LICENSING BOARD

Document Sample
LICENSING BOARD Powered By Docstoc
					LICENSING BOARD                                          Agenda Item:          7
                              Ward:                All
                              Portfolio:           Planning & Environment

FROM:             Charles Uzzell –
                                                   Date: 26th September 05
                  Business Manager

SUBJECT:          Glastonbury Festival 2005 De-brief Report

                       This report represents a de-brief to the Licensing Board on the
Summary:               Glastonbury Festival 2005 in relation to matters covered by the
                       Public Entertainment Licence issued by Mendip District Council .
                       See Report
Recommendation:
                       Directly – Safer Cleaner Streets
Links to Priorities:
                       Indirectly – Greater Prosperity & Better Resource Management
                       This report is to de-brief Members, the actions stemming from it
Impact on Service
                       will only have an impact on Business Plans if an application is
Plans:
                       submitted for a future Glastonbury Festival
                       This report is to de-brief Members, the actions stemming from it
Financial
                       will only have a financial implication if an application is submitted
Implications:
                       for a future Glastonbury Festival
                       The legal implications of this report relate to any breaches of the
                       Public Entertainment Licence. There were a small number of
Legal
                       minor technical breaches which it is considered it would not be in
Implications:
                       the public interest to pursue having regard to the circumstances
                       surrounding them.
Crime and              The way the Festival is managed and the Public Entertainment
Disorder               Licence conditions imposed and adhered to has a significant
Implications:          impact on crime and disorder issues
Equalities
Implications:          None

                       The risks associated with Glastonbury Festival, if left unmanaged
                       would be very high. However, the 2005 Festival was considered
                       to be well managed by all key partners substantially mitigating the
Risk Assessment:       risks. It still needs to be recognized that although the risks are
                       now considered to be within acceptable limits the impact of a
                       major incident at the Festival could be substantial.
INTRODUCTION

This report represents a de-brief to the Licensing Board on the Glastonbury
Festival 2005 in relation to matters covered by the Public Entertainment Licence
issued by Mendip District Council. The report comprises an overview supported
by individual specialist reports from Mendip Officers, attached at Appendix 1.
There are also reports submitted from other agencies to be considered as part of
the de-brief process, attached at Appendix 2. In addition, an audit report from
the „Gold Audit Team‟ which is made up of senior representatives from
Glastonbury Festivals, Avon & Somerset Constabulary and Mendip District
Council will be circulated separately from this report but is to be considered in
conjunction with it..

From a Mendip District Council perspective the detail and key issues relating to
the de-brief are contained within the specialist officer reports and cover the
following areas:

      Health & Safety
      Food Hygiene
      Sanitation
      Camping
      Water
      Village & Off-Site
      Environmental Noise Control
      Medical & Welfare Report
      Security Planning and Attendance Auditing
      Major Incident Planning
      Multi-Agency Partnership Working
      Waste Management
      Impact of Serve Weather on Friday 24th June 05

The Council‟s Licensing Board granted a Public Entertainment Licence (PEL) to
Melvin Benn to hold Glastonbury Festival 2005. The event was licensed from
08:00hrs on Wednesday 22nd June until 17:00hrs Monday 27th June 2005
for an attendance of 150,000 (except during the period from 00:01 hours Sunday
26th June 2005 until 01:00 hours Monday 27 th June 2005 when the cumulative
total shall not exceed a total of 153,000 persons)


2005 Festival

The 2005 Glastonbury Festival, as a whole, was very well planned, managed and
implemented. It is considered the principle foundation for this success was the
effective co-operation between multi-agency partners in delivering a safe, secure
and controlled event. Key to this multi-agency working is the tri-partite working
arrangement between Glastonbury Festivals Ltd, Avon and Somerset
Constabulary, and Mendip District Council. The Management structure for the
tri-partite group is that used by the emergency services of:
      Gold – Overall command (MDC Charles Uzzell)
      Silver- Operational control (MDC – 3 silver commanders: Suzanne
        McCutcheon, Chris Malcolmson and Jo Hammonds)
      Bronze – Specific/Specialist managers (MDC had 12 bronze officers)

The Council‟s officers who were involved in managing/monitoring the Festival
conducted themselves with the up-most professionalism and provided an
excellent service. I consider particular recognition should go to MDC Silver and
Jason Kirkwood (Licensing Officer) whose contribution to the planning and
management of the event, with regard to monitoring of the PEL, made a
significant contribution to its success.

Primarily the Council‟s direct involvement in the Festival relates to the issuing,
monitoring and, if required, enforcement of the PEL. The PEL contained 113
conditions, some of the conditions are referred to as “milestone” conditions which
require the submission of certain information by a defined date before the
Festival, an example of such a condition is the submission of the Emergency
Plan. All milestone conditions were complied with, with the exception of a
technical breach of condition A14 relating to insurance, see below.

There was a delay in the submission of the information required to satisfy
condition A14 (Insurance) which was a technical breach, although the required
information was submitted in a satisfactory manner. The Council conditioned
that the Festival has adequate public liability insurance cover for each Festival
since 2002. Glastonbury Festival is the only PEL that the council conditions the
requirement for Public Liability Insurance

During the Festival there were some minor breaches of licence conditions during
the event that are addressed in the specialist officer reports. It is considered
inevitable during an event of the scale of Glastonbury Festival there will be
technical/minor breaches of conditions. However, it is considered the response
to these breaches is the key issue and the Licensee and Glastonbury Festival
Management team managed the issues effectively to stop the breach from
occurring or effectively mitigate its impact.

Weather Impact

Members will be aware that on the Friday 24th June the Festival site was affected
by flooding due to heavy rainfall. The impact of this adverse weather is detailed
in a report at Appendix 1.

As a result of the heavy rainfall, this type of rainfall is only likely to occur once in
approximately every 100 years, the site became flooded and members of the
public effectively found themselves destitute on site, their tents having been
flooded. In response an on-site welfare operation was put in place by
Glastonbury Festival working in partnership with the other agencies on site,
including the Council. The Council‟s Silver control was requested to assist with
the provision of blankets, clothes and the sourcing of tents (to be purchased by
GFL). The conventional route for assistance via Emergency Planning at
Somerset County Council was helpful in terms of sourcing blankets. However,
they were not able to provide the required clothes or tents at such short notice,
although they were able to provide contact numbers of other organizations such
as the Salvation Army who maybe better placed to assist. To ensure those
members of the public who were destitute and being housed in temporary
welfare centres on site had dry clothes and a tent if they wanted to stay at the
Festival MDC Silver, Suzanne McCutcheon, contacted local charity shops
requesting clothing donations, local members of the public to assist in getting the
clothes to the Festival site and also arranged for a local supermarket to stay
open late so 50 tents and 120 sleeping bags could be collected from their store.
In recognition of this excellent local effort it is considered the Council should
formally acknowledge the contributions made by:
     The following charity shops in Shepton Mallet:
           o Help the Aged
           o The Salvation Army
           o Sue Ryder
     Local residents:
           o Mrs M Sapseed
           o Mrs M Grindell
           o Mr J & Mrs E McCutcheon
     Somerfield in Shepton Mallet for opening at 10pm on Friday 24 th June to
       enable the collection of tents and sleeping bags.


Need to Condition Insurance?

As referred to above, there was a delay in the submission of the information
required to satisfy condition A14 (Insurance) which was a technical breach of the
milestone condition, although the required information was submitted in a
satisfactory manner. The delay was due to the Licensee having difficulty in
complying with the wording of the condition that required an independent
insurance broker to approve the level of cover obtained. The Council has
conditioned that the Festival has adequate public liability insurance cover since
the 2002 Festival, the condition also required that the Council agree the level of
cover, this was changed to 2005 so an independent broker approved the level of
cover. Glastonbury Festival is the only PEL that the Council conditions the
requirement for Public Liability Insurance. In addition, it is considered that the
legality of conditioning the requirement for public liability insurance is a “grey
area”. As the Council has conditioned the provision of public liability insurance
for a number of years it is considered the Council would be unwise to remove the
need for the condition without first obtaining legal opinion on the appropriateness
of conditioning the requirement for public liability insurance and the legal
implications for continuing to use this condition or removing it.
Summary

The reports at Appendix 1 and 2 detail officer and other agency comment and
recommendations.

