|Title: ||Crime Prevention v Planning: Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Is it a Material Consideration?|
|Citation: ||Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 3(2): 43-48|
|Publisher: ||Palgrave Macmillan|
|Journal: ||Crime Prevention and Community Safety|
|Issue Date: ||2001 |
|Additional Links: ||http://www.palgrave-journals.com/cpcs/index.html|
|Abstract: ||In a previous paper, Moss and Pease 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'3 and give greater primacy to the views held by the public in Crime Audits.|
|Keywords: ||Crime prevention|
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Human Rights Act 1998
|Appears in Collections: ||Legal Studies Research Group |
Legal Studies Research Group
|Files in This Item:|
There are no files associated with this item.
All Items in WIRE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.