Property management as crime management

Citation

Cozens, P. (2001), "Property management as crime management", Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/pm.2001.11319daa.001

Property management as crime management

Property management as crime management

Extensive research over the last 30 years has established that the design of the built environment can act to encourage or discourage opportunities for criminal activity. Increasingly, government policy in the UK is implementing and encouraging an approach that supports "designing out crime". The Government's Planning Out Crime (Circular 5/94) provides "designing out crime" guidance, stating that crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are being considered.

More recently, the Crime and Disorder Act (CDA) 1998, has effectively made crime prevention a joint-responsibility of both the local authorities and the police. Section 17 now imposes a duty on each local authority to:

Exercise its functions with due regard to the need to do all that it can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

Significantly, there has been an increase in the number of premises liability court cases in America - where failure to reasonably provide security and design measures to protect visitors and patrons has resulted in litigation. Indeed, in the British context, Moss and Pease (1999) cite various "designing out crime" studies and conclude that:

There are thus many circumstances in which an individual citizen, a business or a residents' group could plausibly argue that a local authority had breached section 17[CDA 1998].

The Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998, is yet another important development within the planning process. Article 1 concerns the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, while Article 8 details the right to enjoy family and home life. How such articles within the Act are interpreted in relation to crime and the fear of crime will provide interesting precedents. Moreover, Parker (2001, p. 6) claims that the HRA:

has raised concerns about the future of planning becoming increasingly litigious.

Crime and the fear of crime within the community can significantly reduce both the quality of life and demean the physical environment. Indeed, a report by the Social Exclusion Unit and Lord Rogers' campaign to improve urban design to prevent out-migration from British cities are both testament to the immediacy of this problem.

Tony Blair's recent speech announcing the "war on yobs" who commit "crimes against the community" represents a more recent focus. The Prime Minister claimed that unsafe streets, litter, graffiti, noise, speeding traffic and abandoned cars can significantly undermine quality of life and that:

Streets that are dirty and threatening deter people from going out. They signal that the community has lost interest.

Peter Ellis (DETR) clarified the Government's position at a seminar recently (Our Towns and Cities: The Future. DETR Urban White Paper Seminar. Reading Council Offices, March 17th).

The Government expects the planning system to play its part in reducing crime (Ellis, 2001).

The relationship between crime and design is a highly complex one but increasingly, crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) is accepted as a potent strategy for combating crime in America, Canada, Holland and Australia. These ideas are becoming entrenched within both policy and practice in the United Kingdom in the form of the "Secured By Design" (SBD) initiative for new-build housing developments and the refurbishment of existing dwellings. Other environmental settings are also being "secured by design", with schemes now focusing on such locations as "Secured Car Parks", "Secured Stations" and "Secured Caravan Parks".

The SBD scheme is managed and promoted by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and is supported by the Home Office, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and is mandatory for all social housing projects in Wales. SBD utilises CPTED ideas and accredits new-build housing (and refurbished properties) with an SBD award following inspection by either architectural liaison officers (ALO) or crime prevention design advisors (CPDA) drawn from within the police force. It utilises traditional target hardening in the form of tested, approved and accredited locks, windows and doors in accordance with specific British Standards. Optimising surveillance opportunities and the sense of ownership and territorial control of residents is a concurrent objective to ultimately achieve "defensible space" - where residents can more easily engage in the active "self-policing" of their neighbourhoods. The "image" of such an area, it is argued, can also serve to discourage offenders by indicating that the area is cared for and protected and that intervention may be more likely in the event of a crime taking place.

Vociferous opponents to these ideas argue that this is "environmental determinism". However, CPTED is no more deterministic than the dispositional theories that highlight various social and economic explanations of crime. It is a crime prevention strategy that can work, and works best as part of a multi-agency and multi-disciplinary response to the multi-faceted problem of crime. Indeed, although "defensible space" can become both "undefended" (by disinterested/fearful residents) and "offensible" (controlled by criminals), that is no reason for not designing an environment that is more capable of actively optimising the vital self-policing role of residents. Indeed, "defensible" is defined as "capable of being defended".

In summary, well-maintained (single-family dwelling) properties with clearly-defined front and rear gardens aligned in a linear street configuration are seen to represent residential space that optimises opportunities for surveillance, and a sense of ownership and proprietary concern. Conversely, multiple family dwellings such as high-rise and low-rise flats provide little in the way of private space while affording much public space which is undefined and often underused. It is argued that such designs provide significantly less surveillance opportunities and are not conducive to the creation of a sense of "ownership", or proprietary concern. Moreover, anonymity may prevail at the expense of community interaction, although some positive examples do exist. Where multiple family dwelling units are in use, "defensible space" and CPTED strategies have been implemented with some success (i.e. removing overhead walkways and "opening up" secluded stairway and lift areas).

