condemned letters they have received informing them of a likely charge.

The Hall i'th' Wood estate has been troubled by vandalism, drugs, burglary, theft and car crime and residents asked for cameras to be installed.

But although Bolton Council successfully gained a £230,000 Government grant to fund a CCTV scheme, it was not enough to pay for staff who monitor the control room.

A charge of £2.75 per week per household is now being proposed to help fund the shortfall.

One resident, Thomas Carney, aged 72, of Pimlott Road, said: "I have a camera outside my house and, yes, there's been a noticeable drop in crime.

"But I do not want to pay this fee. I would sooner they took the cameras away. These are council properties and Bolton Council should foot the bill, not us."

Residents say crime levels appear to have dropped in the area since the cameras began operating six months ago. But they oppose paying towards the manning of the scheme which council chiefs say actually costs the quivalent of £8 per week per household.

Bolton North-east MP David Crausby is also concerned. He said: "There is a problem with Hall i'th' Wood and the CCTV camera system is invaluable in tackling that.

"But I do think that there ought not to be a charge for people who suffer the most problems. We should be looking after those in most need and not burdening them with extra hardship."

Town Hall housing bosses said it would be unfair for people in other areas of Bolton to foot the bill for a scheme which benefits just one estate. They said the Government grant only covered the cameras and the control room, not the staff.

A housing department spokesman said: "The proposal to charge residents is not a done deal. It is open to consultation and no decision has been made yet.

"We believe £2.75 to be a small charge for the security which the cameras would -- and do -- provide. Charging residents in the areas monitored by cameras is the fairest way forward and allows us to target more wards in this way."

The charges would come into effect from January 1 and would be frozen until April 1, 2004. Age Concern applauded any move to make crime-plagued areas safer, but it refused to comment on the introduction of tenant charges.

A spokesman said: "Cameras can reduce the fear of crime as well as crime itself and introducing CCTV is very welcome."

A spokesman for the Hall i'th' Wood Residents Association said: We requested cameras because of the high level of crime in the area and we would like them to stay up. Having them there as a deterrent is preferable to not having them at all.

"I am concerned at the cost residents are expected to meet. I believe £143 a year is too steep for many people who live around here."

Mr Carney, who receives a pension of £406 each month, said the fee effectively amounted to a seven per cent increase in his £39.37 weekly rent.

He admitted: "We have a lot of problems with children and drugs in the area, but I still don't see why we should pay for cameras."