In summary:
     The event was very successful
     The Milestone Conditions were all satisfactorily met by the set deadlines
      (with the exception of insurance condition A14).
     There were some breaches of the PEL which are considered to be minor.
     MDC monitoring of the event was highly professional and comprehensive
     The Festival was thought by most to be an improvement on the very
      successful 2004 event.
     The impact on local communities was considered to have improved from
      2004, particularly the improvement in the management of environmental
      noise control.
     The approach to noise control was radically changed from 2004 with
      additional resources enabling a much more pro-active approach and also
      much improved partnership working between GFL and MDC. It is true that
      atmospheric conditions were favourable in reducing the noise impact on
      Pilton. However, GFL‟s approach to noise control was positive and pro-
      active and there is no reason to assume that they would have taken a
      different approach had the atmospheric conditions been different.
     The multi-agency partnership working should be seen as an exemplar of
      major events such as this Festival.
     The camping area provided in 2005 was not considered sufficient for the
      number of tickets sold, additional public camping area needs to be
      provided at future events if the number of tickets remains the same.

An event of this size and complexity can always be improved and this is no
exception. The Tri-partite working relationship ensures the key partners deal
effectively with issues as they arise and is also considered to promote innovation.

The three Festival‟s since 2002 have demonstrated significant year-on-year
improvement. It is considered the 2005 Festival should now be regarded as the
starting point to implement improvements if there is a future event.

The information we have received strongly indicates there will not be a Festival
application for 2006 but they will be an application for an event in 2007. This
report recognizes the effective co-operation between multi-agency partners was
the most important factor in delivering a safe, secure and controlled Glastonbury
Festival 2005. There is a risk that the “year-off” will adversely affect the
continuous improvement that has been associated with the event since 2002, as
all the partner organizations will have to invest more time in re-familiarizing
themselves with the Festival. There will be a pause in the learning and
improvement process. To mitigate any adverse impact this will bring Galstonbury
Festivals and the other partner agencies are encouraged to hold pre-application
meeting(s) in 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

The recommendations of all the MDC specialist reports attached at Appendix 1
are consolidated below.
Health & Safety
     1) The organisation should be commended for the way they manage health
        and safety and on their ability to cope with extremes of weather. There
        is of course scope for improvement and building on the successes
        already achieved. The areas that require further work relate principally
        to workplace transport.

Food Hygiene
    2) An Emergency Strategy must be drawn up by the market organiser for
       dealing with extreme weather conditions. This would give clear
       guidelines and rules to the market managers and incorporate a waste
       food strategy.
    3) No siting of mobile food units in areas more prone to flooding.
    4) It must be stressed to food traders that temperature control of food is a
       legal requirement and must be complied with.
    5) Plastic wrist bands be issued to food traders.
    6) Re-introduce training for the market managers as there will be new
       legislation in place for any future festival.

Sanitation
    7) Maintain the current cleaning levels of the toilets as generally conditions
        were considered satisfactory, however efforts should continue in trying to
        improve facilities further.
    8) The contractor that provided toilets for the back stage area should be
        encouraged to provide the same service at future events.
    9) Efforts should still continue to encourage Festival-goers to use toilet
        facilities appropriately and to discourage them from polluting the
        environment.

Camping
   10) The camping area as provided in 2005 was not sufficient for the number
       of tickets sold. Additional public camping area needs to be provided at
       future events even if ticket numbers remain constant.
   11) Even with any additional camping area effort will still be required to
       produce camping densities of approximately 650 tents per hectare.
   12) Although the weather conditions were exceptional this year the suitability
       of some of the camping areas was brought into question and
       improvements to public safety in the event of heavy rainfall need
       exploring before any future event.
     13) Large waterproof maps, physical barriers and the use of security jackets
         by campsite stewards were effective at directing the public and should
         be used at any future event.
     14) Improved safety management of the Lost Area Crew camping and The
         Orchard camping is required.

Water
    15) The capacity of the infrastructure needs to be increased.
    16) Un-authorized connections must be prevented.
    17) Consideration should be given to independent sampling of the water.
    18) GF to request their water supply contractors to introduce Quality
        Systems and seek accreditation.

Village & Off-Site
     19) To note the improvements in the Village and Off-Site operation

Environmental Noise Control
    20) Prior to any future event it is recommended that an options analysis
        approach is employed to further examine the noise control mechanisms
        available to the applicant and the Council. Particular consideration
        should be given to how the acoustic energy and distribution and size of
        sound systems can be accommodated on site whilst minimising off site
        impacts given that off site impacts can to a lesser or greater extent be at
        the mercy of the weather conditions prevailing at the time.
    21) Improved control of noise impacts associated with activities which fell
        outside the 2005 licence period (eg staff parties) should be examined
        for any future event. The appraisal should include inter alia the option to
        extend the Licence period and give some consideration to the
        reintroduction of the system of pre-emptive Noise Abatement Notices
        which were employed prior to the 2002 event.

Medical & Welfare Report
    22) The standard of the camping and associated facilities provided for the
        medical staff should be maintained in line with those achieved this year.
    23) A representative of Green Welfare, should be invited to attend pre-
        Festival planning meetings where discussion of contingency plans or
        emergency planning is involved.
    24) The standard of accommodation provided for lost children should be
        maintained as this year with the unit having at least two separate rooms.

Security Planning and Attendance Auditing
    25) The security levels for the Glastonbury Festival 2005 should be
        recognized as a base for any future event. However, the Festival
        Organization will need to review the management and operation of the
        pedestrian and vehicle gates for any future event in order to prevent
        complacency setting in and to return to the high standards of recent
        years.
Major Incident Planning
    26) Mendip District Council should continue to improve its major incident
        planning procedures, particularly for any future Glastonbury Festival
        events.
    27) That all agencies be commended on their efforts and response to the
        adverse weather that affected the site from Friday.
    28) That the good working relationships developed at the Major Incident
        Group meetings be developed further.

Multi-Agency Partnership Working
     29) That support is given to the continuation and development of the multi-
         agency partnership working.

Waste Management
    30) Review traffic management arrangements and explore scope for a
        second location fro collection and sorting of waste to avoid congestion.

Adverse Weather Impact
    31) Members should note the excellent operational and welfare response by
        all agencies and congratulate them on their contribution during this
        difficult time.
    32) Members should encourage the Festival Organisation to work closely
        with the Development Control and Flood Risk Management departments
        of the Environment Agency to reduce the risk of flooding at any future
        event.


It is Recommended that:
     1. Members note the overall improvement of Glastonbury Festival in
        2005.

   2. Members endorse the recommendations listed above

   3. Prior to the issuing of any future Public Entertainment Licence for
      Glastonbury Festival legal opinion is obtained to clarify the
      need/appropriateness to condition that the Licensee has Public
      Liability Insurance as has been required since 2002.

   4. Members should encourage the Festival Organisation to arrange pre-
      application (Public Entertainment Licence application) meeting(s)
      with multi-agency partners in 2006 if there next Festival application
      will be for an event in 2007, to continue the learning and
      improvement process that has been an integral part of the Festival
      since 2002.


Contact Officer:    Charles Uzzell – Business Manager Planning & Environment
Ext No:      204
Appendix 1


MDC Specialist officer reports and cover the following areas:

   1. Health & Safety

   2. Food Hygiene

   3. Sanitation

   4. Camping

   5. Water

   6. Village & Off-Site

   7. Environmental Noise Control

   8. Medical & Welfare Report

   9. Security Planning and Attendance Auditing

   10. Major Incident Planning

   11. Multi-Agency Partnership Working

   12. Waste Management

   13. Adverse Weather Impact
Health and Safety Report
Key Issues

The work of the MDC Health and Safety Teams at Glastonbury Festival has once again
concentrated on the Health and Safety Executive/Local Authorities Enforcement Liaison
Committee (HELA) priorities as laid down in the Health and Safety Executive
Revitalising Agenda. The local Health and Safety Executive Inspector attended the
event again and some joint inspection work was carried out in the spirit of the new
partnership working approach to health and safety at work enforcement.
      Work Place Transport. There was a considerable amount of work carried out
       on workplace transport at the 2004 event and there have been some minor
       amendments to the on site traffic plan this year, including the introduction of
       some one way systems. As a result of the appalling weather additional traffic
       movements had to be made bringing on heavy plant and straw to deal with the
       mud. (See Fig 1)




 Fig.1 Heavy plant used to scoop up mud in the main Arena. Note steward keeping the
public away
       The Stage Road in particular is very busy as it is the main route in for service
       vehicles and performers and there is a need to improve the vehicle and pedestrian
       separation particularly at the crossing point (see Fig. 2).




