RiskUKOctober2017

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SBD and CPTED: Security’s Pivotal Role in the Construction Sector For each building planned, designed and built to become a new part of our city landscapes, architects and design firms are very often the first links in the chain. The ingenuity and skill that they bring to construction design processes is undoubted, but even these central individuals need helping hands. Philip Strand argues why security professionals must be brought into the process at the earliest stages Dr Philip Strand PhD MBA: Senior Risk Consultant at CornerStone GRG 22 www.risk-uk.com Cities continue to grow across the UK. Even the most conservative construction industry forecasts predict at least 1.2% growth through 2018 and beyond. Although that number may seem small, this equates to a commitment of more than £500 billion worth of projects focused on infrastructure, private housing and commercial properties within the next few years. Construction project teams include not only architects and designers, but also structural engineers, investors, city planners and a multitude of other stakeholders who are all well-qualified to make contributions to the design process. All too often, however, security professionals with bespoke education, training and experience in building operations are brought into teams far too late to have any appreciable influence on security-related aspects of building designs. While there may be reasons for late invitations going out to security professionals, this oversight can come at a significant cost to both building owners and, more likely than not, a building’s future users. Quite sensibly, most designers begin their projects with the building’s ‘user requirements’ in mind. Early in the design process, workshops are held to determine the activities that will go on within the building and how the building’s users should benefit from its existence. By way of documents that are logically similar to the Operational Requirements Reports of the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, designers, architects and engineers conceptualise their buildings inside and out to meet people’s stated needs. User groups and their spatial needs, aesthetic requirements and emotive goals, as well as practical concerns about Health and Safety, are all captured in ‘user requirements’ at the early stages of projects. Principles of security Practical requirements related to security, however, are very often either left out or woefully underestimated at the early stages of projects. This occurs not as a function of designers or other stakeholders being oblivious to security as a requirement, but rather as a result of project team leaders mistakenly viewing ‘security’ as a collection of cameras, turnstiles and card readers that can all be simply bolted into the walls and floors after the majority of the building has been planned (and sometimes even constructed). Excluding principles of security from influential ‘user requirements’ documents and excluding security professionals from project teams during the early phases of design reduces the chances that the building will be inherently securable which, in turn, increases the likelihood that awkward, excessive and, ultimately, more expensive security solutions will be required after the building is phased into everyday use. The idea that early engagement can enable security professionals to have positive impacts on construction projects isn’t new. Further, Secured By Design (SBD) and Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) are two well-respected programmes that seek to make buildings and spaces inherently more secure before they’re even built. SBD provides guidance for ‘designing-out crime’ by ensuring that buildings’ perimeters, walls and other features are configured in ways that make it difficult for criminals to operate. Roads and footpaths leading up to buildings are also considered from a security perspective. For its part, CPTED operates on a deeper, more psychological level. CPTED promotes the use of basic design principles that make criminals feel uncomfortable and ‘observed’ to the point that they’re deterred from causing trouble in an area. The principles of CPTED encourage people to come into spaces and use them for legitimate purposes such that others cannot use those spaces for illegal reasons. By incorporating CPTED principles into building designs, crime can be measurably reduced, thus cutting back on the need for expensive technological solutions and increasing the efficiency of those technological systems that remain necessary. Not only are SBD and CPTED’s design recommendations normally ‘cost neutral’ (from a design perspective), but they can also reduce security guarding costs, lessen CCTV camera requirements and cut back on material losses. When these reductions are factored into operating expenditure estimates over the lifetime of the building, early engagement with security professionals can then readily be seen
