The way forward in designing out crime? Greater Manchester police design for security consultancy

Abstract

IntroductionWhen designing a new residential housing development, an increasing number of factors have to be considered by the client (e.g. the architect or developer) to ensure that the planning application satisfies national and local planning requirements (see HMSO, 2010 and DCLG, 2010a). A recent and pertinent example of an agenda which has to be carefully considered and embedded in the design of new housing developments is the Code for Sustainable Homes, which seeks to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly development (DCLG, 2008). Additional factors which have to accompany a proposed planning application include ecological, flood risk and transport assessments (Manchester City Council, 2010).Owing to the number of elements whose consideration is necessary to obtain planning permission, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (hereinafter CPTED) or attempting to design out crime and design in crime prevention may not be viewed as a priority by built environment professionals (such as architects and planners) and consequently not be incorporated. For those whose business is crime prevention, this can prove frustrating and can be seen to compromise the quality of life of future residents. The development may require additional funding to incorporate security measures retrospectively to try and curtail the problems, the cost extending to the aesthetics of the development, marred by add-on CCTV cameras and security furniture. Content and ScopeThis paper is predominantly a summary piece which encompasses a review of the relevant literature and policy documentation relating to CPTED and its application. The paper discusses: the importance of reducing crime by reducing the opportunities for it to occur; the importance of CPTED and its application and how CPTED can be embedded into the planning process. The paper provides an outline of how CPTED is delivered within Greater Manchester by Greater Manchester Police (hereinafter GMP). It is important to note at this juncture, that the author is currently in the process of conducting an independent comprehensive evaluation of the delivery of CPTED in Greater Manchester which forms part of a doctoral thesis which will be completed in 2013. The paper concludes with a number of practice points. Experience to date has suggested some practice points which may be safely advanced for consideration, given their provisional status.

Crime Prevention through Housing Design

“…Although the team are based within GMP Police Headquarters, have access to police recorded crime data, Neighbourhood Policing Teams (NPTs) and other relevant police intelligence, the DfS consultants are civilian staff who have a background within a built environment profession such as design, architecture or planning. The importance placed upon design background is one which has been evident throughout the development of the ALO service within GMP (see Monchuk, 2011). It is an innovative approach, but the view of those who developed the service was that it can be easier for design professionals to learn the theories and practical application of crime prevention than for a police professional to learn about planning and architecture.…”

“…The chapter will now move on to discuss a different approach to delivering the role, one which has gradually evolved over the past two decades, and an approach which at the time of writing, for many reasons (discussed below) is beginning to be viewed as what Monchuk (2011) refers to as 'the way forward in designing out crime (Monchuk, 2011, p. 31).…”

“…(Crowe, 2000, p. 46) Ekblom (2011a) proposes a redefinition and presents the following alternative, which introduces several points not included within Reducing the possibility, probability and harm from criminal and related events, and enhancing the quality of life through community safety; through the processes of planning and design of the environment; on a range of scales and types of place, from individual buildings and interiors to wider landscapes, neighbourhoods and cities; to produce designs that are 'fit for purpose', contextually appropriate in all other respects and not 'vulnerability led'; whilst achieving a balance between the efficiency of avoiding crime problems before construction and the adaptability of tackling them through subsequent management and maintenance. (Ekblom, 2011a, p. 4) More recently, research within the field of CPTED has focused upon the effectiveness of both the individual and collectively applied principles of CPTED measures in reducing crime and the fear of crime (by authors such as Pascoe, 1999;Armitage, 2000Armitage, , 2006aCozens et al, 2005;Cozens, 2008;Hillier and Sahbaz, 2009), the process of applying CPTED principles within police and planning environments (by authors such as Monchuk, 2011), the development of CPTED based risk assessment tools to predict (and prevent) risk (by authors such as Winchester and Jackson, 1982;Van der Voordt and Van Wegen, 1990;Armitage, 2006a;Armitage et al, 2010), and a wider approach to the potential benefits of such interventions including the impact upon environmental and social sustainability (by authors such as Dewberry, 2003;Cozens, 2007;. Given a widening of the focus to include the process of application and consideration of benefits beyond crime reduction, such as social and environmental sustainability, a more appropriate definition of CPTED might be 'the design, manipulation and management of the built environment to reduce crime and the fear of crime and to enhance sustainability through the process and application of measures at the micro (individual building/structure) and macro (neighbourhood) level'.…”

“…At the time of writing, the author is aware of only one in-depth case study being conducted and this focuses on the delivery of GMP's (somewhat exceptional) ALO service (see Monchuk, 2011). In 2009, a study was commissioned by the Home Office (see Wootton et al, 2009) to review the ALO/CPDA role nationally and to investigate the feasibility of setting up a National Crime Prevention Service which would co-ordinate the delivery of this role.…”

“…This process of delivery has been viewed with some scepticism (by those delivering CPTED within other police forces), but the recent budget 27 cuts have left this police force, which charges a nominal fee for the delivery of CPTED advice, in a position to retain and expand the service whilst other ALO/CPDA teams have been cut. As will be discussed below, this model of delivery is currently being evaluated (see Monchuk, 2011). Without full evaluation it remains to be seen whether this method represents the way forward within the current economic climate, or whether it is viewed as yet another responsibility for already overburdened developers.…”