Fig. 2 Pedestrian crossing Point on Stage Road. Note two way traffic, pedestrians and
steward with loud hailer.
        The traffic chaperoning and curfew systems continued to work reasonably well,
        but there is perhaps scope for further reduction in traffic movements. Poor
        passenger safety observations were also made on a number of occasions,
        perhaps because for some the Glastonbury Festival is not thought to be a “real”
        workplace. There were however two serious accidents reported under RIDDOR
        involving work related vehicles one of which is still being investigated.
       Working at Height. New working at height regulations came into force in April
        2005 and the organisers put a considerable amount of work into briefing Area
        Organisers on their statutory obligations. Some good working practice was
        observed, although there were some problems found with one contractor.
       Musculoskeletal Disorders. The Festival this year coincided with Backs! which
        was a month long joint Local Authority/Health and Safety Executive national
       campaign highlighting back injury at work associated with manual handing.
       Some Backs! inspection work was carried out at the Festival with individual duty
       holders and some awareness raising promotional materials were distributed
       amongst various employers and voluntary groups. Some photographs of good
       practice observed were submitted to the help with a national project undertaken
       by the Health and Safety Laboratory looking at manual handling issues
       associated with portable toilets. Fig.3 demonstrates an example of the sort of
       manual handling issue assessed at the Festival.
      Slips Trips and Falls. The huge numbers of members of the public combined
       with the difficulty in controlling either the weather conditions or footwear of festival
       goers make control measures a challenge for Glastonbury Festival. There were
       issues around tripping hazards associated with the trakway roadways. The
       contractor made efforts to reduce risks by using packing materials and matting,
       but the worst areas were improved by the onset of rain.
      Stress at Work. As yet very little work has been carried out on this topic area
       though it is understood that Glastonbury Festival are working on a policy for their
       own employees. Working conditions and welfare issues for staff and volunteers
       were considered at the Festival.
      Noise at Work. There are still issues around some of the smaller venues
       complying with the Noise at Work requirements.




Fig. 3 Manual Handling – refuse collectors demonstrating a team lift.
Achievements
   The appalling weather conditions on the morning of the 24th June effected all the
      major tented venues and stages. The power supplies had to be turned off and a
      number of the structures were reported to have been struck by lighting (in reality
       no venues were struck). The sheer volume of rainfall was responsible for
       damage to a number of venues including the Theatre (see Fig. 4), Avalon Stage
       and the Lounge which led to delays in these venues opening to the public. The
       majority of venues were able to open by lunch time on the 24 th June which is a
       considerable achievement. The GF health and safety team had been closely
       monitoring weather forecasts all week and were aware that storms were
       expected. The ability of the organization to quickly source and use additional
       materials such as woodchip and straw to reduce slipping hazards as well as
       pumps and equipment to remove water and mud from busy areas is also to be
       commended.
      The development of the Dance Village was a success in terms of crowd
       movements. There is a noticeable difference in the way that crowds move
       around the site with more entertainment available on the east side of the site.
       The Dance Village also provides audiences with alternative late entertainment
       when the main venues close down taking the pressure away from Lost
       Vagueness.




Fig. 4 Remedial work (railway sleepers used as pegs) carried out on Theatre following
rain damage
     There appeared to be a considerable reduction in the number of vehicles
       observed in and around the main arena during popular performances.
     The transition period for colour coding of three phase electrical wiring appears to
       have been managed well.
Conclusions
In terms of Health and Safety at Work this year‟s event went well. It is disappointing that
there were two serious workplace transport related accidents.

Recommendations
The organisation should be commended for the way they manage health and safety and
on their ability to cope with extremes of weather. There is of course scope for
improvement and building on the successes already achieved. The areas that require
further work relate principally to workplace transport.
Marietta Gill                                                                   25/07/05
FOOD HYGIENE
Key Issues

The Council has a Statutory responsibility to inspect all food traders in their area, this
responsibility extends and covers Glastonbury Festival. Over the years more
responsibility has been put onto the Festival Organisers to ensure all the food traders
comply with the relevant food legislation. A total of 341 food traders were identified to
us trading at this years festival a similar number to last year, these traders are spread
around the 25 main market areas and various locations around the site. Our “Survival
Guide” is sent to all food traders either by the Organiser or is available on Mendip‟s web
site. Check lists at the back of the Survival Guide are checked by the Market managers
to ensure all food traders are well prepared and have the necessary basic equipment so
as to start trading. The facilities behind the markets are always monitored, these
include; toilets, waste water skips, refuse skips, water stand pipes, electrical and gas
supply.



Achievements
 A total of 10 food safety teams were used through the duration of the festival. These
  consisted of Environmental Health Officers(not Mendip staff) with EHO students, the
  students come from all over the country to gain valuable experience at such a unique
  event, this experience is required for their professional log books
 A total of 53 food traders were inspected, 15 were new traders who were targeted for
  inspection, 30 food traders who came from Mendip, 3 Official caterers and 7 random
  inspections. Numerous revisits took place due to the adverse weather conditions
  causing extensive flooding.
 Unfortunately due to the extensive flooding the Food Hygiene Inspection plan was
  put on hold whilst all available Food Officers were sent to those food traders who
  were affected by floodwaters. Numerous food traders had to cease trading as
  floodwaters flooded kitchens and contaminated foodstuffs.
 The Food Teams with the co-operation of the Organiser‟s staff worked very hard to
  ensure those food traders affected were able to re-open once the floodwater had
  subsided and all contaminated food removed.
 A total of 5 food traders caused concern to the food officers such as inadequate food
  storage, poor temperature control and lack of confidence. Although after numerous
  visits standards were improved we will be recommending these traders are not
  invited back to the next festival.
 One off site security caterer was a concern to food officers due to poor management,
  lack of facilities and totally unprepared. Restrictions were put on these caterers as to
  the type of food that could be prepared safely on site.
 No problems with off-site food traders as a result of illegal car parks not operating,
  the extension of the street trading restrictions and the road closures.
 We received very few complaints regarding the provision of toilet facilities and the
  standard of cleaning. Generally the conditions behind the markets was good.
   The food teams were issued with infra-red thermometers, a recent investment, to
    check food temperatures, these proved extremely useful as temperature control by
    food traders was an issue.



Conclusions
 Food temperature control was an issue for traders and food officers. One company
  that was supplying refrigeration failed to make deliveries.
 Difficulties were experienced by traders needing to dispose of contaminated food.
 Vulnerable food stalls being sited in potential flood areas.
 The issue of cloth wrist bands to food traders was found to be unhygienic.
 No reported food poisoning outbreak or cases to date.
 Continued good co-operation between MDC and the festival organisers.
Recommendations
 An Emergency Strategy must be drawn up by the market organiser for dealing with
  extreme weather conditions. This would give clear guidelines and rules to the
  market managers and incorporate a waste food strategy.
 No siting of mobile food units in areas more prone to flooding.
 It must be stressed to food traders that temperature control of food is a legal
  requirement and must be complied with.
 Plastic wrist bands be issued to food traders.
 Re-introduce training for the market managers as there will be new legislation in
  place for any future festival.




Jo Hammonds
25 July 2005
                                  Sanitation Report

Key Issues

   In order to audit cleaning crews throughout the event the toilet cleaning company
    was asked to introduce a method for indicating when the toilets had last been
    cleaned. A sticker system was introduced and the cleaning supervisors were to stick
    the completed sticker on the toilet block after they had been checked. Initially this
    proved useful but by the weekend the information became less reliable or non
    existent.

Achievements

   Testing for dissolved ammonia in surface water was carried out and found to be
    within acceptable tolerances throughout the duration of the Festival. The highest
    levels within the site were picked up at midnight on the 25th June. A theory put
    forward for this by the water quality monitoring consultants, given the location of the
    testing points affected, was that it could have been due to the large crowds around
    the Pyramid stage at this time.

   The monitoring of two particular sets of toilet blocks (TP55 & TP57) was continued
    this year as standards of cleanliness at these blocks was deemed to be poor last
    year. These units do not have a water points adjacent to them and justification for
    their use was to encourage Festival-goers to use proper facilities rather than pollute
    the surface water by using ditches as an alternative. Due to problems in 2004 with
    maintaining adequate water supplies in the individual units it was agreed this year
    that the units would have sanitizer dispensers inside them instead. The majority of
    these dispensers were maintained in good working order throughout the event and
    were an improvement on the facilities provided in 2004.

   Despite the above in general the attitude of the Festival-goer continued to show
    positive signs of change with regard urinating in ditches and hedges.

   All urinal tanks were certified as water tight prior to the event.

   Slurry lagoon levels were maintained below 50% for the duration of the Festival
    (rainwater may have contributed to levels being slightly higher than in 2004).

   Over 200 checks were carried out throughout the duration of the event by Mendip
    staff to monitor the cleanliness of the toilets. With a reduced number of monitors this
    year it was not possible to produce statistics as in 2004 to demonstrate level of
    cleanliness but on the whole the standard of cleanliness throughout the duration of
    the Festival was satisfactory.

