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.
Drawing 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 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.
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 – an increasingly common concern, and highlighted in Liverpool last year when Paul Doyle “used his vehicle deliberately as a weapon” after it was believed he followed an ambulance through a road block during Liverpool FC’s championship parade.
The National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) provides very good guidance on hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM), including a public realm design guide on designing for public spaces with consideration for HVM.
Navigating the challenge
A defining feature of Martyn’s Law implementation is that it prioritises preparedness culture over physical kit. Emerging guidance consistently emphasises the need for organisations to understand the nature of the terrorist threat and, crucially, to plan how they would respond in the event of an incident.
This subtly moves the conversation away from a purely defensive, hardware-led approach and towards operational readiness. CCTV, HVM, and access control are still integral, but they are only part of the picture. Equal weight is being placed on staff training, awareness programmes and the rehearsal of procedures, ensuring that responses are embedded and actionable rather than theoretical.
In this sense, the most secure spaces of the future may not be those with the most visible security, but those where people, processes, and places work seamlessly together under pressure.
This has clear implications at RIBA Stage 1, where early design decisions can either enable or constrain that culture of preparedness. Designing for Martyn’s Law is about creating environments that support clear communication, intuitive movement, and effective incident response. It should be understood less as a counter-terrorism measure in the traditional sense, and more as an extension of health and safety thinking – embedding resilience into the everyday operation of spaces.
Similarly, responding to the requirements of the legislation demands expertise, innovation, and robust, security-rated solutions. It’s not a ‘one size fits all’ scenario – the tiered system respects a venue’s size, and purpose, and designers and specifiers will no doubt design and plan accordingly. Developing these capabilities responsibly requires sustained investment and specialist knowledge, and the focus from all of us working in this industry needs to be on responsibility, not commercialisation.
We must also ensure we are designing to meet requirements, but also anticipating the risks and expectations of tomorrow? We have a duty to contribute our expertise to safer environments, support clients in meeting their obligations, and help rebuild public confidence in shared spaces. And these public spaces are fundamental to social, cultural, and economic life. Their value lies in their openness, accessibility, and ability to bring people together.
This is not about reaching a fixed destination, but about embedding a mindset – one that challenges the status quo and remains alert to what lies ahead. As future threats evolve over the next three to five years, so too must our approach. As Sun Tzu observed, we cannot rely on past formulas for future success – we must adapt to new realities and those yet to unfold. The question, then, is not whether we can meet the demands of Martyn’s Law – but whether we are prepared to lead beyond them.
