|
![](design_head.gif)
The Cost Of Policing New Urbanism
|
![](go.png)
PHOTOS
|
|
1.
|
This
report details the key findings of an evaluation of the
projected additional costs of policing future housing developments.
The assessment was undertaken on account of a pronounced
shift away from fundamental community safety principles
by many local authorities in respect of the design and layout
of new housing estates.
|
|
2.
|
Up
until around 12-18 months ago, most local authorities sought
to incorporate crime reduction best practice into the planning
process, to a greater or lesser extent. Secured by Design,
the national scheme of the Association of Chief Police Officers
(ACPO), had become a reputable 'brand'.
|
|
3.
|
Following
what is now the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
producing revised Planning Policy Guidance 3 (Housing),
additional literature was compiled by both the ODPM and
other organisations such as the Commission for Architecture
and the Built Environment (CABE). Current ODPM thinking
is driven by philosophy known as 'New Urbanism', which,
on a number of key issues, could not be at greater variance
with key aspects of Secured by Design. The main differences
are shown at Tables 1 and 2.
|
|
4.
|
This
is creates a dilemma for proponents of New Urbanism and
their solution is to reject certain key crime reduction
principles in order to try and overcome the fact that much
of the concept is inherently (and demonstrably) criminogenic.
New Urbanism's position on community safety is entirely
subjective and based on fundamentally false premises. This
is causing considerable conflict between planners and most
police architectural liaison officers. Are planners obliged
to follow the current trend, regardless of the foreseeable
and adverse consequences for community safety? Not according
to regional government, which maintains that minimum housing
density is the only matter on which local authority planners
have little discretion - given the central government aim
of reducing the land-take of new housing.
|
|
5.
|
The
main areas of disagreement typically centre on parking and
permeability. As regards the former, planners frequently
seek to "improve" the street-scene by concealing
parked vehicles in off-plot, sometimes remote, courts/garage
areas. Courtyards create communal space, which directly
contradicts the principle of creating defensible space.
In social housing, such communal space - in theory owned
by everyone and in reality controlled and influenced by
no one - has a disastrous record. This is often compounded
with any number of pedestrian routes through the facility.
Attempts at providing natural surveillance by locating flats
on top of garages do not, in the main, significantly reduce
the prevalence of auto-crime and perceived disorder. As
regards permeability, police architectural liaison officers
will generally seek a legible and coherent movement network,
beyond which the greatest gains are made by reducing, as
far as is reasonably possible, the number of dwellings on
through-routes. This creates more defensible space, significantly
increasing the potential for residents to take ownership,
and exert influence and informal social control over their
environment. Implicit in New Urbanism on the other hand,
is a belief that permeability is inherently 'good', and
should therefore be maximised. Particularly so for pedestrians
and cyclists, with access for vehicular traffic often being
restrictive. This typically results in a 'spiders web' of
inter-connecting roads and linkages, with bollards or other
measures to obstruct cars (and police patrol vehicles).
|
|
6.
|
The
attached photographs of a newly-built, high crime development
in the northern Home Counties illustrate the above points.
It is generally accepted that the Radburn layouts, which
proliferated in the 1960s and 1970s, have proved to be a
complete disaster in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour
from a community safety perspective.. It is also self-evident
that New Urbanism replicates many of the same, most problematic
design flaws.
|
|
7.
|
In
view of the extent to which most local authorities are now
marginalising community safety in furtherance of New Urbanism,
and given the scale of future new housing development likely
to occur in many areas, the policing implications for forces
and the public will, to varying extents, be critical. The
crime difference between good and bad is huge and so therefore,
will be the demands on the police. New development can be
low crime, low disorder and relatively incident free for
the police. Equally, the same site can be a huge and permanent
drain on resources.
|
|
8.
|
The
research subject of this report sought to quantify differentials
in reported incidents and recorded crime and to what extent
these would be influenced by the contrasting New Urbanism
and Secured by Design criteria. The following variables
were evaluated and extrapolated.
|
|
|
i.
|
Environmental
features/layout;
|
|
|
ii.
|
Scale
of development;
|
|
|
iii.
|
Density
of development;
|
|
|
iv.
|
Demographic
composition, this including levels and distribution of social
housing;
|
|
|
v.
|
Existing
local levels of crime and disorder.
|
|
|
The
sample size was 24,000 dwellings, this being 10% of Bedfordshire's
existing number of households.
