Short answer: gate security should follow a written delivery process that defines what information must be checked, who can approve an exception, where an unconfirmed vehicle waits or is refused, how pedestrians and vehicles are kept safe, and what is recorded. A guard should not admit an unscheduled delivery simply because the driver appears credible, nor reject or redirect a large vehicle without a safe, site-approved arrangement.
The process should be proportionate to the premises. A small office, warehouse, construction compound and multi-occupier industrial site will not need identical controls. What matters is that the client, facilities team, principal contractor and security provider agree the authority and escalation route before an unexpected vehicle reaches the entrance.
This is general planning guidance, not a site instruction. Keep booking references, approved contacts, access methods, vehicle routes, holding points and vulnerabilities in controlled documents rather than publishing them.
Separate delivery verification from loading safety
Gate security normally checks whether a vehicle and its purpose match the site’s authorised delivery information. The person controlling the loading or unloading operation remains responsible for the safe work in that area. A gate officer should not be expected to judge load stability, lifting arrangements, dangerous-goods controls or whether specialist unloading equipment is suitable unless those duties have been specifically assigned to a competent person.
The delivery plan should therefore distinguish three decisions: whether the vehicle may enter, where it may go, and whether loading or unloading may begin. Admission does not automatically authorise work to start. The receiving department or site team should confirm when the designated area is ready and the relevant safety controls are in place.
The Health and Safety Executive’s guidance on delivering safely stresses cooperation between the supplier, carrier and recipient. It recommends exchanging information about site restrictions and hazards before a delivery, rather than leaving the driver and site staff to resolve them at the gate.
Define the minimum verification information
The controlled gate instruction should state what evidence is needed for an ordinary delivery. Depending on the site and its risk assessment, this may include a booking or order reference, the organisation making the delivery, the intended recipient or work area, and the vehicle or driver information already supplied through the approved process.
Do not turn the gate into an informal data-collection exercise. Record only the information the organisation has decided is necessary, explain any visitor or driver process, and protect the resulting record. Avoid asking a driver to reveal information in front of other waiting visitors, and do not display delivery schedules or internal contacts where they can be casually read.
A visual match alone is not confirmation. Branded clothing, a familiar courier name or knowledge of an employee’s name can support a check, but it should not replace the site’s approval route. Equally, a minor administrative difference should not lead the guard to invent a new rule; it should trigger the agreed exception process.
Use an independent approval route
When a delivery is not on the expected list, the officer should contact the authorised site role through a number or system already held in the controlled instruction. Relying only on a telephone number supplied by the driver defeats the purpose of an independent check.
The instruction should name the decision-maker for normal hours, the alternative for other agreed periods, and the outcome if neither can be reached. That outcome might be a safe wait, a rearranged delivery or refusal, but it must suit the site. A security officer should not feel pressured to admit a vehicle because a queue is forming, a contractor says the work is urgent or a delivery window is closing.
At shared premises, make clear whether each occupier approves its own deliveries or whether a managing agent controls the entrance. The existing guide to visitor sponsorship at shared commercial premises explains the same underlying principle: the security function needs a named sponsor and a reliable authorisation route.
Plan a safe hold or refusal
An unconfirmed vehicle still has to be managed safely. The site plan should account for vehicle size, turning requirements, pedestrians, public roads, other arrivals and emergency access. Do not improvise a holding place that blocks a footway, creates a reversing hazard or leaves the driver exposed to moving plant.
For construction sites, HSE says vehicle and pedestrian routes must be organised so they can be used safely. Its construction traffic-management guidance covers suitable routes, visibility, signs, lighting and segregation. Those controls remain relevant while a delivery is being verified; security screening should not create a new workplace-transport risk.
The officer also needs a clear way to communicate the decision. “Not authorised yet” is different from “permanently refused”. Record who made the decision and any next step the driver was given, without disclosing private site details or arguing about information the officer is not authorised to share.
Keep the gate instruction aligned with site changes
Delivery arrangements often change during a construction phase, refurbishment, tenant move or peak operational period. A booking process that worked last month may point to an entrance or contact that is no longer current. Review the instruction when delivery points, working areas, responsible managers or traffic controls change.
HSE’s site-rules guidance includes traffic management, pedestrian routes, restricted areas and emergency arrangements. The security brief should reflect those current rules without reproducing sensitive route detail in public-facing material.
The article on rewriting guarding instructions as construction phases change provides a practical review trigger. A signed instruction is not evidence that it remains suitable after the layout or responsibilities have changed.
Decide what happens at a raised threat level
Some organisations apply tighter delivery restrictions during a raised threat level or following a security incident. ProtectUK advises that a policy for restricting deliveries to those considered essential should define leadership, information sharing, records and the capacity to turn away unwanted vehicles.
That is not a reason for an individual guard to introduce extra searches or refuse all arrivals without authority. The organisation should decide in advance who activates the enhanced procedure, how affected departments are told, what screening is permitted, and when normal arrangements resume.
If a delivered item or vehicle raises a specific safety concern, stop ordinary processing and follow the relevant emergency plan. Do not touch, open or move a suspicious item to clear the gate. The separate guide to suspicious-item security briefs explains the assessment, emergency-call and access-control roles without publishing site-specific response details.
Set boundaries for K9 and static guarding
A static guard may be assigned booking checks, access control, communication and incident recording. A K9 team may provide agreed guarding and visible deterrence, but the presence of a security dog does not turn the team into a vehicle-search, detection or freight-inspection service.
If a dog team works near the gate, plan separation from drivers, passengers, pedestrians and moving vehicles. The handler should retain control of the dog, and staff should follow the agreed contact procedure rather than approaching the team unexpectedly. Specialist detection work requires separate capability, training and scope confirmation; it should never be implied by an ordinary K9 guarding assignment.
The current K9 and guarding services page describes static gatehouse, access-control and reporting duties as matters to agree for the assignment. It also makes clear that patrol routes, contact with workers, safe access and dog welfare depend on the particular site.
Keep a useful, proportionate record
The delivery record should help the site explain what happened, not become a notebook of unnecessary personal detail. A useful entry may show the time of arrival, the delivery organisation or reference, the decision requested, the authorised person consulted, the outcome and any factual safety issue. Corrections should remain transparent.
Agree where the record is kept, who may access it and how exceptions are handed over. If a vehicle is asked to return later, the next shift should not have to reconstruct the decision from memory. At the same time, do not copy access instructions, codes or detailed internal movements into a general incident log.
Questions to settle before the next delivery
- What information confirms an expected delivery?
- Who can approve an unscheduled delivery, and who deputises?
- What happens when the authorised contact cannot be reached?
- Where can an unconfirmed vehicle wait or turn safely?
- Who authorises loading or unloading after entry?
- How are pedestrians, K9 teams and vehicle movements separated?
- What changes during a raised threat level or site emergency?
- What information is recorded, protected and handed over?
- Which site changes require the gate instruction to be rewritten?
Discuss the individual gatehouse requirement
For a guarding enquiry, provide the site postcode, site type, proposed shift hours, normal visitor and delivery activity, and the duties you want considered. Send the requirement to K9 Security Services so the scope, staffing and feasibility can be assessed for the individual premises. Do not include access codes, detailed routes, delivery schedules or private vulnerabilities in an initial enquiry.
Featured image: an authentic company archive photograph of a marked security vehicle. It is used as a general guarding illustration and does not depict a delivery, gatehouse, client site or specific deployment.