   In 2004 the cleanliness of the toilets on the Monday after the event was poor. This
    year the standard of cleanliness was better and cleaning crews were witnessed
    cleaning.
   Back stage toilets were under the management of a specific contractor and the
    standards of cleanliness achieved at these units was good.


Conclusions

   GFL have continued to make improvements in this area and staff appeared to be
    working well which should be commended given the in testing conditions in some
    cases.

Recommendations

   Maintain the current cleaning levels of the toilets as generally conditions were
    considered satisfactory, however efforts should continue in trying to improve facilities
    further.

   The contractor that provided toilets for the back stage area should be encouraged to
    provide the same service at future events.

   Efforts should still continue to encourage Festival-goers to use toilet facilities
    appropriately and to discourage them from polluting the environment.


Claire Malone
28th July 05
CAMPING REPORT

Key Issues
 The most acute issue of 2005 occurred on the morning of Friday 24th June when
  extreme weather conditions caused flash flooding in several areas of the public
  camping fields. Despite pumps being brought into remove the flood water from these
  areas it was clear that camping would no longer be possible and Glastonbury
  Festival set up 2 emergency camping areas. These areas were located outside the
  main fence however security was placed on the entrances to both areas to ensure
  the safety of the campers that chose to relocate. Toilets and water supply were
  provided at both emergency sites at very short notice. It is estimated that
  approximately 300-400 tents relocated to these areas.

   Given the relocation of campers this year, due to the flooding, the statistics may not
    be deemed as reliable however, given that the tents relocated off-site were not
    included in the statistics and the areas flooded within the site were, a fair comparison
    can still be made to previous years. The average density of tents across the site was
    811 tents per hectare. This is a small increase on 2004 but continues the pattern of
    increasing average densities since 2002. Observation of the campsites in the early
    evening of Thursday 23rd supports these statistics as there was little camping area
    readily available even when the public attendance figure was still only just under
    84,000.

   The public camping area was reduced shortly before the event putting the existing
    provision under further pressure, already reported in 2004 to be at full capacity. This
    reduction, caused by the increase in entertainment areas was to be off set against
    extra staff camping being made available elsewhere. Staff where then to be
    encouraged to camp in these areas rather than in public camping areas. The extra
    staff camping area however was not made available when the event took place.

   As a result of the uncertainty of the area provided for public camping aerial
    photographs were requested this year from the Police so that a more accurate figure
    could be obtained. From using the aerial photographs and a geographical
    information system (GIS) it can be estimated that the area devoted to public camping
    is only about 95 hectares. This does still not take into account the areas unavailable
    for camping due to the presence of emergency roads, medical facilities, hedges and
    other geographical features and toilets.

   Staff camping in the Lost Field was totally unmanaged and unacceptable as there
    was no segregation between cars, campervans and tents. The adjacent staff
    camping fields, that had previously been problematic, successfully achieved vehicle
    segregation this year with the exception of The Orchard. Here a small improvement
    was noted but more effort is required as vehicles should not be allowed to drive onto
    or off of areas where tents are pitched as a serious injury could occur.
Achievements

   The general management of the campsites was good. Campsite crews at gates
    were much more proactive than in 2005.

   Campsite crews, Glastonbury Festivals Ltd and all the other agencies worked well
    together to ensure that the majority of the Festival-goers affected by the severe
    weather were safe and well and able to enjoy the rest of the Festival if they chose to
    do so.

   The management of the caravan/campervan fields was much improved.

Conclusions

   The change in size of the entertainment venues had a negative impact on an already
    stretched public camping area resulting in a further increase of camping densities
    across site. Given the evidence from the GIS, aerial photographs and inability of the
    campsite stewards to make any impact into reducing campsite densities over the
    past 3 years the conclusion this year is that there is insufficient area provided for
    public camping.

   Management issues still need addressing in the Lost Area Crew camping and in the
    The Orchard.

Recommendations

   The camping area as provided in 2005 was not sufficient for the number of tickets
    sold. Additional public camping area needs to be provided at future events even if
    ticket numbers remain constant.

   Even with any additional camping area effort will still be required to produce camping
    densities of approximately 650 tents per hectare.

   Although the weather conditions were exceptional this year the suitability of some of
    the camping areas was brought into question and improvements to public safety in
    the event of heavy rainfall need exploring before any future event.

   Large waterproof maps, physical barriers and the use of security jackets by campsite
    stewards were effective at directing the public and should be used at any future
    event.

   Improved safety management of the Lost Area Crew camping and The Orchard
    camping is required.



Claire Malone        29th July 05
Water Report
Key Issues
A wholesome supply of water to all areas of the festival site is required for drinking and
for food preparation by both campers and concessionaires. Continuous availability is
also essential for basic hygiene. The greatest risk of contamination to the supply is back
siphonage due to loss of pressure or excessive demand on parts of the system. The
cleanliness of the system and wholesomeness of the supply needs to be tested well
before the event to allow time for any necessary remedial action. Monitoring of water
quality should continue as long as festival goers are using the supply. Contingency
arrangements are essential to cover any major loss of supply due to major bursts,
contamination etc. Chlorination control in 2004 was much improved on 2003
Achievements
The Water Supply Contingency Plan was much improved. Quantitative issues had been
addressed and a site plan detailing emergency water points was provided.
Conclusions
Cleanliness of system was not demonstrated until slightly after the milestone date but
was demonstrated well before the site was open to the public.
More than 20% of water points were without water on at least one occasion during the
festival. This may be due at least in part to the level of demand. There had been some
vandalism and a number on unauthorized connections.
Chlorination control was not as good as the previous year although the problem was with
slight over-chlorination, so the issue was taste rather than public health.
Bacteriological quality was again excellent throughout festival apart from two failures on
the last Monday. The only explanation for this is the extensive washing of boots etc on
this day.
Water usage at 8.2 megalitres was up around 37% on the previous year and closer to
that in 2003.
Recommendations
    1) The capacity of the infrastructure needs to be increased.

   2) Un-authorized connections must be prevented.

   3) Consideration should be given to independent sampling of the water.

   4) GF to request their water supply contractors to introduce Quality Systems and
      seek accreditation.




Officer Name          Brian Wibberley
Date                   15 July 2005
Village & Off-Site
Key Issues

This report explains the operation of the Village Operation and associated Village Drop
in Centre (VDC) set up jointly between Glastonbury Festivals Ltd. (GFL), the Police and
Mendip District Council (MDC).

The main aims of the Village Operation were to:

1. Ensure that all GFL arrangements relating to off-site license conditions (including car
   parks) were scrutinised.
2. Minimise the impact of the festival upon the normal functioning of the villages of
   Pilton, Pylle, West Pennard and East Pennard, including the provision of an off-site
   security team manned by Gainsborough Security Ltd.
3. Provide an accessible focal point for queries or complaints from local residents.
4. Provide dedicated staff to deal with those queries or complaints.
5. Collect and collate statistics relating to complaints from residents.

Achievements

1.   Licence conditions - GFL's arrangements (as provided in Licence Submissions)
     relating to Transport, Car parking and Off-site security were checked prior to the
     festival - there were no major issues identified and no amendments made to these.

2.   Impact of the festival on villages - as with in previous years, all of the villagers
     within the parishes of Pilton, Pylle, West Pennard, and East Pennard were mail-
     shot by GFL, giving them details of the VDC, its opening hours, and telephone
     number. The information also included road closures, clearways, one way streets,
     refuse collections, etc.

3.   Traffic Congestion – last year a recommendation to carry out a detailed study into
     traffic flows in and around the village in an effort to reduce traffic movements
     through the village resulted in agreements to reduce traffic flows. It was observed
     that traffic flows were considerably reduced this year and the village of Pilton was
     less congested.

4.   Castle Cary Railway Station – improvements have been made to the train
     operation prior to this years event.

5.   Focal point for complaints - in line with 2004 the “Tripartite Group” which
     consisted of the Police, Glastonbury Festivals Ltd, and Mendip District Council
     worked very well together to set-up and man the VDC in the Village Hall in St
     Mary‟s Lane, Pilton. The centre was open 24 hours per day from 8:00am on
     Wednesday 23rd June till 10:00pm on Monday 28th June.

     One change from 2004 was the decision and agreement for GFL to reduce their
     staffing at the village office with their presence being covered by Gainsborough
        Security. To summarise the office was manned by the MDC, the Police and
        Gainsborough Security.

        The 17 VDC shifts were covered by 9 staff predominately from MDC customer
        Services.

 6.     Dedicated village officers - the Council also had one off-site monitoring team in a
        landrover, in total 17 shifts were covered by 12 MDC staff.

        Their role was to monitor the licence conditions off-site, which included security
        arrangements in the village, the operation of the Traffic Management Plan, rubbish
        collection, car parks, make additional noise observations and monitor GFL‟s
        response to complaints.

