Citation

Moss K. Crime Prev. Community Safety 2001; 3(2): 43-48.

Affiliation

Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group -- Palgrave-Macmillan)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In a previous paper, Moss and Pease [Crime Prev.Community Safety, 1999; 1(4): 15-19] outlined that although Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was arguably the most radical section, this did not appear to have been recognised. Specifically, fieldwork suggested that police requests for crime prevention measures, made on the basis of Section 17, were not consistently being accommodated, particularly where they conflicted with what planning officers wanted. It was argued that Section 17 should have a greater visible impact upon the agencies that it would necessarily affect. Contested planning applications since this time suggest that whilst many police forces and local councils, including planning departments, have been working hard to implement the requirements of Section 17, this is being undermined by decisions of the Planning Inspectorate. They maintain that in the absence of case law, Section 17 does not constitute a material consideration in terms of planning. Some examples, which have been contested on this basis, are discussed. It is suggested that the Planning Inspectorate should interpret Section 17 as a material consideration, in line with the guidelines laid down in Home Office Circular 5/94 'Planning Out Crime' and give greater primacy to the views held by the public in Crime Audits.