Safe Design — closing the gap between public-realm and critical-site security; the case for treating safe-by-design as one discipline · Flagship Quarterly Sector Report
Series consistency · canonical Gap-series system
A4 · 210 × 297 mm · 3 mm bleed (not shown)
UK English · ~30 pp · v2.1 / 2026
FRONT MATTERi · Cover · ink · full bleed
GridteamAI
Quarterly Sector Report
Volume FS001 · Flagship Quarterly Sector Report
Cross-sector · Public Realm & Critical Sites
by GridteamAI
UK · Public Realm · Critical Sites · Safe DesignUnited Kingdom · 2026
Safe by Design.
Closing the gap between public-realm and critical-site security — bridges between the two worlds exist, but they do not yet add up to a road.
The UK has invested heavily on each side of safe-by-design. It has not yet treated it as one discipline.
The UK has invested heavily in safe-by-design across two parallel worlds — the public realm and critical sites. Both are well-resourced; neither is joined to the other. The case of this paper is that they should be treated as one discipline.
Two events made the gap visible. A place of worship attacked because it was identifiable and accessible (the public-realm end), and the steady drumbeat of critical-site incidents (the defended-asset end). 209,079 sexual offences were recorded in England & Wales in the year to March 2025; Martyn’s Law reached Royal Assent on 3 April 2025.
Eight statutes carry the safe-by-design freight; six bridges between them already exist — real, credited, but narrowly applied; no single integrated UK standard yet joins them into a road. This paper makes six propositions, none requiring new statute.
One discipline, one pathway, inclusive by default — paid for at the interface.
The six propositions: one discipline spanning both worlds; one professional pathway; inclusive design as default in both worlds; regulated investment that pays for the asset–public-realm interface; cyber-physical integration; and a Concordat joining the bodies that already do the work. None requires new statute — the bridges and the duty-holders already exist.
The strongest single statutory foundation the UK already has is CDM 2015 — designer duties that begin as soon as design does. The cleanest regulator-level example is Ofwat PR24 (£104bn, 2025–30), with £1.2bn ring-fenced for security under SEMD. The model exists; what is missing is the road that connects it across both worlds.
The paper’s argument
Safer-by-design is already a discipline in the UK — on each side of a line that should not exist. Treating it as one discipline, with one pathway and inclusive design as the default, and paying for the interface through regulated investment, is the change this paper argues for. It needs coordination and a Concordat, not new law.
The shape of this volume. § 1 sets out the headline figures. § 2 develops six findings. A chapter-weight pull at p. 14 anchors the thesis. § 3 maps the public realm; § 4 the critical sites; § 5 the statutory and professional gap and the six propositions. § 6 makes recommendations, with the one-page six-check tear-out at p. 25.
Executive summary · ends§ 1 · The headline figures · p. 07
09 · FIG. 1§ 1 · The eight statutes
§ 1 · The headline figures09
Figure 1 · The eight statutes that carry the freightUK statute book · 2026
Eight statutes. Two worlds. No single road.
Each statute carries part of the safe-by-design load; CDM 2015 is the strongest single foundation. None integrates security and everyday safety into one standard.
CDM 2015Designer duty to reduce foreseeable in-use riskStrongest foundation
Martyn’s Law 2025Design-stage security duty for qualifying premisesNewest bridge
Building Safety Act 2022Dutyholders + the golden-thread information spineData spine
Equality Act 2010Public-sector equality duty — the everyday-safety hookEveryday safety
Health & Safety at Work Act 1974The overarching duty-of-care frameworkFoundation
Town & Country Planning Act 1990The consent that can require safe-by-designThe lever
SEMD (water)Ring-fences security spend inside the price reviewFunding model
Licensing Act 2003Safety conditions on licensed premisesEveryday safety
Fig. 1 / §1
Eight statutes carry the freight (CDM 2015 in accent). Not one joins them into a single road.
Quarterly Sector Report · FS001§ 2 · Six findings · p. 10
09 — 10§ 2 · Six findings · 01 – 04 · 2×2 grid
§ 2 · Six findings on the comparative position10
§ 2 · Six findings on the safe-by-design gap2026
Six findings. Each carries a confidence level.
HIGH — verified against a US Government, UK Government, regulatory or recognised think-tank primary source. MEDIUM — named law-firm, analytics or trade-press source cross-referenced to a primary source. LOW — GridteamAI scenario projection or interpretation, marked as such.
Findings 01 – 12 · summary
01Safer-by-design is two separate worlds — counter-terrorism and everyday public-realm safety — that rarely meet.
02Eight statutes carry the freight; CDM 2015 is the strongest single foundation.
03Martyn’s Law (Royal Assent April 2025) is the newest and most consequential bridge.
04The evidence base for the counter-terrorism world is mature; for the VAWG world it is fragmented.
05Designing-out crime and designing-in safety are governed by different bodies with no shared standard.
06Six bridges exist between the worlds — each real, each credited, each narrowly applied.
07No single integrated UK standard joins design, security and everyday safety.
08Procurement is where the gap is most fixable — and least addressed.
09The water sector shows the model: SEMD ring-fences security spend inside the price review.
10Professional bodies have the standing to build the road; none yet has the remit.
11The six propositions change practice, not statute.
12Implications for clients, designers, regulators and the professional institutions.
Findings 01–06 in detail · pp. 11–13 · 07–12 summarised above
Quarterly Sector Report · FS001§ 2
11§ 2 · Findings 01 – 02
§ 2 · Findings 01 — 02The two worlds · the statute base
Finding 01 · HIGH
Safer-by-design is two separate worlds that rarely meet.
UK safe-by-design practice divides into two largely disconnected domains. The first is the counter-terrorism world: protective security, hostile-vehicle mitigation, crowded-places guidance, governed by the NPSA (formerly CPNI), the Protect Duty and now Martyn’s Law. Its evidence base is mature, its standards codified (ISO 22343, PAS 68/69, IWA 14), its practitioners chartered. The second is the everyday-safety world: designing-out crime, designing-in safety for women and girls in the public realm, governed by Secured by Design, CPTED principles, local-authority planning and a scatter of design guides. The two worlds use different vocabularies, different bodies, different funding routes. A bollard specified against a vehicle-as-weapon threat and a sightline designed against harassment are both “safer by design” — but almost never appear in the same standard, the same brief, or the same review.
Sources · NPSA · Secured by Design · ISO 22343
Finding 02 · HIGH
Eight statutes carry the freight; CDM 2015 is the strongest foundation.
No single Act governs safe-by-design, but eight carry material weight. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 are the strongest single statutory foundation: they place a legal duty on designers to eliminate and reduce foreseeable risk, and “risk” is not limited to construction-phase safety — it extends to the in-use safety of the completed asset. The Building Safety Act 2022 adds the golden-thread and dutyholder regime. Martyn’s Law (Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025) adds the counter-terrorism duty for qualifying premises. Alongside sit the Equality Act 2010 (the public-sector equality duty), the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Security and Emergency Measures Direction for water, and the Licensing Act 2003. The freight is carried; what is missing is the coupling between the wagons.
GridteamAI