SAFETY, FIRE & SECURITY
Security by design – rethinking public spaces in the era of Martyn’s Law
D
The introduction of Martyn’s Law creates a legal duty for those responsible for publicly accessible premises to consider and prepare for the risk of terrorism. The implications of which start at the design phase, and for architects and specifiers this means proactive design thinking is embedded from RIBA Stage 1 onwards. Here, Richard Hilson, director of sales and marketing for PFL - Access Management, argues the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) can help architects use spatial planning, circulation logic, and environmental cues to reduce vulnerability, support risk assessment obligations and enhance user confidence
rawing on statutory guidance and emerging regulation – including the evolving oversight role of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) – there’s an opportunity for
security to be reframed as a design-led discipline. Martyn’s Law, named after Martyn Hett, who was killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack, marks a cultural shift in how we think about safety, responsibility, and the role of design in protecting people – and there’s nothing stopping good design making places safer without them feeling intimidating or closed off.
This shift also means poorly designed spaces will no longer be neutral, and the difference between compliance and true resilience will increasingly come down to the quality of design thinking applied at the earliest stages. Driven by tireless campaigning from individuals such as Martyn’s mother, Figen Murray OBE, the law – Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025 – is, at its core, “for people, by people.” It is rooted in lived experience and loss – and that human context must remain central to how the industry responds. Martyn’s Law introduces a tiered “protect duty,” requiring organisations to implement proportionate and “reasonably practicable” measures to reduce vulnerability to terrorist threats. It will evolve through bodies such as the SIA, reinforcing accountability across the sector but compliance alone is not enough and in my belief, there’s a pressing need for security to become a design-led discipline, seamlessly integrated into the fabric of a space, rather than layered on as visible or intrusive infrastructure.
One thing we can’t do is allow compliance to become a checklist exercise. A poorly considered layout and unclear circulation can undermine even the most robust procedural plan. The challenge now, I believe, is about whether a space has been designed to perform
under pressure.
In essence, security should not make places feel hostile or restrictive rather it should enhance confidence and support usability.
The role of CPTED
One of the most effective frameworks for achieving this balance is Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). CPTED is not a new concept, it dates back to the early 1960s and is based on the simple but powerful idea that the design of a space can influence behaviour, reduce opportunities for harmful activity, and increase the perception, and reality, of safety.
What Martyn’s Law does is bring urgency to these long-established principles turning what was once best practice into something more mandatory. The reason why it is topical now, is because its four core principles align closely with Martyn’s Law:
1. Natural surveillance
Designing spaces to maximise visibility where people can see and be seen, through open sightlines, lighting, and active frontages. This increases situational awareness and reduces concealment opportunities.
2. Natural access control Carefully considered entry and exit points that guide movement intuitively, reduces vulnerability while maintaining accessibility.
3. Territorial reinforcement Environments that look and feel owned are more likely to be respected. Subtle design cues, such as changes in materials or landscaping, help define public and private space, encouraging a sense of ownership and control. This works well when there’s community art, and landscaping that give it a local identity.
4. Maintenance and management Well-maintained environments demonstrate
oversight and care, deterring malicious activity and reinforcing public confidence. It sends the message that someone has bought into this, and ensures it’s looked after and monitored.
As we stand here today, under new legislation, design teams must be able to show that security risks have been considered and addressed in a proportionate way. This places significant weight on early-stage decisions - from site layout and circulation strategies to material choices and perimeter definition. As such, security must be embedded from the outset, influencing how spaces are planned, experienced, and managed. This is where the distinction between good and poor design becomes critical. A well-designed space naturally guides behaviour, reduces ambiguity, and supports response. A poorly designed one creates friction, confusion, and vulnerability - conditions that no amount of retrospective intervention can fully resolve. This includes designing for intuitive movement and safe crowd flow, minimising hostile vehicle access, and creating environments that are easy to monitor without feeling overly surveilled.
Access, perimeter, and integrated protection
Over the years, one of the toughest considerations in CPTED, is the integration of access control and perimeter protection into the overall design. The most obvious answer is to create fortress-like environments, but that goes against the design ethos of CPTED. So we find ourselves at a crossroads post Martyn’s Law, but we are still able to embed protective measures into landscape and architectural features, and use tested, security- rated solutions that can detect, deter and delay threats, and which are addressed without compromising aesthetics or usability. The real test is, can protection be embedded so effectively that it is felt, but not seen? It will also tackle vehicle-borne risks –
10 BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER JUNE 2026
Read the latest at:
www.bsee.co.uk
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