        In addition to these general duties one change for 2005 was an improved
        procedure for monitoring and dealing with noise complaints and a close working
        relationship between the village officers and MDC noise team and GFL‟s noise
        consultants

 7.     Complaint statistics - the following table provides a summary of the complaints
        received at the VDC during the period from 8:00am on Wednesday 23rd June till
        10:00pm on Monday 28th June.

                                     Number of Complaints                   Number of
                                                                           Complainants
                                                                Note when lodging complaints some
                                                             complainants mentioned more than one item.
Type of Complaint                  2003     2004      2005          2004                   2005
Amplified music                     19       27         8            14                      7
Fireworks                           19        7         2             6                      2
Food Safety Complaint                         1         2             1                      2
Fouling                             1         3                       3
GFL Security                        8         4         3             4                       3
Helicopter Noise                    9         6         2             3                       2
Illegal festival entry attempted    2                   1                                     1
Illegal parking or camping         12         2         3             2                       3
Interrupted Village Access         15         5         6             5                       5
Lighting                            1                   1                                     1
Miscellaneous                      12        11        11             10                     11
Noise other                         1
Odour Nuisance                                3                       3
Property damage                     2
Rubbish                             1         2                       2
Theft                               6
Ticket touts                        4         4                       4
Traffic Congestion                 10         8         3             8                       3
Traffic noise                       1
Trespass                           33         8         4             6                       4

Total Complaints                   156       91        46            (49)                   (44)
Conclusions

1.   Licence conditions - there were no breaches of licence conditions which relate to
     the village, village security or transport arrangements.

2.   Impact of the festival on villages - it appears that, given the much reduced
     complaint statistics, the impact of the festival has once again reduced considerably
     this year, this is especially true in relation to crime illegal parking, traffic congestion
     and trespass. Observations from village officers show that noise levels in the
     village of Pilton were also considerably lower than in previous years.

     I do however understand that complaints from other villages (including East and
     West Pennard) indicates that the effects of weather conditions which were unusual
     for the area may have had an effect on both the number and location of noise
     complaints.

3.   Traffic Arrangements – last year a recommendation to carry out a detailed study
     into traffic flows in and around the village in an effort to reduce traffic movements
     through the village resulted in agreements to reduce traffic flows. It was observed
     that traffic flows were considerably reduced this year and the village of Pilton was
     less congested.

4.   Castle Cary Railway Station – observations made by village officers did not
     reveal any problems or congestion associated with persons using the station or
     traffic in the immediate vicinity.

5.   Focal point for complaints - the VDC operated without any problems and
     remains a very important resource for the villagers giving an immediate and
     accessible focal point for complaints.

6.   Dedicated village officers - there were no staffing issues and all shifts were
     headed by officers who were fully conversant with Environmental Health issues
     and with years of experience of the Festival.

7.   Complaint statistics - the installation of a new telephone system allowed extra
     control of the VDC operation by MDC staff, in turn this resulted in a more accurate
     and consistent data capture of complaint statistics.




Recommendations

To note the improvements in the Village and Off-Site operation.


Graham Blanksby – 26th August 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE CONTROL
Key Issues
During the 2005 festival the comprehensive sound system schedule and curfew
operation provided for a much improved and more robust approach to managing noise.
The framework was made workable by the deployment of additional noise consultants
appointed by GFL. The partnership working between MDC noise Teams and GFL‟s
consultants (Capita Symonds) was noticeably improved this year as a result of lessons
learnt from 2004. It was felt however that the GFL noise management and control was
under resourced on both Wednesday and Thursday leading up to the event.
The low number of noise complaints this year is indicative of the view that noise control
was better than in 2004, and furthermore, there was more or less a universal
perception of a much lesser impact on the nearest village receptor, Pilton.
It must also be noted that in 2005 the atmospheric weather conditions appeared to be
favourable in terms of noise affecting Pilton. Conversely elevated noise levels were
experienced at both Pennard Hill Farm and Mount Pleasant (Sticklynch). It is believed
that the meterological conditions played a significant part in taking the noise away from
nearby residential development to the north and east of the site. Noise propogation off
site appeared to be polarised resulting in disproportiate channelling in the South to
West quartile effectively picking up Sticklynch, West Pennard and Baltonsborough.

Some venues were discovered which either did not have authorisation or exceeded
agreed sound system sizes. The approach by GFL to allow certain larger venues to
operate at increased sizes under “closer management “ appeared to create an
additional burden on GFL noise consultants and increased the acoustic power on site
over what had been agreed. Purely from a noise control point of view, the practice of
permitting systems (bigger than agreed) to operate is considered to carry inherent risks
when the size and distribution of sounds sources on site are already significant. The
effectiveness of subsequent noise control measures had the potential to be undermined
and this was exacerbated by atmospheric conditions during the event which appeared to
bring a strong directional vector to off site noise propagation. Consequently it was
possible to experience a cacophony of sound sources detected in the Pennard HiIl
area, at certain times during the event and unfortunately the reduction of individual
sound sources in such instances appeared only to have limited benefit.
Officers on duty throughout the night time period discovered sound sources which were
identified as discernible and audible sources and some of these proved to be the “usual
suspects”. Through joint working with GFL noise consultants it was possible in nearly all
cases to track these down and arrange for noise levels to be reduced within a short
period of time. It is known also that GFL noise consultants were proactive in detecting
and taking their own actions to reduce sound sources without MDC intervention.
It was disappointing that some post festival noise problems with off site impacts were
experienced due to “staff parties” despite efforts by MDC officers involvement and
advice regarding the holding of these activities. It should be noted that these parties
were held outside the Licenced period and therefore not subject to the Licence
conditions and as a result of the co-operation during the 2004 event officers were led
into thinking that this “perennial” issue had been finally resolved and were therefore
disappointed with what transpired after the 2005 event.
Summary of Achievements

       Noise control Framework provided for better noise management and control than
        previous events
       Sound system schedule and curfew provided workable framework
       Resources much improved and better partnership working between GFL/MDC
       GFL noise consultants proactive work much improved as festival progressed
       GFL intervened on The Crown and several unauthorized systems seized
       Lack of noise affecting Pilton (atmospheric conditions favoured Pilton)
       Low number of complaints due to music noise
       Improved management / control with respect to other noise sources such as
        fireworks and sound systems in camping and car park areas


Conclusions

GFL Noise management and control was considered to have moved forward
significantly as a result of the experience of 2004 and subsequent measures adopted.
The enhanced partnership working between MDC and noise consultants appointed by
GFL enabled a more proactive approach to noise control.

It has long been recognized that the festival site is host to a very significant amount of
acoustic energy, in total exceeding 0.5 million watts during main stage hours. This year
the weather conditions is considered to have played a significant part in preventing
noise impacts affecting the village of Pilton and the channeling of noise towards the
South and West which was at times quite pronounced.


Recommendations


       33) Prior to any future event it is recommended that an options analysis approach
           is employed to further examine the noise control mechanisms available to the
           applicant and the Council. Particular consideration should be given to how the
           acoustic energy and distribution and size of sound systems can be
           accommodated on site whilst minimising off site impacts given that off site
           impacts can to a lesser or greater extent be at the mercy of the weather
           conditions prevailing at the time.

       34) Improved control of noise impacts associated with activities which fell outside
           the 2005 licence period (eg staff parties) should be examined for any future
           event. The appraisal should include inter alia the option to extend the Licence
           period and give some consideration to the reintroduction of the system of pre-
           emptive Noise Abatement Notices which were employed prior to the 2002
           event.


Curtis Lakin, 15th August 2005
MEDICAL & WEALFARE REPORT
Key Issues

   On the Friday morning there was an exceptional downpour with a reported three
    inches of rain falling on the site within a very short period of time. This caused
    significant flooding of low-lying parts of the site, particularly in the markets and at the
    bottom of Pennard Hill. A number of Festival-goers were affected and this saw an
    increase in the use of both the Welfare and Medical facilities.

   Green Welfare experienced problems with the delivery of their flooring and although
    informed that it was ordered and would be arriving it failed to turn up at all. This
    unfortunately led to the internal area of the marquee becoming very muddy after
    Fridays downpour and although service continued the internal environment was far
    from ideal for counseling distressed Festival-goers.

   Green Welfare have never been involved in any pre-Festival planning meetings or
    invited to meetings during the Festival and as a result are unaware of site wide
    contingency plans in the event of minor or major incidents. During the aftermath of
    the downpour they were unaware of the resources that could have been made
    available to them to aid distressed Festival-goers that turned up at their marquee.

Achievements

   The main medical and welfare facilities were all set up on time (with the exception of
    the Green Field Welfare due to the flooring problems) and operating on time.