|
|
9.
|
The
key findings can be summarised as: Around 40% of incidents
do not relate directly to crime and disorder per se but
include road traffic accidents, missing persons, civil disputes
etc.
|
|
10.
|
On
a development of 4,500 homes, housing around 11,250 people,
there will typically be around 1120 of such incidents a
year. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is no evidence that
this element fluctuates significantly and consistently on
account of quantifiable variables.
|
|
11.
|
In
relation to reported crime and perceived disorder, however,
there is a considerable differential between developments
built to reflect Secured by Design principles, and those
which reflect the aims and style of New Urbanism, these
providing much increased opportunities for crime and disorder.
|
|
12.
|
Reported
crime and disorder incidents on a 4500 home development
incorporating Secured by Design estate layout principles
will average around 680, resulting in a total of around
1800 incidents a year*.
|
|
13.
|
The
same number of dwellings in a New Urbanism configuration
will typically result in just over 4080 crime and disorder
incidents which, in addition to the 'non-crime' 1120, equates
to 5200 incidents a year.
|
|
14.
|
In
both cases, an affordable rented housing element of around
20% has been projected. Whilst there may be long term benefits
from the widespread distribution of such homes ('pepper-potting'),
the impact of this on the survey sample was not consistent
or significant.
|
|
15.
|
An
increase in social housing (ie affordable rented) from 20%
to 30% is likely to increase the crime and disorder incidents
to 762 (Secured by Design) and 5712 (New Urbanism), these
reflecting increases of 12% and 40% respectively. It was
not possible to reliably quantify what the impact of an
affordable rented element of under 20% would have on levels
of reported incidents and this is to be the subject of further
evaluation. The data available however, would suggest a
reduction in the number of crime and disorder related incidents
in the range of 3%-11%.
|
|
16.
|
All
of the above figures are based on a comparatively high density
(ie, number of dwellings per hectare, this representing
the norm for current/future development) though should not
be projected to any development of less than 120 dwellings.
(Median rather than average figures have been used in quantifying
data to avoid distortion by abnormally high numbers of incidents
in certain parts of the county).
|
|
17.
|
Some
reductions can be effected by securing communal parking
facilities though, for various reasons, this is unlikely
to reduce by more than 5% (at most) the total number of
crime and disorder incidents.
|
|
18.
|
It
is stated by some that highly permeable, well-connected
communities foster social inclusion and will therefore,
in the longer term, reduce criminality. There is no evidence
to support this theory - rather the reverse. In the evaluation
sample, victimisation levels could be clearly and consistently
linked to permeability levels. If Anti Social Behaviour
Orders and the provisions of the Housing Act are to be successfully
utilised, the identity of the individuals concerned must
be known to complainants. This is often much less likely
to be achieved in environments which, by design, intentionally
encourage perceived strangers to move through residential
areas, benefiting from considerable anonymity in the process.
|
|
19.
|
There
is extensive evidence of:
|
|
|
a.
|
widespread
under-reporting of perceived disorder, and;
|
|
|
b.
|
an
increased prevalence of perceived disorder in environments
which are 'pedestrian permeable', but which are restrictive
to vehicular traffic.
|
|
20.
|
As
regards the notional 4500 home development, the financial
implications, based on a cost of £30K per officer
per annum who deals with, on average, 200 incidents a year,
are as follows:
* Secured by Design 9 officers / £270,000 pa
* New Urbanism 26 officers / £780,000 pa
ie, a difference of £510,000 per annum.
This however relates solely to policing costs. If both under-reporting
and the true economic cost of crime is considered, the difference
is an additional £1,532,110 per annum. This is further
detailed at Appendix A.
|
|
21.
|
The
imminent growth of around 18,000 new homes mainly in north
and mid Bedfordshire over the next 5+ years will, depending
on layout, require the following police resources:
* Secured by Design 36 officers / £1,080,000 pa
* New Urbanism 104 officers/ £3,120,000 pa
ie, a difference of £2,040,000 per annum.
If the new development reflects New Urbanism principles,
the additional loss, allowing for under-reporting/ the true
economic costs of crime (ie over and above that which can
be projected if built to Secured by Design principles) will
be around £6,128,440 per annum, in addition to policing
costs.
|
|
22. |
In
the event of the county's number of households increasing
by 60,000 (as is thought likely by Beds. County Council),
the differential is likely to be:
* Secured by Design 120 officers / £3.6 million
* New Urbanism 346 officers / £10.4 million,
ie, a difference of £6.8 million per annum.
