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.

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'.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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):

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.