Hostile Vehicle Mitigation Every metre counts:
space, planting and green spaces, plus improved highway design, suggests additional security measures will be needed. With the plan currently at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) stage 3 (the spatial coordination phase), it was a good point to integrate protective security from the outset, applying a ‘district-wide’ approach that is also responsive to the different scales.
This will allow the design team to plan for safety measures that are proportionate and responsive to the unique conditions, building on existing arrangements.
Collaboration across boundaries
Effective district-wide HVM will likely require buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders. In Knightsbridge, this meant the BID and its design team bringing together senior security personnel from flagship stores, hotels, cultural venues and other major sites, as well as property owners and asset managers. Officers from the Metropolitan Police, including Counter Terrorism Security Advisors (CTSAs), and representatives from local boroughs and Transport for London also contributed.
As part of the workshop, NPSA and Realm (landscape architects and authors of the design guide) provided an update on the current threat environment and key elements of the guide. Attendees were briefed on the Knightsbridge place strategy and its proposed changes for the district, as well as current HVM, before moving into geographically focused breakout groups.
Each group examined what should be protected, and how, within its given area, and identified targets and vulnerable places, wider threats, attitude to risk and potential interventions.
This collaborative approach generated several important considerations:
• Using the ‘every metre counts’ principle across a wider area creates greater opportunities for ‘softer’ HVM measures, such as landscape or layout changes.
• ‘Being a good neighbour’ matters. Tackling the threat to one area must not undermine the safety or functionality of another. A bollard line that protects one frontage may simply redirect risk to a neighbouring site with less protection.
• Balance is essential. We cannot protect everywhere. Collaborative dialogue provides a forum to make considered decisions about where protection is most needed and how residual risk should be managed.
• Documentation is critical. Recording how and why any decisions are reached – and maintaining that record over time – ensures that the rationale for protective measures remains understood as personnel change and circumstances evolve.
• Wider functionality must be considered. Deliveries, emergency access, and the general movement patterns and visitor experience all need to be factored into HVM planning.
© CITY SECURITY MAGAZINE – SPRING 2026
www.citysecuritymagazine.com
The discussion illustrated the importance of integrating HVM thinking early in the design process for site, threshold and district approaches, especially as people who threaten our safety do not stop at red line boundaries. When acting to reduce threats from hostile actors, such early collaboration across a wider area should pay dividends: for safety and ease of movement, as well as maintaining operational effectiveness.
For those advising on public realm projects, the message is clear: engage early, think beyond the property boundaries, and build relationships with neighbouring stakeholders. In complex threat environments – and where ‘every metre counts’ – it pays to have good neighbours.
To access NPSA’s Public Realm Design Guide For Hostile Vehicle Mitigation please visit
www.npsa.gov.uk/specialised- guidance/hostile-vehicle-mitigation-hvm
Patricia Brown Director at Central
> 16
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
