SIST-TP CEN/TR 14383-2:2008

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 14383-2:2008
01-maj-2008
1DGRPHãþD
SIST ENV 14383-2:2004
3UHSUHþHYDQMHNULPLQDOD8UEDQLVWLþQRSODQLUDQMHLQSURMHNWLUDQMHGHO
8UEDQLVWLþQRSODQLUDQMH
Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part 2: Urban planning
Vorbeugende Kriminalitätsbekämpfung - Stadt- und Gebäudeplanung - Teil 2:
Stadtplanung
Prévention de la malveillance - Urbanisme et conception des bâtiments - Partie 2 :
Urbanisme
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 14383-2:2007
ICS:
13.310
91.020
SIST-TP CEN/TR 14383-2:2008 en
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------

TECHNICAL REPORT
CEN/TR 14383-2
RAPPORT TECHNIQUE
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
October 2007
ICS 13.310; 91.020 Supersedes ENV 14383-2:2003
English Version
Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design - Part
2: Urban planning
Prévention de la malveillance - Urbanisme et conception Vorbeugende Kriminalitätsbekämpfung - Stadt- und
des bâtiments - Partie 2 : Urbanisme Gebäudeplanung - Teil 2: Stadtplanung
This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 21 July 2007. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 325.
CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,
France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION
EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG
Management Centre: rue de Stassart, 36  B-1050 Brussels
© 2007 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 14383-2:2007: E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
Contents Page
Foreword.4
Introduction .5
1 Scope .9
2 Normative references .9
3 Terms and definitions .9
4 Preliminary questions: the area, its crime problems and the stakeholders.9
5 Urban Planning and Design Guidelines .18
6 Process to prevent and reduce crime and fear of crime by urban planning and
management.22
Annex A (informative) Crime Assessment – Examples of elements to take into account .29
A.1 Introduction.29
A.2 Risk assessment: three general aspects .29
A.3 Specific risk assessment factors for six types of crime and for fear of crime .30
Annex B (informative) Crime review - Problem identification in an existing area.34
Annex C (informative) Fear of crime.36
C.1 Introduction.36
C.2 Factors which characterise an "unsafe location":.36
C.2.1 Fear generating activities .36
C.2.2 Vandalism and bad maintenance.36
C.3 Problematic urban design.37
C.3.1 Lack of control .37
C.3.2 Isolation - lack of visibility by others.37
C.3.3 Lack of orientation and alternative routes .37
Annex D (informative) Safety audit framework of an urban project.38
D.1 The basic principles .38
D.2 Urban planning strategies .39
D.2.1 Taking into account the existing social and physical structures.39
D.2.2 Guaranteeing accessibility and avoiding enclaves.39
D.2.3 Creating vitality (blending functions and attractive layout).40
D.2.4 Providing mixed status (blending socio-economic groups, avoiding isolation and
segregation) .40
D.2.5 Creating adequate urban density to allow vitality and natural surveillance .40
D.2.6 Avoiding physical barriers (due to infrastructures etc.) and waste land.40
D.3 Urban design strategies.41
D.3.1 Layout (continuity of urban fabric and pedestrian and bicycle routes).41
D.3.2 Specific location of activities .41
D.3.3 Time schedules coordination to guarantee continuous natural surveillance.41
D.3.4 Visibility (overview, sight lines between e.g. dwellings and public space, lighting, etc.) .41
D.3.5 Accessibility (orientation, space to move, alternatives routes, limiting access for non-
authorized people).42
D.3.6 Territoriality (human scale, clear public/private zoning, compartmentalization) .42
D.3.7 Attractiveness (colour, material, lighting, noise, smell, street furniture) .43
D.3.8 Robustness (materials e.g. street furniture, fences).43
D.4 Management strategies.43
D.4.1 Target hardening/removal.43
D.4.2 Maintenance .43
2

