Why physical security can no longer be left until last By Richard Ellis, Managing Director, ATG Access
When major construction projects commence, the objectives and deliverables are often influenced by budgets, planning constraints, architectural vision and programme milestones. Physical security, however, is still too often left until the latter stages of delivery as its importance is misunderstood and it can be considered as a small package of work needing minimal consideration. By this point, civil works and hard landscaping can be well underway, utilities are in place, and design intent is established, leaving little scope for meaningful integration without disruption, cost escalation, or a compromise in the effectiveness of a scheme.
But whether designing a new transport hub, redeveloping a town centre, or upgrading critical infrastructure, security can no longer be treated as a last-minute package. It must be embedded from the outset as a fundamental design principle.
The implications of late-stage planning
Introducing hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM), perimeter protection or access-control measures at the end of a project creates a cascade of challenges. Retrofitting into completed public realm may require re-excavation, relocation of utilities, or clashing with carefully conceived landscaping schemes. The result is not only costly disruption, but often visible interventions that dilute architectural coherence and undermine user experience.
The consequences go beyond aesthetics. Late procurement can overlook the long lead times required for certified HVM products, sometimes forcing reactive substitutions that may not align with threat assessments or programme requirements.
Without early Vehicle Dynamics Assessments (VDAs) and validated utility surveys, there is a significant risk of misspecification. Projects may either under-specify systems so that products fail to meet the threat level or over-specify solutions with unnecessarily high impact ratings that are more costly and might demand deeper foundations than the site can accommodate. Equally, unchartered service clashes can make intended installations unnecessarily complex or worse case unbuildable, forcing costly redesigns or substitutions.
Such compromises risk creating environments that appear secure but are not, exposing clients to safety liabilities, reputational damage, and increased long-term operational burden.
The case for early integration
The earlier security is factored in, the greater the freedom to design solutions that are functional, discreet, and sympathetic to the place. At this stage, layouts, materials, and utilities can be coordinated with protective elements, allowing bollards, barriers, gates and street furniture to perform dual functions without cluttering space or creating accessibility issues.
This approach reduces whole-life system cost, simplifies installation, and improves user experience. Importantly, it also allows security specialists to work alongside architects, engineers, and contractors to ensure threats are correctly assessed and proportionately addressed.
A shifting threat landscape
The nature of security risk has changed significantly in the past decade. Vehicle-as-a-weapon attacks remain a present danger, but they are not the only concern. Crowding in public spaces, poorly managed access points, and vulnerabilities around perimeters all create risk.
The pandemic accelerated changes to how we use our cities, and we’ve seen more pedestrianisation, outdoor dining, and re-purposed urban areas. Meanwhile, geopolitical instability has increased awareness of terrorism and state-level threats. Against this backdrop, security must be flexible and treated as a dynamic discipline that adapts to changing circumstances and risk profiles when needed, which is only possible if it is embedded from the outset.
Collaboration drives resilience
Resilient security is never the product of a single discipline. It relies on early and open collaboration between planners, architects, contractors, security engineers and specialist competent HVM physical security manufactures and the communities who will use the space.
When there is early collaboration between the key parties, an appropriate balance can be found between aesthetics, safety, and cost can be made transparently. Contractors can raise any buildability issues before they escalate, while security specialists can advise on certified systems that balance performance with practicality. Better still if done so in conjunction with the HVM Physical security manufacturer. The community can also raise their concerns or issues, whether about permeability, accessibility or how a space will feel in everyday use. As such, the outcome is not only safer, but also more likely to win public acceptance because protection feels like part of the design rather than an afterthought and reassure rather than restrict.
Case study: Tottenham Hotspur Stadium
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium demonstrates what can be achieved when security is woven into the design from day one.
Building a stadium of this scale next to a busy multi-lane road created an obvious vulnerability. Yet the architectural brief, led by Populous, was for a venue that felt spectacular, open and inviting. Any security strategy, therefore, had to deliver world-class protection without compromising on aesthetics, blending into a landmark that would host Premier League football, NFL games and international concerts.
The solution required security to be part of the blueprint, not an add-on. The perimeter package demanded high-performance impact resistance, but also a design aesthetic consistent with the stadium’s bold architecture.
On the single pavement outside the stadium, where tens of thousands of fans flow in and out, clutter was a major risk. Alongside protective measures, the area also needed to accommodate traffic light columns, signage, and street lighting. To avoid crowding and trip hazards, these elements were integrated into the security line itself, creating multi-functional assets that reduced obstruction without compromising protection.
Back-of-house service yard access demanded the same level of precision. Gates and barriers had to fit seamlessly into stadia protocols while maintaining resilience. Ongoing service and maintenance were also built in from the outset, recognising the profile and constant use of the venue.
The Tottenham Hotspur stadium scheme demonstrates how early engagement with security specialists enables creative engineering solutions that reconcile performance, aesthetics, and public safety. Had these conversations taken place at the end of the project, retrofitted barriers and disconnected measures would have undermined both appearance and function.
Testing, credibility and trust
Security is only as robust as the performance of its components. Products must be independently tested to recognised standards (BSI PAS 68, IWA 14, ISO 22343) and installed as designed and specified. Equally, the competence and track record of the supplier and contractor are just as important.
This is where engineering credibility comes in. Choosing the lowest-cost option or an unproven provider may save money in the short term, but it undermines confidence and creates long-term risk. With increasing regulatory scrutiny, from the Building Safety Act’s “golden thread” of accountability to the proposed Protect Duty (Martyn’s Law); trust, transparency and competence are essential.
From afterthought to foundation
If construction is to meet the challenges of the next decade, physical security can no longer be left in the shadows. It must be treated as a design principle in its own right and not a box to tick at the end of a project.
When security is built in early from the concept stage, projects are more efficient, more resilient, and more trusted. They also stand a better chance of delivering the open, welcoming public spaces we all want to use.