Security in the Built Environment as an extremely important cost-saving decision that can be taken. Dynamic Vehicle Assessments Beyond crime, if there are risks related to terrorism present, then there can also be a great deal of value in engaging early with explosive blast experts and security professionals capable of conducting Dynamic Vehicle Assessments (DVAs). Since stand-off range is a tremendously important variable in blast mitigation strategies, and because tight corners and spaces are extremely important factors in DVAs, the input of security experts at the very beginning of a project is much more valuable than that which can be provided at some point after a building’s foundations have been dug. Sometimes, it can be the case that simply moving a road or a building just five metres in a given direction could save stakeholders hundreds of thousands of pounds in blast mitigation measures. In more extreme cases, five metres of extra stand-off can be the difference between a feasible blast mitigation strategy and having no feasible options at all. Fortunately, the problem of late engagement with security professionals in construction projects is being addressed by an increasing number of accreditation schemes that require projects to incorporate recommendations from Risk, Threat and Vulnerability (RTV) Assessments in their designs. Specifically, RTV Assessments calculate the business impacts that security incidents might have on the assets, people and strategic objectives of organisations using buildings. Focusing attention on BREEAM The Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) is the world’s longest-standing method for ensuring the sustainability of buildings and calls for new building projects to include a ‘Security Needs Assessment’. This makes sense given research commissioned by SBD that estimates six million tonnes of CO 2 is generated annually by resources spent on preventing and investigating crime. The BRE’s new Security Assessment scheme, entitled SABRE, goes a step further by encouraging construction projects to fully integrate security factors throughout the entire construction process. BREEAM’s acknowledgement of the importance of security is a step in the right direction, but other schemes and methods will need to adopt similar views before real traction can be achieved. The Royal Institute of British Architects’ (RIBA) well-known, five-stage project management model is understood by all construction companies within the UK. In theory, an RTV Assessment should inform the concept designs generated by construction project teams in RIBA Stage 2. BREEAM audits encourage companies to conduct these assessments by giving additional points for their completion. More points are awarded if the companies pass a SABRE accreditation. In reality, though, RTV Assessments are often commissioned too late to have any real impact on a building’s design. Consider the fact that it can easily take a procurement team a month or more to go through a tender process and select a security company to undertake the RTV Assessment. In short, if the project team didn’t consider the RTV Assessment well before beginning Stage 2, then it’s highly unlikely that a ‘suitablyqualified’ security professional will be commissioned in time for an assessment to be completed and its results to have a discernible impact on the concept design. The project team will score the extra BREEAM and SABRE points for having the assessment, but the practical value of the work is unlikely to be capitalised upon. The project team will find out too late that an explosive blast expert or some other specialist security expert should have been included within the team. “Sometimes, it can be the case that simply moving a road or a building just five metres in a given direction could save stakeholders much money in blast mitigation measures” 23 www.risk-uk.com
Page 1 and 2: October 2017 www.risk-uk.com Securi
Page 3 and 4: October 2017 Contents 33 In Search
Page 5 and 6: Texecom Connect App New smartphone
Page 7 and 8: News Update Biometrics Commissioner
Page 9 and 10: News Analysis: UK-European Union Se
Page 11 and 12: News Special: Cortech Open Innovati
Page 13 and 14: News Special: NAHS Annual Conferenc
Page 15 and 16: Opinion: Crowded Places Security an
Page 17 and 18: Opinion: Mind Your Own Business Acc
Page 19 and 20: BSIA Briefing Preventing injury in
Page 21: They see a well secured airport. Yo
Page 25: Mobile Technology: Risk Management
Page 28 and 29: Data Centres: Security and Fire Saf
Page 30 and 31: Advertisement Feature “We take po
Page 33 and 34: Access Control: Developments in Bio
Page 35 and 36: The New Camera Line Mx6 Creates Mor
Page 37 and 38: Manufacturing X-ray Machines in the
Page 40 and 41: Counter-Terrorism: Security Screeni
Page 42 and 43: A Touch of Retail Security Therapy
Page 44 and 45: Healthcare Sector Security: Body-Wo
Page 46: Healthcare Sector Security: Access
Page 49 and 50: Advertisement Feature Inner Range
Page 51 and 52: Advertisement Feature expander, ELM
Page 53 and 54: Mail Room Security Management: Syst
Page 56 and 57: Meet The Security Company This is t
Page 58 and 59: www.coie.uk.com Cortech Open Innova
Page 60 and 61: The Security Institute’s View a c
Page 62 and 63: A 21st Century Crisis: What Does It
Page 64 and 65: Qualifications: The Future of Fire
Page 66 and 67: An Exercise in Logistics Company wa
Page 68 and 69: Visual Hacking: Combating Mobile an
Page 70 and 71: Raising Standards: A Commitment to
Page 72 and 73:
Risk in Action Business process enh
Page 74 and 75:
Technology in Focus Gallagher Secur
Page 76 and 77:
National Association for Healthcare
Page 78 and 79:
Appointments Tom Brookes Tom Brooke
Page 80 and 81:
Best Value Security Products from I
Page 82 and 83:
THE UK’S MOST SUCCESSFUL DISTRIBU
show all

RiskUKOctober2017

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?