   The camping, toilets and shower facilities for the Medical team were poor last year.
    This year they had been moved to share a field with the security staff outside the
    main steel fence. These facilities were vastly improved with tents and vehicles being
    well separated reducing the health and safety concerns raised last year.

   The total number of casualties treated at the two medical centres was 32% higher
    than in 2004 and there was a 13% increase in hospital referrals. However even with
    the slight reduction in staff numbers the medical services we were able to cope
    comfortably and patients were seen and dealt with promptly. The referral rate to
    secondary care was much the same as in 2004. (For further details see the Medical
    Services Report)

   Over-night lost children facilities were better this year.

   The incident report brought to the Silver meetings indicated no problems that
    required follow up action by environmental health staff.

   Despite the weather conditions on Friday morning both the welfare and medical
    agencies coped well.
Conclusions

   Both FMS and the welfare services were able to meet the demand.



Recommendations

   The standard of the camping and associated facilities provided for the medical staff
    should be maintained in line with those achieved this year.

   A representative of Green Welfare, should be invited to attend pre-Festival planning
    meetings where discussion of contingency plans or emergency planning is involved.

   The standard of accommodation provided for lost children should be maintained as
    this year with the unit having at least two separate rooms.



Claire Malone
24th August 05
Security Planning and Attendance Auditing
Key Issues

Since the problems of excessive numbers at the 2000 Festival resulted in the event
being an overcrowded, unsafe, event with an intimidating atmosphere, the Festival
Organiser/Licensee has since delivered an event with a vibrant yet friendly atmosphere
where numbers are controlled and crowds are safely managed. At the same time the
Licensee has also facilitated extending the security controls and crime reduction
measures to beyond the licensed site to reassure and protect the local communities as
well as the genuine festival-goer.
The most significant improvement to safety and crime reduction at the Glastonbury
Festival has been achieved by controlling the attendance numbers. Security planning
and subsequent controls applied before and during the event therefore have a
fundamental role in ensuring a safe, secure and good natured event whilst at the same
time reducing problems for the local community.
The Super Fortress perimeter fence was again used to surround the main site. This was
complimented by the use of Steel Shield fencing used at many other events as main
security fencing. Steel Shield fencing was used to provide a secure perimeter to
campervan/caravan fields and also to demarcate farm buildings and key roadways.
Brian Schofield was appointed as Security Manager/Coordinator. Brian has made a
significant difference to the successful planning and operation of the event since 2002.
There were five main security companies at Glastonbury Festival 2005. These were;
      Stuart Security – pedestrian gates, most vehicle gates, perimeter fence and car
       park security.
      Specialised Security – all stages, venues and beer tents
      All Purpose Security – general on-site security
      Sword Security – traders vehicle gates and markets
      Gainsborough Security – villages security and road access control

The Security Control Centre based in the operational control compound was set up as in
previous years and included key coordinating teams of security, stewards, safety and
CCTV surveillance.
Road controls were put in place on the Saturday at the entrances to the local roads
around the Festival site to provide the cordon that has been successful in preventing
unauthorised entry over recent years.
On the Sunday before the Festival there was a security sweep of the site to validate the
people that were meant to be working on-site prior to the full security and counting
system coming into force.
The ticketing policy was along the same lines as that employed for 2004 where two
tickets maximum were allowed on a debit card with people receiving the tickets being
named on the ticket and a form of identification being required at the gates to confirm
validity.
Portastile again provided the entry gates and counting devices for all pedestrian gates
as well as the unique „electronic clickers‟ used for counting occupants in vehicles at all
vehicle gates. All of these counting devices were linked to the central computer system
based at the pavilion. Portastile have provided a comprehensive system that gives good
accountability of both a cumulative total and the total number of people present within
the main secured site at any one time.
Oxfam managed the pedestrian gates with regard to checking of tickets and pass-outs.
They have done this successfully for a number of years and their staff are always
vigilant and professional. However, observation of the management of the pedestrian
gates in particular gave rise to concerns by several monitoring teams. The system used
successfully over recent events appeared to have been changed. Oxfam supervisors
explained that they were using manual counters, seemingly with good intentions but
resulting in a technical breach of Licence Condition D7 and possible D8. There is no
suggestion that anything underhand was being carried out.
In addition to this the emergency access channel on each of the four pedestrian gates
that is located between the turnstiles and the rapid entry/exit Pods was being used to
allow wide loads through. This is a usual operation but this year it was not managed as
it has been in previous years and pedestrians were observed walking in and out,
possibly without being properly counted. The Oxfam stewards operating the system
seemed to be unclear about what they were meant to be doing. This issue was brought
to the attention of the organisers and addressed directly by the Security Manager.
Unfortunately, monitors expressed an opinion that they had no confidence in the
counting at pedestrian or vehicle gates. Security staff working on the gates had been
deployed to outside of the queuing channels in a positive high visibility overt „policing‟
operation to discourage criminal activity around the gates and car parks and this may
have had some impact on the management of these pedestrian gates.
On Wednesday Mean Fiddler stewards checking ID‟s against tickets had no form of
official identification. This was seen to concern many festival-goers when they were
demanded to show their tickets and ID, whilst at the same time they were being warned
not to show their tickets to anyone who was not an official. There was some reluctance
to rectify this on the Wednesday. Tabards were provided but these were not being worn
by staff at Pedestrian C on Thursday.
It was reported throughout the event that there were still serious attempts to penetrate
the perimeter fence. Monitors also reported that security at gates and in towers was
patchy compared to previous years.
The Licence had been granted for a cumulative total of 153,000. this was broken down
into 112,500 weekend ticket holders, 6,500 staff and 34,000 staff and performers.
The total cumulative attendance at the event was 155,402. Included in this figure are
children that are 12 and under who are allowed in free when accompanied by an adult
ticket holder. This is accepted as being around 4,000 in number to add to the
permissible number.
The maximum peak on-site at any one time was at 4pm Sunday when 152,568 were
present (this included Sunday ticket holders. The peak attendance prior to the Sunday
entrants was 152,556 at 11pm on Saturday night. This would suggest that around 6,500
festival-goers left for home during Sunday.


Achievements

The Super Fortress security fence was completed on time and to the standard required.

Each security company again appeared to be thorough in carrying out their specific
tasks and carried out their duties in a professional way even when the severe weather
conditions impacted on the site.

The security control centre has become an essential element of the event.

The road controls were successful in restricting unauthorized access to the villages.

The security site sweep was carried out thoroughly and successfully.

The counting devices again appeared to work well when used as intended.

Conclusions

Glastonbury Festival 2005 was a safe, secure event with controlled numbers. The
attendance onsite did not at any time exceed the permissible numbers.

Security planning for the Glastonbury Festival 2005 played a very significant part in the
reduction of criminal activity.

The pedestrian gates were not operated or managed to the standards of recent years.

Monitors reported that security to the gates and fence watchtowers was not as thorough
as in recent years.

The severe weather did not have a significant impact on attendance.

Recommendations

The security levels for the Glastonbury Festival 2005 should be recognized as a base
for any future event. However, the Festival Organization will need to review the
management and operation of the pedestrian and vehicle gates for any future event in
order to prevent complacency setting in and to return to the high standards of recent
years.




Chris Malcolmson
18th August 2004
Major Incident Planning
Key Issues
There is huge potential for a major incident or emergency situation at the Glastonbury
Festival and therefore, major incident planning is a key task required for preparedness
at an event of this magnitude.
The potential impact on the resources of all key agencies, other agencies, the local
community and the region are enormous. More importantly the primary aim is to save
and preserve lives if and when an incident occurs, and then to care for those that have
been affected.
It is clear that if a total evacuation of the site was required, a rural area such as Mendip
could not absorb a large amount of people into the community. Therefore, this years
planning for a major incident included;
      Continuing the emphasis and developing the containment of an incident and the
       repercussions onsite
      Reviewing and fine tuning the large rest centres onsite
      Fine tuning the arrangements for a „staged evacuation‟ should it be needed and
       the developing the contingencies to accompany this strategy.

Desktop exercises provide scenarios that each agency has to respond to, both as stand
alone and as partner agencies. They are used to raise awareness to potential situations
that may arise and also to test the key staff and improve communication between all
agencies in operational control at the event.
There was again a newly appointed Somerset County Council Emergency Planner that
became involved in the Glastonbury Festival 2005 assisted by the Senior Emergency
Planning Officer, David Lewis, who was very constructive throughout the process.
The heavy rainfall on the Friday of the Festival put a serious strain on the resources but
did not result in a major incident being declared. However, many of the systems that
were planned for were utilised, examples are;
      Use of venues/facilities as on-site temporary rest centres
      Use of Somerset County Council assistance in acquiring blankets
      Somerset Fire and Rescue Service assistance in easement of flood water
      Use of contingency fields as camping for those people in fields severely affected
       by the floods

Achievements
There has been a vast improvement to major incident planning since the 2000 Festival
no more so than for the recent Festivals.