Again,
this is solely policing costs. The actual loss, allowing
for under-reporting and the economic cost of crime, will,
depending on the design of the development, be:
* Secured by Design £4,672,431
* New Urbanism £25,095,457
ie, a difference of £20,423,026 each year, in addition
to policing costs.
|
|
23. |
The
issues would appear to be that people will be needlessly victimised
when the aim is to do the opposite, and the burden that this
will place on the police.
|
|
|
a.
|
Is
central government prepared to finance either or both of
these amounts? If not, are local authorities, particularly
the additional costs associated with criminogenic New Urbanism
layouts, ie on an annual, ongoing basis?
|
|
|
b.
|
If
not, the existing population base will be unavoidably disadvantaged
with finite police resources being unnecessarily over-extended,
potentially by a significant margin. Alternatively, force
policy could (and arguably should?) be amended such as to
provide for a reduced level of police cover to new developments,
particularly those intentionally built such as to generate
high levels of repeated police attendance.
|
|
24.
|
The
evaluation reviewed over 20,000 incidents. Whilst not suggesting
that the above should be used as a model in other force
areas, Bedfordshire is not atypical and the future cost
(both financially and socially) of New Urbanism nationally
is likely to be extremely high.
|
|
* |
In
view of the lack of any 4,500 home developments in the county
which incorporate Secured by Design principles consistently,
a smaller sample size was upwardly projected.
|
|
Table
1 - Some Key Features of the "Secured By Design"
Scheme
|
|
*
|
Create
defensible space and territoriality.
|
|
*
|
Organise
the built environment so that anti-social behaviour is less
likely to be ignored.
|
|
*
|
Create
space that generalises a sense of ownership (so restrict
the amount of public space, and create 'buffer zones' between
public and private spaces) rather than space which promotes
anonymity.
|
|
*
|
Restrict
the number of escape routes available to criminals (which
is a large part of the explanation for why the Secured by
Design scheme has come to be associated with the cul-de-sac).
|
|
*
|
Promote
natural surveillance from residents' houses.
|
|
*
|
Restrict
the number of crime generators such as:
|
|
|
-
|
footpaths
which link places together;
|
|
|
-
|
supermarkets
and other activities which are out of scale with the locality
because they are intended for a wider community;
|
|
|
-
|
'honeypots'
(such as fast food take-aways) which encourage people to
concentrate;
|
|
|
-
|
'hotspots'
(places which already have a record of criminal and anti-social
behaviour);
|
|
|
-
|
'fear
generators' (places which cause perceptions of fear)
|
|
*
|
Effective
site management regimes, that promote the sense of a cared-for
environment.
|
|
Table
2 - Some Key Features of "New Urbanism"
|
|
The
basic vision is of cities as places composed of small villages
centred around vibrant streets, peopled by pedestrians and
bustling with activity*. To
this end, the following are seen as being amongst the most
important design principles:
|
|
*
|
Create
bounded walkable neighbourhoods.
|
|
*
|
Encourage
the development and use of public transport both in terms
of physical provision and through generating a sufficient
density of people to make public transport a feasible proposition.
|
|
*
|
Encourage
mixed land uses at the neighbourhood level.
|
|
*
|
Promote
a 'permeable' street network which allows through-movement,
and emphasise the importance of the street as a place where
people live as distinct from a road along which traffic
moves.
|
|
*
|
Promote
'eyes in the street' through design approaches such as minimal
setbacks of properties, large front windows and porches.
|
|
* |
Limit
the environmental impact of the car through devices such as
restricting the size of parking lots, locating garages and
parking lots behind buildings, narrowing streets and widening
pavements. |
|
* |
Emphasise
the importance of sustainable approaches to environmental
design. |
|
Reproduced
with the kind permission of Professor Ted Kitchen, Sheffield
Hallam University.
|
|
*
(The local audits undertaken as part of the Crime and Disorder
Act would suggest that the majority of the public find this,
at the least, intrusive, and often intimidating when it is
groups of 'bustling' young people?). |
|
Appendix
A
|
|
The annual British Crime Survey quantifies what proportion
of offences committed are reported to the police, the remainder
often being referred to as the 'dark figure'.
