Phineas Harper questions the rationale behind removing park benches to reduce antisocial behaviour (Removing benches, blocking cycle paths: why are police interfering in the UK’s public spaces?, 2 May).
In challenging the successful Secured by Design initiative, Harper fails to consider the people who the schemes are designed to benefit – local residents. In the case of Ashford, residents have been supportive of the actions taken by partners to reduce antisocial behaviour. Coupled with proactive patrols, these actions have made the community safer. Similar initiatives elsewhere are deterring public alcohol and drug use, increasing sightlines to make safer walking routes, and improving our street scene.
The government’s Safer Streets initiative, now in its fourth round of funding, has transformed our high streets and public spaces, dealt with acquisitive crime and made women and girls feel safer. Simple design principles, such as increasing CCTV, boosting street lighting and creating more safe spaces are making a tangible difference. Criticising the police, when these schemes are widely supported by local residents, councils and community groups, does nothing to make us safer.
Matthew Scott
Police and crime commissioner for Kent
• I was depressed to read Phineas Harper’s piece about how the police have been given powers to dictate how urban spaces are designed, with the assumption that hostile architecture might reduce criminality. Imagine that instead of police shaping shared urban spaces, it was healthcare professionals? How about instead of Secured by Design it was Livable by Design? Proposed planning would need to consider the basic needs of residents, such as adequate green space, sufficient space to socialise, air quality and the provision of active travel.
Apart from making these areas more pleasant to live in, it would result in significant savings to the NHS and might even be more effective at tackling crime than simply removing park benches.
Dr John Legge
Dún Laoghaire, Ireland
• In Reading’s Thameside Park, one of the park benches is badly run down. It was erected in 2005 by a now-defunct local Rotary club to mark the centenary of the Rotary organisation. Reading Rotary Club, of which I am a member, is currently negotiating with Reading council to have the bench renovated by the local YMCA, as part of our club’s centenary celebrations.
I read Phineas Harper’s article stating that police are recommending that park benches should be done away with (because people sit on them?) with some concern. We had thought we were improving an amenity rather than encouraging crime. Is what we are doing an antisocial waste of time and money?
Eric Moyse
Reading, Berkshire
• I agree that the suggestion by police that crime in parks can be reduced by removing benches is absurd. In York, many of our public parks no longer have park attendants or gardeners due to Conservative government cuts in local authority spending.
Much of the gardening and the opening and closing of our parks is done by retired people, many of whom are over 80. If the benches are removed, they will have nowhere to sit to rest after their efforts. No gardeners, no parks.
Sarah Sheils
York
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