The development of the strategy to contain any repercussions of a major incident onsite
in the best way possible and the further development of the designated onsite rest
centres rather than further impact on the local resources.

Successful desk top exercises took place yet again and a scenario that assisted the
operational and welfare response during adverse weather conditions was a great help
during the Friday flooding even though a major incident was not declared.

Very positive major incident planning group meetings and actions.

The major incident planning process highlighted potential issues with the services to
Castle Cary Railway Station on the Monday. The awareness and involvement of other
agencies such as South Somerset District Council Emergency Planners working with
Mendip District Council, Somerset County Council, Avon & Somerset Constabulary, the
Station Management and the railway companies helped to deal with these issues and
resulted in an appropriate service being provided.

Conclusions

Thorough planning for a major incident at Glastonbury Festival is an essential pre-
requisite to any event.

Planning for a major incident assists in preparedness for various other incidents and not
just major incidents.

Major incident planning for Glastonbury Festival has never been better than for the 2005
Festival.


Recommendations

Mendip District Council should continue to improve its major incident planning
procedures, particularly for any future Glastonbury Festival events.

That all agencies be commended on their efforts and response to the adverse weather
that affected the site from Friday.

That the good working relationships developed at the Major Incident Group meetings be
developed further.



Chris Malcolmson
12th August 2005
Multi-agency Partnership Working
Key Issues
The successful planning and operation of the Glastonbury Festival relies on the hard
work and cooperation of all agencies that take part.


Each agency has its own separate specialism and area of interest but all work together
to try and ensure that the Festival is a safe, secure and controlled event for all those
who attend; the public, performers, workers, volunteers and also that the event is of little
impact on those who live in the local neighbouring communities.


The Tripartite Group consisting of Mendip District Council, Avon & Somerset
Constabulary and Glastonbury Festival are the key agencies working to ensure that the
Festival is as safe as any event can be. The tripartite arrangements have worked well
over the recent years and resulted in staggering improvements to safety, community
liaison and reductions in crime, community disturbance and environmental impact. A
Memorandum of Understanding was again signed up to by each tripartite agency.


Somerset County Council has also made a valuable contribution over recent years.
They are involved in emergency planning, preventing ticket touts from operating and
traffic management consultations. To recognise this contribution and formalise the
arrangements, a quadpartite Statement of Intent was drawn up to include Somerset
County Council. It is hoped that inclusion of the County Council will allow for the
development of additional improvements to any future event, particularly those issues
that affect public safety, consumer protection and regional road traffic control.


In addition, there are other partners who contribute significantly to the safe planning and
operation of the event e.g. Somerset Fire & Rescue Service, Westcountry Ambulance
Service, Mendip Primary Care Trust and Somerset Health Protection Unit.


The practicalities of successful partnership working at the planning stage for
Glastonbury Festival are straightforward and simple. The Tripartite Group discuss and
action the overarching and strategic issues. Smaller working groups are able to
concentrate on specialist detail in order to achieve the goals of the Tripartite Group and
to carry out legislative and licence condition requirements. By all agencies mirroring the
Police command structure and each agency having a person as a central point of
contact, the lines of communication are clear.


The Statement of Intent and the Memorandum of Understanding outline each tripartite
and quadpartite agency's agreed roles and responsibilities.


During the event there was a major test of the success of the partnership working when
severe weather caused flooding to the site resulting in some festival-goers being left
without tents and other belongings. Effective multi-agency working enabled;


      entertainment to get underway
      flood waters to be dealt with
      welfare issues to be actioned
      health problems to be avoided
      the Festival to continue as normally as was possible

Achievements

Incredible response by all agencies to the difficult situation created by severe weather
conditions

Provision of information and advice to prevent health issues from arising after the
severe flooding.

The continued suppression of crime and nuisance by controlling unofficial car parks

The continued suppression of crime and nuisance by targeting and virtually eliminating
Ticket Touting operations

Prevention of the potential for unauthorised events and raves

Continued suppression of crime and nuisance and improved community liaison by the
setting up of a joint Village Drop-in Centre and associated Hotline.

Further improved planning for a potential major incident.


Conclusions

The effective co-operation between multi-agency partners was the most important factor
in delivering a safe, secure and controlled Glastonbury Festival 2005.


Recommendations

That support is given to the continuation and development of the multi-agency
partnership working.



Chris Malcolmson
30th August 2005
Members should note at the time of going to print the key recycling
statistics for the Festival were unavailable. It is expected the recycling
rates will exceed MDC’s 25% target rate but be reduction on the rates
acheivedin 2004.

                    DRAFT WASTE MANAGEMENT REPORT
Key Issues
   Net recycling rate of 25% set by MDC to come in line with MDC‟s statutory
      recycling rate ??% recycling achieved.
   Separate collections for food waste and waste that can be composted were
      undertaken but with less success than in 2004 largely due to extreme weather
      conditions, the need to suspend some collections and decisions to divert waste
      management staff and vehicles to health and safety duties on Friday and
      Saturday caused a build up of waste across the site and may have reduced
      understanding by and scope for customers to separate materials at source.
   There did not appear to be a systematic approach to managing litterpicking and
      removal of waste – some outlying areas had a large build up of waste that
      remained there for more than one day.
   The problems caused by poor weather and resulting ground conditions were
      exacerbated by the traffic flow arrangements which required waste vehicle to
      travel back through the most congested areas of the site, moving very slowly on
      metal surfaces shared with large numbers of people, in order to deliver waste for
      sorting.
   Over ??? tonnes of material recycled and composted.

Achievements
    Achieved ??% recycling compared with the recycling rate of 25% set by MDC.
    Separately collecting ??? tonnes (t) of biodegradable waste such as food and
      paper/wood plate, knives and cups for composting.
    Recycled ?? t of wood, ?? t of metal, ?? t of glass and ?? t of mixed cans and
      bottles, ?? t of cardboard.
    ?? t of tents, sleeping bags and wellington boots collected for reuse by charities.
    Recruitment and induction of recycling staff was improved with better compliance
      with health and safety standards and working practices on the Materials
      Recycling Facility than last year.
Conclusions
    Waste management arrangements during the event worked less well than in
      2004, due largely to the extreme weather conditions hampering the service.
    There was a build up of waste across the site and a lower level of source
      separation by those attending the event.
    Despite this a recycling rate of ?? was achieved.
Recommendations
    Review traffic management arrangements and explore scope for a second
      location fro collection and sorting of waste to avoid congestion.
Lesley Rowan, 1st September 2005
ADVERSE WEATHER IMPACT
Key Issues

This report gives Members the Council officer perspective on the circumstances of the
bad weather experienced and its consequences at this year‟s event.


As MDC Silver Commander for the daytime shift, I started on duty at the site at around
7:15am. By this time it was clear that the Festival site had experienced some rain as the
ground was damp but this was nothing out of the ordinary.


At between 7:30am and 7:45am the heavy rain and thunderstorms began and continued
constantly until around 11:30am. Heavy rain began again at approximately 12:15pm and
lasted until around 1:00pm.


The scheduled multi-agency Silver Meeting was held at 10am and because the
extraordinary heavy rain was having a significant effect on the site it was decided that
an additional Silver Meeting would be held at 2pm that day.


At the same time as the 10am Silver Meeting was taking place on the Friday; the main
venues would normally be starting with entertainment for the first time. Because of the
weather conditions this was not possible and all of the principle venues were delayed in
starting. It was seen as a priority to get the venues up and running in order to get the
crowds occupied and allow work to continue to dealing with the flooded areas. The
principal venues began to get underway at around lunchtime, firstly the John Peel tent
followed by the Pyramid Stage and then the Other Stage.


An accurate weather forecast was sought via the Somerset County Council Emergency
Planning Department for the 2pm Silver meeting. This predicted heavy and constant rain
for a further three hours between 3pm and 6pm with heavy showers thereafter dying out
by dawn the next day. This additional rain never happened.