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
D.4.3 Surveillance (patrolling, camera monitoring).44
D.4.4 Rules (for conduct of the public in public spaces).44
D.4.5 Providing infrastructures for particular groups.44
D.4.6 Communication (of preventive messages and rules of conduct for the public) .45
Bibliography.46

3

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
Foreword
This document (CEN/TR 14383-2:2007) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 325 “Prevention
of crime by urban planning and building design”, the secretariat of which is held by SNV.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent
rights. CEN [and/or CENELEC] shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
This document supersedes ENV 14383-2:2003.
The status of Technical Report (CEN/TR) was proposed to give all countries the opportunity to compare
experiences and to harmonise procedures.
This Technical Report is one of a series for the “Prevention of crime - Urban planning and building design”,
that consists of the following Parts:
 Part 1: Definition of specific terms
 Part 2: Urban planning
 Part 3: Dwellings
 Part 4: Shops and offices
4

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
Introduction
Preliminary declaration
This Technical Report is based on the principles contained in the following statement:
We should contribute to an interdependent urban development and not generate privilege yet isolated areas,
which by way of consequence could become exclusion area. The buildings should be integrated in the city
and urban fabric.
We should ban any approach that take into account the security of property and not of persons, because this
approach tends to generate security to the profit of groups and not of the population as a whole.
Indeed, solutions based on the development of safer areas within and opposed to the outer world perceived
as a source of insecurity will lead to exclusion and enclosure. Social life, respect for public freedom, exchange
and friendliness are not taken into account. These solutions most of the time involve discrimination through
money and through investment and operation costs that are not accessible to everybody.
Crime and fear of crime as major problems
The European Urban Charter asserts the basic right for citizens of European towns to "a secure and safe town
free, as far as possible, from crime, delinquency and aggression". This basic right to a safe community has
been enshrined into many national and local crime reduction programs all over Europe.
1)
The final declaration of an International Conference organised by the Council of Europe's Congress of Local
and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE; Erfurt 26.-28. February 1997) stated: "that crime, fear of crime
and urban insecurity in Europe are major problems affecting the public and that finding satisfactory solutions
for them is one of the main keys to civic peace and stability".
The first recommendation from this conference was that local and regional authorities in Europe develop
integrated crime reduction action plans, with continuing public involvement, in which crime reduction is
included as a policy in all aspects of the responsibilities of local authorities. Such a plan should define the
nature and type of crime to be tackled, objectives, timetable, proposals for action and be based on a wide
ranging up-to-date survey of statistics and diagnosis of crime.
In this respect the CLRAE conference in Erfurt also stressed the importance to promote collaboration between
the police and professional designers and ensure that police officers are specially trained to advise on the
relationship between crime and the built environment.

1)
Crime and Urban insecurity: the role and responsibilities of local and regional authorities.
5

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
Crime prevention and fear reduction by urban planning and building design
The Justice and Home Affairs council of the European Union (meeting 15-03-2001) agreed politically on the
conclusion of the EU experts Conference “Towards a knowledge-based strategy to prevent crime” (Sundsvall,
Sweden, 21.-23. February 2001). This conference concluded that "Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED), or Designing out Crime (DOC), has proven to be a useful, effective, very concrete and
feasible strategy to prevent crime and feelings of insecurity, integrated in a multidisciplinary approach. Best
practices regarding CPTED/DOC should be collected, evaluated and made accessible for stakeholders. This
process should utilise a common framework of concepts and processes, and transferable principles should be
identified".
This conference also underlined "as regards prevention of the fear of crime, that the fear of crime should be
viewed and treated as a social problem in its own right".
Statements and recommendations about the collaboration between environmental design/planning specialists
and crime experts are becoming more and more common nowadays in European countries. These statements
and recommendations are based on assumptions regarding the inter-relationships between the physical
environment and human behaviour. It is obvious that the results of urban planning and architecture do
influence the choice of conduct and choice of routes of all people (young/old, woman/man, potential
offender/potential victim).
Hence urban planning also has an impact on crime and fear of crime by influencing the conduct and attitudes
of e.g.:
 offenders;
 formal guardians such as police;
 informal guardians such as residents surveying an environment;
 potential victims (and/or targets) of crime or victims of fear of crime.
A great number of experiments have shown that particular types of crime can be reduced by modifying the
opportunity for crime in the built environment. Moving the night-time tavern crowd away from vacant
storefronts after closing time will inevitably reduce the number of burglaries and vandalism incidents to the
stores. Controlling the access into, and natural sightlines through, underground parking areas will increase the
opportunity for offenders to be seen and caught. This in turn will reduce the number of assaults and car crimes
in those parking areas. The list of successful opportunity reduction examples goes on. In Canada and the
USA this has come to be known as "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" (CPTED, pronounced
2)
septed) .
In Europe the concept is also known as 'the reduction of crime and fear of crime by urban planning and
3)
architectural design'. In short, "Designing Out Crime"(DOC) .

