The theory of Broken Windows is an attractive one, but not without some controversy. Like all theories, it has its supporters and its detractors.

I think I would count as a qualified supporter: it makes a lot of sense, but will not be the panacea which some people suggest it is.

The basic theory is that having a zero tolerance towards petty vandalism can have a sort of domino effect and reduce not only further petty crime and vandalism, but more serious crimes too.

The examples of New York’s metro and then the city itself are often quoted as the best example of it working, but there were other factors at work. Maybe none would have been so effective alone, but they all played their part and just because the broken windows effect can’t have been totally responsible for New York’s improved crime rates it must surely have played its part.

It would certainly help here in Broadfield. Some of the things the police have been saying in recent meetings I have been to suggest they are following a similar approach without calling it the same thing, but of course they are not responsible for the fixing of the broken windows (or removing of grafitti and litter). This is where the council can help, but even they have limited responsibility.

Here is a good example. Neither the police nor the council can do anything about this vandalised telecoms box, beyond reporting it to the cable company when they see it. This would require a huge change of culture as police officers and council wardens still have a tendancy to filter out things which are not their responsibility. Another change of culture would also help – if we, the public, took more pride in our surroundings and decided that we will not tolerate it and reported it.

My experience of this is not too encouraging though. I reported this box two weeks ago, had a prompt reply from Telewest with a promise to get the maintenence team out, but today it is still in the same state. Compare this to BT who had a broken manhole in my street last year – I phoned them up and the same day there were cones around it. It took a few days to schedule in the actual repairs, but there was an immediate response.

But even if the police, councils, and public take a zero tolerance approach there are still some areas where it will all fall down, and most of these areas are car parks.

A lot of newer developments have a shared car parking area. Although everyone there owns their house and has guaranteed access to a place or two in the car park, they do not necessarily own the car park. These car parks are not adopted as part of the highways so the county council has no authority there. The ownership is probably shared, but nobody really knows who is responsible. It is like the common areas of an apartment block but there is no management company to levy service charges and do the work. In some places there are collapsed walls, rubbish, overgrown plants and grafitti.

To sort these place out you would probably need all the homeowners to agree on the actions and pay for them, and you can only imagine how hard that would be to do – it only takes one to decide they can’t afford it or are not bothered by it, or they don’t have a car so shouldn’t have to contribute.

I don’t think this should stop us trying to do what is feasible, and lets not forget that a lot of it does already happen under other names with neighbourhood watches and residents associations. It can’t be denied that Broadfield does have a problem with low-level nuisance-type crimes and vandalism so anything that might help is welcome.