The National Sustainable Tower Blocks Initiative (NSTBI) has recently encouraged the continued use of high-rise flats and espoused its potential as a high-density option with a smaller "ecological footprint" relating to energy efficiency and the sharing of facilities and services. However, the management and maintenance of the majority of the tower blocks built in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was systematically reduced in terms of both the quality and quantity of services provided. Resident caretakers, landscaping and other property management services have largely disappeared for the social housing market and contributed significantly towards the stigmatisation of many tower block estates. Crucially, housing policy may also contribute towards the creation and maintenance of such areas which become known as "sink estates" - "hot spots" for crime. Indeed, many high-rise estates have been demolished, and in the light of the property management failures of the past, other estates are being given a new "image". This current drive to refurbish and repackage these, often as high-status properties in the inner cities, necessarily requires dedicated, centralised and long-term property management services and security.

Recent research (Ross and Mirowsky, 1999; Ross and Jang, 2000) into vacancy, dereliction and signs of decay suggest that it is the management and maintenance of space that can help stigmatise a neighbourhood and nurture crime, fear of crime, disorder and nuisance. This can occur by dissuading some residents from using the area as extensively as they might, thereby reducing the number of "eyes on the street" and also by encouraging others to use the disused properties for their own clandestine purposes. Furthermore, in terms of the property market, the out-migration of those who can afford to move may propel the neighbourhood toward the "tipping point" or "urban threshold" - where residents are less likely to actively maintain or police their area. Furthermore, effective and rapid response to physical signs of incivility can help to prevent the escalation of an incidence of "broken windows" (Wilson and Kelling, 1982) towards this "tipping point".

Recent policy initiatives (Circular 5/94; CDA, 1998; HRA, 1998) suggest that the planning process is likely to become increasingly litigious. This has obvious implications for property developers, owners and managers. Possessing evidence that "reasonable" measures have been taken to prevent crime and fear of crime can protect against such litigation and implementing such measures can both reduce opportunities for crime and reduce insurance premiums - thereby boosting profits. A well-designed and well-maintained development will help to create and maintain a "positive" image and help to reduce opportunities for crime and nuisance.

Surveillance and territoriality are the first two concepts of "Defensible Space" (Newman, 1973) that design can optimise. The "image" and stigma of a development or building is the third - and can also influence the opportunities for crime to take place. Property maintenance, therefore, has a vital role to play in reducing such opportunity.

For those overseeing urban residential space, its design and management are both important in providing safer and more sustainable communities that can more effectively police themselves and provide future generations with a stage upon which the daily theatre of life may be more safely acted out.

Property designed to optimise surveillance and territorial concern can assist a motivated community in the process of actively policing itself. However, good design must also be well-managed and well-maintained to maximise "defensible space" potential and ensure longevity. A consideration for crime prevention in planning and property management can represent a pro-active approach. Indeed, clean, well-defined and well-maintained "defensible space" within residential, commercial, industrial, educational, health and recreational facilities and other environments can send a clear message that the community is in control. This can serve to both dissuade "opportunistic" offenders and reassure legitimate users. Crucially, it may also protect against the potential costs (financial and temporal) and negative public relations associated with such litigation.

Clearly, property management and the management of crime and nuisance are inexorably linked and they cannot be seen as separate issues. For those responsible for property management now and in the immediate future, there is a need to familiarise themselves with these ideas and engage proactively in order to optimise the full extent of the benefits. In the light of the potentially increasing litigious future for both planning and property management - forewarned is forearmed.

Paul CozensUniversity of Glamorgan

References

D.O.E. (1994), Planning Out Crime Circular 5/94. HMSO, London.Ellis, P. (2001), Our Towns and Cities: The Future, DETR Urban White Paper Seminar, Reading Council Offices, 7 March.Moss, K. and Pease, K. (1999), Crime and Disorder Act 1998: Section 17, "A wolf in sheep's clothing", Crime and Community Safety: An International Journal, pp. 15-19.Newman, O. (1973), Defensible Space. People and Design in the Violent City, Architectural Press, London.Parker, G. (2001), "Planning and rights: some repercussions of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the UK", Planning Practice and Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 5-8.Ross, C.E. and Jang, S.J. (2000), "Neighbourhood disorder, fear and mistrust: the buffering role of social ties with neighbours", American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp.’401-20.Ross, C.E. and Mirowsky, J. (1999), "Disorder and decay: the concept and measurement of perceived neighbourhood disorder", Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 412-32.Wilson, J.Q. and Kelling, G.L. (1982), "The police and neighbourhood safety. Broken windows", The Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 3, pp. 29-38.