2)
The concept of CPTED is also used in the world wide association of researchers, specialists and practitioners in this
field: the International CPTED Association (ICA; see: http://cpted.net/).
3)
See also the European Designing Out Crime Association: http://www.e-doca.net/ and the European Crime Prevention
Network (Brussels): http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/eucpn/home.html.
6

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
There are numerous examples of housing projects where bad design has contributed to the general decay
and decline of urban areas. Badly designed housing estates have been rebuilt with thought and consideration
to diminish criminal opportunity. In many cases after the refurbishment residents have wished to return to the
estates where before they had left as they feared for their safety. New estates and housing projects are now
incorporating good crime prevention features at the design stage.
Shopping centres are another building category that is benefiting from good planning ideas. The sitting of the
centre, car parks and transport infrastructure are all being incorporated at design stage to accommodate good
design features. Supermarkets are also adopting designing out crime measures to reduce both internal theft
as well as crime committed by customers.
Researchers have identified reductions in crime following, for example, the introduction of design changes in
large municipal housing estates. There is also overwhelming evidence concerning fear and the built
environment, e.g. pedestrian subways, lack of surveillance, and particularly the level of lighting and dark
streets. Similar parallels can be drawn with regard to vandalism. When questioned, offenders (and victims) of
burglary, car theft and rape/assault, have all mentioned environmental/design factors. The research findings
show that the feelings of insecurity of victims are clearly related to the very same features of the place that
attract offenders to commit a crime.
No wonder more and more local and regional authorities in Europe are now insisting on planning applications
showing proof that the principles of crime prevention and fear reduction by urban planning and building design
have been adopted.
Conclusion
The conclusion from the literature, research and project – or policy evaluations can be summarised as follows:
1) urban planning has an impact on the different types of crime and fear of crime by influencing the
conduct, attitudes, choices and feelings of e.g. offenders, victims, residents, police;
2) crime can be subdivided in specific types (burglary, vandalism etc.);
3) crime and fear of crime are different phenomena;
4) fear of crime is an important issue but it has to be separated from a much broader set of feelings
people have about the whole of their living space and about the degree to which they feel deprived of
a good social and physical environment to live in;
5) a securer and safer city or neighbourhood is the result of a safety policy aiming at the physical and
social environment;
6) policymakers and practitioners should never focus on planning and design only. Every newly built
neighbourhood, public space or building needs good maintenance. Planning/design and
maintenance are thus two sides of the same coin.
This Technical Report combines 'contents' and 'process'.
4)
• Contents refers to the question: which strategies and measures may be implemented to prevent and
reduce crime problems in a given environment.
• Process refers to the question: how to follow an effective and efficient procedure in which stakeholders
should choose the strategies and measures most effective and feasible to prevent and reduce the crime
problems as defined by the stakeholders.

