SURVEILLANCE cameras will be installed at a massive illegal rubbish dump in Oxford, to prevent flytippers returning.

Oxfordshire County Council has set aside £858,000 of taxpayers' money to remove the mess at Redbridge Hollow, which has been used by flytippers for two decades.

The site, next to a travellers' site near Kennington, contains everything from asbestos to fridges and mattresses, and has grown to 926sq m - bigger than Oxford Ice Rink.

But, along with clearing the site, the council plans to install cameras to prevent it returning to an eyesore.

Rose Hill resident Jackie Barrett was one of several people to express concern that the clear-up operation would be a waste of time if measures were not put in place to prevent flytippers returning.

She said: "What preventative measures are proposed for the monitoring of the area?

"How do we know that this will not happen all over again?

"It is not good enough to just say that the clear-up operation will go ahead."

An estimated 200 travellers live in 16 plots at Redbridge Hollow. T000he community denies flytipping.

Kennington Parish Council chairman Peter Biggs cautiously welcomed news that CCTV was to be installed.

He said: "I think the cost of the clear-up is enormous and I don't want to see the money wasted. CCTV might be a deterrent - it's certainly better than no CCTV.

"My own view is that they should cover it all over with dirt - it would be a lot cheaper.

"Another option would be to appoint the residents of Redbridge Hollow as wardens of the site and ask them to report anybody who dumps waste."

Neil Monaghan, the council's head of property, said funding for the removal of the waste had been included in the council's capital budget for 2010/11.

He said a barrier around the site had been put in place and plans were afoot to cover the tip with a protective cover so any new material dumped could be easily spotted. CCTV would also be installed, he promised.

"Every effort is being made to prevent further flytipping," he said.

"We will commission further analysis of the waste in April. In the meantime, discussions over CCTV are still taking place.

"The estimate of £858,000 is a provisional figure based on a visual inspection to assess the quantity and composition of the material. The actual cost will depend upon more analysis being done of the content of the waste.

"The contractor for removal of the waste will be appointed when arrangements are made for its removal."