As regards the economic cost of crime, borne by society
as a whole, this has been extensively researched and documented
in the Home Office Research Study 217 (2000). The report
details average costs per offence, this including value
of property etc, along with the costs to the Criminal Justice
System, etc (policing costs have been excluded from the
latter in the following):
|
|
4,500
Dwelling Development, incorporating "Secured By Design"
Principles |
|
|
Number
of crimes reported
|
Total,
incl. those not reported
|
True
cost (£) per offence
|
Total
(£)
|
|
Burglary |
22
|
36
|
£2,060
|
£74,160
|
|
Theft
of Motor Vehicle |
24
|
25
|
£870
|
£135,720
|
|
Theft
from Motor Vehicle |
63
|
131
|
|
Criminal
Damage |
92
|
293
|
£480
|
£140,640
|
|
|
Number
of other incidents
|
|
|
£350,520
per annum
|
|
Disorder,
etc |
479 |
|
|
|
|
4,500
Dwelling Development, incorporating "New Urbanism"
Principles |
|
|
Number
of crimes reported
|
Total,
incl. those not reported
|
True
cost (£) per offence
|
Total
(£)
|
|
Burglary |
167
|
278
|
£2,060
|
£572,680
|
|
Theft
of Motor Vehicle |
135
|
142
|
£870
|
£769,950
|
|
Theft
from Motor Vehicle |
357
|
743
|
|
Criminal
Damage |
360
|
1,125
|
£480
|
£540,000
|
|
|
Number
of other incidents
|
|
|
£1,882,630
per annum
|
|
Disorder,
etc |
479 |
|
|
|
|
Theabove figures are commensurate with local distribution
trends and reflect the greatly increased prevalence of offending
which typically result from high levels of opportunity combined
with extremely limited scope for preventative policing.
|
|
Photos
to illustrate report
click on each thumbnail for larger
image |
|
![](01a.jpg) |
1.
Pedestrians may well feel vulnerable using this footpath |
|
![](16b.jpg) |
16.
Insecure parking court - the archway is likely to be the subject
of persistent misuse |
|
![](02b.jpg) |
2.
Underpass |
|
![](17b.jpg) |
17.
Parking on the pavement |
|
![](03b.jpg) |
3.
Another underpass |
|
![](18b.jpg) |
18.
Residents try to get as close to their front doors as possible |
|
![](04b.jpg) |
4.
Yet another underpass |
|
![](19b.jpg) |
19.
A typical view |
|
![](05b.jpg) |
5.
These bollards will obstruct police patrols (and other emergency
vehicles) |
|
![](20b.jpg) |
20.
With autocrime so prevalent, owing to the design of the parking
facilities, it is not surprising that vehicles are left like
this |
|
![](06b.jpg) |
6.
More bollards |
|
![](21b.jpg) |
21.
Car parking on the pavement again |
|
![](07b.jpg) |
7.
Insecure parking area/public thoroughfare |
|
![](22b.jpg) |
22.
Alleyways like this compromise defensible space |
|
![](08b.jpg) |
8.
Yet more bollards |
|
![](23b.jpg) |
23.
Alleyways are likely to be a threat rather than an opportunity
to residents |
|
![](09b.jpg) |
9.
Insecure parking |
|
![](24b.jpg) |
24.
Routes like this assure offenders of anonymity |
|
![](10b.jpg) |
10.
Insecure parking area/public thoroughfare |
|
![](25b.jpg) |
25.
Layouts like this facilitate the offender's "search"
behaviour |
|
![](11b.jpg) |
11.
Insecure parking areas with brick walls that provide concealment
for criminals |
|
![](26b.jpg) |
26.
With pathways like this it is not surprising that crime at
is a serious problem |
|
![](12b.jpg) |
12.
Insecure parking area which also incorporates entrance into
flat and public thoroughfare |
|
![](27b.jpg) |
27.
This public vehicular thoroughfare is poorly overlooked |
|
![](13b.jpg) |
13.
Insecure parking area worsened by brick wall blind spots and
public thoroughfare |
|
![](28b.jpg) |
28.
Being at the rear of properties, community safety is heavily
compromised |
|
![](14b.jpg) |
14.
Insecure parking area/public thoroughfare |
|
![](29b.jpg) |
29.
These vehicles are extremely vulnerable |
|
![](15b.jpg) |
15.
Insecure garage court |
|
![](30b.jpg) |
30.
Pedestrians using this route , especially after dark, may
well feel isolated and unsafe |
|
|