4)
Note the word 'may' (and not shall or should) is used deliberately here because the actual choice for certain strategies
and measures can only be made by the stakeholders, and in the end by a responsible body.
7

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
The process is described in Clause 6 (for a summary see Figure 1). In step 3 of this process the stakeholders
choose strategies and measures. To help stakeholders make this choice they may use the strategies and
measures as presented in Clause 5 and Annex D.
Hence by adopting this Technical Report the process described in Clause 6 is adopted while the definitive
choice of strategies and measures (see Clause 5 and Annex D) is left to the stakeholders and in the end to a
responsible body (most often local and regional authorities issuing rules for urban planning, building/planning
codes and permits) involved in a concrete plan for building, reconstruction or the management of an area.
Before the contents (see Clause 5) and process (see Clause 6) are presented, a preliminary set of questions
is elaborated upon in Clause 4:
 the identification of the area (where);
 the crime problem (what) and;
 the stakeholders (who).
8

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
1 Scope
This Technical Report gives guidelines on methods for assessing the risk of crime and/ or fear of crime and
measures, procedures and processes aimed at reducing these risks.
Design guidelines are given for specific types of environments to prevent or counteract different crime
problems consistently with the urban planning documents (see 4.3). Furthermore, guidelines for a step by step
process are presented to involve all stakeholders (see 4.4) engaged in urban planning and environmental
crime reduction as well as all other stakeholders mainly local and regional authorities and residents in the
multi-agency action needed to minimise the risks of crime and fear of crime.
This Technical Report is applicable to the planning process of new, as well as existing, urban areas. An area
can be the neighbourhood or environment ranging from just a few houses or streets to the whole city with a
focus on public spaces.
2 Normative references
The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments) applies.
EN 14383-1:2006, Prevention of crime – Urban planning and building design – Part 1: Definition of specific
terms
CEN/TS 14383-3, Prevention of crime – Urban planning and building design – Part 3: Dwellings
CEN/TS 14383-4, Prevention of crime – Urban planning and building design – Part 4: Shops and offices
3 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this document, the terms and definitions given in EN 14383-1:2006 apply.
4 Preliminary questions: the area, its crime problems and the stakeholders
4.1 General
Cities all over the world are facing problems of insecurity and safety: urban violence and other forms of crime,
feelings of insecurity caused by crime, graffiti and anti-social behaviour in the public sphere. These threats to
the urban quality of life are obvious in most European cities.
Local and regional authorities generally react to these problems by more law enforcement input (police,
private security services). However, now most European specialists agree that the actions needed to
counteract the threats mentioned above have to be of an integrated and multi-disciplinary nature. Authorities
and law enforcement specialists, as well as environmental specialists, city maintenance and management
personnel, retailers and other business people, social workers, teachers and, last but not least, citizens are all
stakeholders in this process.
The orchestration of the stakeholders, as well as the type of actions needed in the different urban
environments (city centre, retail neighbourhoods, residential areas, transportation system), is a very difficult
mix to plan and manage.
9

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
There are several models for the delivery of crime prevention by urban planning and design. These range
from partnership schemes where a formal lead party is lacking, to police controlled schemes and others based
in the local authority. Wherever urban planning and building design is involved there should always be a
democratically elected body governing the planning, building or city/neighbourhood management process
directly or indirectly. In Clause 6 this body will be called 'the responsible body'.
This may be a local council, a group of planners mandated by local, regional or even national authorities or an
interdisciplinary steering group. Although there may be a variety of stakeholders involved the approach is
simple. It starts with answering three questions:
 where: the identification of the exact location of the area (by co-ordinates, and/or defining boundaries,
and/or postal codes, etc.) and the type of area; this area is either an area comprising an existing urban
fabric of buildings and streets/roads or a planned (new) area;
 what: the first and general identification of the crime problems occurring in this existing area, or the future
crime problems that may occur in this new area, as well as the propensity of this area toward attracting
crime and anti-social behaviour and generating fear of crime;
 who: the identification of the stakeholders involved in defining the crime problems more precisely,
assessing or reviewing them in more depth and implementing/executing the measures to prevent and / or
reduce the crime problems.
4.2 Where: Identification of the area
4.2.1 Focus on urban environments

