Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on the development of the Secured by Design (SBD) award scheme in the UK.

The paper is an invited opinion piece and comment based upon the specialist experience and viewpoint of the author as a Development Officer at the Association of Chief Police Officers SBD.

The paper describes the rationale for the development of the SBD award scheme and outlines the key elements which must be achieved to obtain SBD accreditation. The paper refers to the findings from a number of evaluations which have indicated that dwellings built to the SBD standard are less likely to experience crime and disorder compared to dwellings which have not been built to the standard.

The paper provides a historical review of the development of the SBD scheme and outlines current and future areas of work.

This paper provides a critical review of “Defensible Space” (Newman, 1973) and traces the development of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) in America and Canada, and Secured By Design (SBD) initiatives in the UK. It is argued that various aspects of the theory have avoided consideration and require further investigation and research. It is opined that “defensible space” is the theoretical foundation to both CPTED and SBD and it is posited that a thorough re‐examination of Newman’s ideas will serve to deepen our understanding of the complex relationship between the built environment and crime. British (BS8220) and European (CEN TC/325) Standards relating to urban planning and environmental design and crime reduction are currently receiving detailed deliberation and are based firmly upon Newman’s ideas. The projected need for some 4.4 million new homes in Britain (DOE, 1995) by 2016 and Lord Roger’s call for improvements in urban design to reduce suburban migration from cities (DETR, 1999) reiterates the importance of the subject matter. This paper (the first of two) recognises that design per se does not represent the panacea for reducing criminogeneity, rather, that “defensible space” CPTED and SBD should be considered as crime prevention strategies, which can, in common with all other initiatives, contribute to tackling the problem of residential crime. In conclusion, it is argued that further research concerning how “defensible space” is perceived by various crucial stakeholders in society is the way forward in this regard. A second, forthcoming paper (PM, Vol. 19 No. 3) will present these research findings.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a commentary on the design and development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in preparation for the London 2012 Olympic Games and its legacy.

The paper is an invited opinion piece and comment based upon documentation the specialist experience of the authors who were both involved in the planning, design and development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park and who continue to be involved with the development through legacy.

The paper describes the process through which designing out crime was considered throughout the planning, design and development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

The paper provides comment on the planning, design and development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park from individuals who were involved in the planning, design and development of the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.

The first paper, entitled “Crime and the design of residential property: exploring the theoretical background” (Property Management, Vol. 19 No. 2), has argued that “perceptions” and the “image” of housing designs remain a largely untested avenue of investigation in the design‐effects‐crime debate. Presents and discusses exploratory research into the perception of crime/deviancy, fear of crime and “defensible space”, in relation to a range of characteristic UK housing designs. This investigation concerns the perceptions of planning professionals, convicted burglars and other users and provides both qualitative and quantitative analysis of results from a series of interviews which presented slide representations of terraced, semi‐detached and detached housing designs in addition to low‐rise/walk‐up flats and high‐rise flats. Where possible, two contrasting versions of the same design were presented to probe the influence of “image” in the perception of crime and “defensible space”. The results from this exploratory investigation underpin Newman’s theory of “defensible space” in that a “hierarchy of place” appears to exist with regard to housing designs. However, the “image” of each design is perceived to be a significant contributing factor in relation to the criminogenic capacity of each design presented. Wilson and Kelling’s “Broken Windows” theory is also supported by these research findings.

Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) aims to make the built environment less vulnerable to crime and disorder through its design. CPTED is applied in practice by Architectural Liaison Officers/Crime Prevention Design Advisors employed within each police force in England and Wales. Their aim is to advise built environment professionals (architects and planners) how opportunities for crime and disorder can be minimised through the design of a development without compromising on the design quality. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of relevant literature and an example of one force's promising, but as yet unevaluated, approach to embedding CPTED early in the planning process.

The paper takes a case study approach and outlines how Greater Manchester Police Design for Security Consultancy (GMP DFSC) liaise with built environment professionals in an attempt to design out opportunities for crime and disorder to occur at the pre‐planning stage of a development.

The findings suggest that the process and delivery of CPTED by GMP DFSC is unique when compared to the delivery of CPTED across other areas of England and Wales. Using the Crime Impact Statement (CIS), GMP DFSC are consulted on a range of proposed planning applications prior to the application being submitted to the local planning authority, opposed to later in the planning and development process, where the opportunities to “design out crime” become limited. The staff employed by GMP DFSC have previously worked within the built environment and are not warranted or retired police officers. GMP DFSC also charge a fee for the service which they provide.

This paper should be of interest to built environment professionals seeking to incorporate and embed the principles of CPTED into the design and pre‐planning stages of proposed developments.

The purpose of this paper is to critically review the core findings from recently published place‐based crime prevention research. The paper aims to critically evaluate the available evidence on the contribution of crime prevention through environmental design as a crime prevention strategy.

Large‐scale evaluations of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) are reviewed with a view to clarifying current knowledge on the evidence of crime prevention through environmental design.

The review concludes that there is a growing body of research that supports the assertion that crime prevention through environmental design is effective in reducing both crime and fear of crime in the community.

Although the paper may not review all the evaluations of CPTED, it nonetheless provides a detailed compilation and overview of the most significant research in the area, including an extensive and modern bibliography on the subject. Research implications will be the subject of a forthcoming paper.

CPTED is an increasingly fashionable approach and is being implemented on a global scale. Additionally, individual components such as territoriality, surveillance, maintenance, access control, activity support and target‐hardening are being widely deployed. However, the evidence currently available is inconclusive and much criticised, which effectively prevents widespread intervention and investment by central government. The paper details the difficulties associated with demonstrating the effectiveness of CPTED.

The paper concludes that although empirical proof has not been definitively demonstrated, there is a large and growing body of research, which supports the assertion that crime prevention through environmental design is a pragmatic and effective crime prevention tool. This review provides an extensive bibliography of contemporary crime prevention through environmental design and a follow‐up paper will discuss the future research priorities for it.

In December 2001 the then Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR but now currently the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, hereafter referred to as ODPM) issued the tender document it had promised for the review and update of 5/94 Planning Out Crime (Home Office, 1994) The specification was for good practice guidance on planning out crime to be written within 6 months. Notwithstanding this exercise, the writer contends that in the face of the research, literature, legislation and expertise in relation to designing out crime, papers issued by ODPM and the form of the tender document itself demonstrate that it remains uncommitted to many of the accepted principles of design‐against‐crime and to the cross‐cutting crime reduction obligations of the police and local authorities under the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. The author anticipates that this lack of commitment may be evident in the forthcoming revised planning out crime guidance and suggests possible approaches to this potentially influential document.

This paper aims to understand the delivery of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) across Europe – from European-wide procedures through national schemes to effective local strategies.

The findings come from a review of published literature and reports, case studies and site visits conducted primarily during COST Action TU1203 (2013-2016).

Innovative approaches and methods to integrate crime prevention into urban design, planning and management have been generated by multi-agency partnerships and collaborations at European, national and city levels. Methods and procedures developed by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) Working Group on “Crime Prevention through Urban Planning and Building Design” are pioneering. However, findings show that implementation is best achieved at a local level using methods and procedures tailored to the specific context.

In-depth research is required to appreciate subtle differences between local approaches and conceptual models developed to better understand approaches and methods.

Practitioners and academics working to prevent crime benefit from participation in focused, multi-agency collaborations that, importantly, facilitate visits to urban developments, discussions with local stakeholders responsible for delivery “on the ground” and structured and sustained exploration of innovations and challenges.

The authors hope that this paper will contribute to developing a new direction for CPTED practice and research that builds on significant progress in creating safer environments over previous decades.