FEATURE BEYOND THE BARRIER
Security fencing in public spaces such as schools, parks and playgrounds is fundamentally designed to keep communities safe, yet these spaces are under increasing pressure from theft and deliberate tampering.
While high-level security conversations often focus on digital surveillance or physical patrols, the actual integrity of a perimeter frequently relies on its smallest components. In the context of public spaces, a security breach is rarely just an issue of asset loss; it is a significant public safety hazard.
As a leading supplier of fasteners for environments such as these, we have seen occasions where perimeter fencing has been compromised because standard bolts were easily removed with basic tools, and the primary safety barrier was effectively neutralised.
Whether it is a high-security fence at a utility site or a gate at a local play area, standard fixings represent the point of least resistance. Many public assets are not removed through sophisticated or brute-force attacks but through the simple removal of nuts and bolts using tools available in any hardware store.
For local authorities and facilities managers, the focus must therefore shift from simple theft prevention to comprehensive risk mitigation. If a swing set or slide is tampered with, the structural risk to a child is immediate. Similarly, security fencing only remains functional if the panels stay attached to the posts; the removal of even a few bolts can create a breach point for unauthorised access.
Street furniture and infrastructure also fall into this category of risk. Manhole covers, signage and benches are frequently targeted for scrap or resale, and a missing gully cover or a loose signpost creates an immediate physical danger to both pedestrians and motorists.
Tamper-resistant fasteners are designed to address these specific vulnerabilities by using non-standard drive systems or permanent one-way mechanisms. These make unauthorised removal significantly more time-consuming and difficult, acting as both a physical obstacle and a powerful deterrent.
For public sector decision-makers, the value of this approach lies in its subtlety, as security fasteners do not make a park or playground feel like a restricted zone, preserving the design intent while hardening the asset against interference.
There are also clear implications for whole-life costs and legal liability. Specifying security fixings at the design or maintenance stage typically represents a marginal
36 | TOMORROW’S FM
proportion of the overall project cost, yet it helps avoid the repeated expenditure and disruption caused by vandalism.
Beyond the direct price of a replacement fence panel or bench, the indirect costs - such as legal liability following an accident, emergency repair call-outs, and the loss of public trust - are far more significant.
For specifiers and estate managers, this means recognising that in exposed public environments, a bolt is not simply a bolt. Different settings demand different levels of resistance, and taking a non-standard fastener approach should be viewed as a deliberate safety decision rather than an optional upgrade.
Protecting public spaces begins with protecting the components that hold them together. At Fabory - a UK- based fastener supplier - we work with local authorities and contractors to navigate the wide range of security- rated fasteners available, including specialist brands such as Hafren, to ensure that each application is matched with the right level of performance and protection.
While these specifications may seem like a small consideration, they play a vital role in safeguarding the integrity, accessibility and safety of the spaces that communities rely on every day.
www.fabory.com
twitter.com/TomorrowsFM
Jochem Oerlemans, Product Manager at Fabory, highlights how the integrity of perimeter fencing, playground equipment and street furniture is a critical yet often overlooked element of urban risk management, and explores how local authorities can mitigate safety hazards and reduce asset loss by eliminating the vulnerabilities in standard fixings.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54