5)
The key findings from the International Crime Victims Survey show crime to be a serious urban problem:
For more serious crime, the strongest factor explaining risks across different countries was urbanisation with
crime increasing with the proportion living in larger cities. Next, lower affluence was significantly associated
with higher risks. Urbanisation and lower affluence alone explained half the variance in victimisation rates in
the 26 countries.
With regard to petty crime, urbanisation was again the strongest factor explaining risks. Levels of affluence
were statistically unrelated to risks however.
4.2.2 Level at which action can be taken
Within urbanised areas security and safety can be improved in existing as well as in new and future
environments. As shown in Table 1, sixteen levels can be distinguished. Levels 1 to 4 are dealt with
CEN/TS 14383-3 (dwellings) and CEN/TS 14383-4 (offices and shops) while levels 5 to 16 are the subject of
this Technical Report.
This Technical Report is applicable to the planning process of new or existing urban areas. An area can be
the neighbourhood or environment ranging from just a few houses or streets to the whole city. It will focus on
recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of crime in public spaces.

5)
The international Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardized sample
surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second
in 1992, the third in 1996 and the fourth in 2000. Surveys have been carried out in over 50 countries since 1989, including
a large number of city surveys in developing countries and countries in transition. The citations presented here are taken
from the ICVS report `Criminal Victimization in Eleven industrialized Countries; Key findings from the 1996 ICVS; Pat
Mayhew (Home office, United Kingdom), Jan J.M. van Dijk (Ministery of Justice/ University of Leiden, The Netherlands);
WODC./Ministry of Justice The Hague 1997. The conclusions of the 2000 sweep of the ICVS are generally speaking the
same: "Net of other effect, urbanisation continued to be an influencial risk factor. Risks of property crime, for instance,
were 60 % higher in the most urban areas compared to the less urbanised ones" (Key findings from the 2000 ICVS, John
van Kesteren, Pat Mayhew and Paul Nieuwbeerta, WODC/Ministry of Justice, The Hague 2000 page 58).
10

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------

CEN/TR 14383-2:2007 (E)
Table 1 — Levels at which action can be taken to improve security in the built environment
Level of intervention Example of actions The key players
Improving routine security Change routine activity, Occupants, management, security
precautions - but no management procedures, staff.
1
physical change patterns of use/occupancy;
Security staffing
Upgrading security Security equipment including:
Management security staff; Security
equipment locking systems, alarms, cctv,
2 suppliers/consultants, locksmiths,
lighting, access control,
builders
sensors
Refurbishment and Remodelling of interiors and Owners/occupants, facilities
alterations to a building minor extensions, replacing managers, developers, architects,
3
windows and doors, fencing engineers, builders
and gates, etc.
Designing a new building The design of the building and Owners/futures occupants,
4 its relationship to its developers, architects, builders
surroundings
Patrolling, routes and Police, shop keepers
schedules
Cooperation of police and
Improving routine security
5
shop owners for surveillance;
and no physical change
Improving maintenance;
Special measures for
construction yards
Upgrading security CCTV, Private and public Police, owners, public service
6 equipment street lighting; Lockings; managers
Alarms
Refurbishment and Tree maintenance; Street Local pressure groups, architects,
upgrading details furniture and fences and police, maintenance dpt.; Service
7
levels; Street and private managers
lighting; Activity schedules
Continuity of pedestrian Municipality, local pressure groups,
routes; Activity location and architects, police, maintenance dpt.,
schedules; Shape and use of service managers, traffic dpt., public
8 Re-design of layout
ground floor; Definition of space dpt
public and private space; Slow
traffic flows
11
Building design (CEN/TS 14383-3:
...