During the Friday, the Council was involved in liaison with the County Council
Emergency Planning Department to inform them of the situation on-site and give them a
„heads up‟ in case a major incident was declared due to the predicted additional rainfall.
The Council was also involved in arranging for supplies of blankets and tents to be
brought to the site in order to assist the welfare response to those who had been left
without tents due to the flooding.
Facts
       At no time was a major incident declared
       No venues were struck by lightning
       No persons at the site were struck by lightning
       Rain fall was measured officially in the area at between 30mm in 4hours to 81mm
        in 5 hours
       Depending on these figures the probability of such rainfall is between 1 in 12
        years to 1 in 296 years
       Rain fall levels measured by Steanbow Farm where the worst flooding occurred
        and where tents were photographed submerged in water showed that 65mm fell
        in approx 4.5 hours. This is a 1 in 97 year probability and therefore this type of
        rain is only likely to occur once in approximately every 100 years.
       The table top exercises held on 15th June 2005 included a scenario of inclement
        weather and provided some preparation for what happened on the Friday.



Achievements

The festival was able to continue in a relatively normal fashion once the heavy rain had
ceased.

All agencies worked well together with a common goal of protecting the public and
allowing the Festival to continue.

Conclusions

In general the on-site contingencies coped with the consequences of the heavy rain and
the declaration of a major incident was not deemed necessary. However, this may have
been different had the site received the predicted additional three hours of heavy rain.

Although the rain was extreme and the site infrastructure coped with this it is plain to
see that public safety was put at significant risk and improvements should be explored
to deal with heavy rainfall at any future event.


Recommendations

Members should note the excellent operational and welfare response by all agencies
and congratulate them on their contribution during this difficult time.

Members should encourage the Festival Organisation to work closely with the
Development Control and Flood Risk Management departments of the Environment
Agency to reduce the risk of flooding at any future event.


Chris Malcolmson, 27th July 2005
                                                                       Appendix 2

                       Avon and Somerset Constabulary

                     Police Report to the Licensing Board


Glastonbury Festival 2005


Introduction
This report is provided for the information of the Licensing Board meeting being
held at Mendip District Council on Monday 26 September 2005. The views and
statistics have been compiled from participants in the policing operation and
force records.

The following issues are covered in this report:-
        Pre Festival
        Festival Duration
        Post Festival
        Crime
        Arrests
        Calls for Service
        Vehicle Removals
        Conclusions


Pre Festival
  No proactive Operation Hartley was implemented this year because no
  incursions took place in 2004 and no intelligence was received to indicate an
  alternative festival or rave type event was going to be held in the force area or
  region.


  As usual the force worked closely with the Wiltshire Constabulary to ensure
  persons attending the Summer Solstice on 21 June did not gravitate towards
  Somerset unless they had a ticket for the festival itself.

On the build up to the festival some surrounding forces mounted Automatic
Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) check points seeking to intercept vehicles
known to have criminal connections, for example in relation to drug issues. The
force mounted 3 ANPR checkpoints both before and during the festival which
resulted in many arrests for criminal offences, primarily for drug related matters.
Festival Duration
  The main policing operation for the festival commenced on 22 June and
  concluded on 28 June. The policing style was based on the geographical
  model of sector policing where the same police officers and police staff
  patrolled the same area throughout the festival and built up a rapport with
  people in the various parts of the site and in the surrounding communities.


Once again this year a strong emphasis was placed on officers patrolling on foot
as opposed to patrolling in vehicles. The force Mounted Section patrolling in
pairs supplemented the foot patrols. For the second year running officers
patrolled the site on pedal cycles and they were well received and were able to
move around the site freely and quickly. All the feedback suggests that the
ability of these patrolling officers to integrate with the festival crowd, festival staff
and local communities was highly successful and represents a tested model for
any future event.

An Intelligence Unit and a Crime Management Unit was established on the
festival site. This was linked to both Police HQ and the Bath and West
Showground Custody Centre and underpinned the whole policing operation.
This gathering and dissemination of data allowed the Police Silver Commander
to undertake dynamic risk assessments for the deployment of police officers and
police staff. The information was also shared at the multi-agency silver meetings
to allow partners to focus on current crime patterns and trends. This information
identified “hot spots” for crime and also contained the comparative crime figures
from the previous year under the various crime categories.

A separate multi-agency bronze meeting was established in 2004 and this was
held once again this year after the silver meetings where information and tactics
were developed. In this environment the Police Bronze Commander, the
Glastonbury Festivals Limited Bronze Commander and the crime reduction staff
from both agencies were able to deploy resources in a more co-ordinated way.
An example of the success of this approach was the co-ordinated deployment of
police officers and security personnel in the first few days of the festival that
ensured people attending parked their cars and entered the site safely with very
little crime being reported.

Problems have been experienced in Pilton village and the surrounding villages at
previous festivals. Once again this year a great deal of effort was undertaken in
advance of the festival to “design out crime” and reassure the local community.
This proactive work was primarily carried out by the police, GFL and Mendip
District Council and was supplemented during the festival by a structured village
patrol strategy designed to frustrate criminal elements and provide reassurance
to the residential communities. The Tri-Partite office in Pilton village was not
extensively used but the fact that it was established and was ready to deal with
any issues raised proved very reassuring to the local community. Once again
this year the feedback has been very supportive and complimentary.
In 2004 there were issues raised with a minority of security staff at the festival.
This year the police met with the private security companies and briefed senior
managers and staff on their roles and responsibilities. Particular emphasis was
placed on their powers and standards of behaviour. To supplement this a
written “Memorandum of Understanding” was agreed which not only covered the
points highlighted above but also the more practical matters of securing
evidence for any crime, dress code, handling property, eviction policy, and so
on. Feedback from this process from the private security companies has been
extremely positive.

It is worthy of note that the vast majority of work undertaken between the police
and the private security companies provided a very high quality of service to the
people attending the festival and those residing in the villages nearby.


Post Festival
  In previous years there were dispersal issues caused by a failure in the rail
  network to provide the number of trains necessary to transport festival-goers
  away from Castle Cary Railway Station. The potential for public disorder and
  welfare issues was high so for the second year in succession a multi-agency
  working group was established prior to the festival to try to resolve these
  issues.


They achieved this by laying on additional trains, especially at peak times, in
order to enable festival-goers to move away from the event and the greater co-
ordination between the main agencies also enabled a smoother flow of people to
leave the site safely.

The Traffic Management Plan appeared to work very well.


Crime
There was an overall 6.5% increase in crime this year when
compared to last year. However, there were 205 drug offences,
double the 102 drug offences in 2004. If the crime figures
exclude drug offences then this reveals that crime in general fell
by another 19% this year (-72 offences).

Of the 509 offences reported, 210 (41%) were detected.

Appendix A provides a more detailed breakdown of the types of crime recorded
for each festival held from 2000 onwards.
                                                  +/-               % Change

Year                 Total Crime


       2000                 2367                  n/a                   n/a

       2001                  n/a                  n/a                   n/a

       2002                 1049                 -1318                -55.7%

       2003                  718                  -331                -31.6%

       2004                  478                  -240                -33.4%

       2005                  509                  +31                 +6.5%

On Site:-
 Of the 509 offences 472 (93%) occurred on site, the same percentage as in
   2004
 Of these 472 offences:-
            176 (37%) were drug related offences
            107 (23%) were theft from tents
            54 (11%) were theft offences
            52 (11%) were theft from the person
            19 (4%) were assault / weapon offences
            6 (1%) were theft of motor vehicles
            40 (8%) were theft from vehicles
            3 (0.6%) were robberies

Off Site:-
 Of the 509 offences 37 (7%) occurred off site, the same percentage as in
    2004
 Of these 37 offences:-
            28 (76%) were drug related offences
            5 (14%) were theft of or from motor vehicles
            2 (5%) were thefts
            2 (5%) other - such as assault and weapons


Arrests
There was a 14.5% reduction in arrests this year when compared to last year.

Appendix B provides a more detailed breakdown of the types of offences for
which arrests were made at each festival from 2000 onwards.
                                                     +/-                % Change

Year                  Arrests


       2000                   246                    n/a                    n/a

       2001                   n/a                    n/a                    n/a

       2002                   208                    -38                  -15.4%

       2003                   189                    -19                  -9.1%

       2004                   131                    -58                  -30.7%

       2005                   112                    -19                  -14.5%

 Approximately one third of all arrests made by the police were as a direct
  result of referrals to them from the private security companies, in particular
  those operating at the entrances to the site
 20 (18%) resided in the Avon and Somerset Constabulary area
 19 (17%) resided in the Greater London area
 7 (6%) resided in both the Merseyside and West Midlands areas
 15 (13%) were arrested for assault, public order and damage type offences
 14 (12.5%) were arrested for robbery and theft type offences
 68 (61%) were arrested for drug related offences
 The initial disposal of those persons arrested was recorded as 30 (27%)
  cautioned, 23 (21%) charged, 22 (20%) released without charge and 20
  (18%) released on bail pending further enquiries
 395 seizures of drugs were made (588 in 2004) which resulted in 85 people
  being charged with drug related offences, 101 cautioned for drug related
  offences and 209 receiving advice on drug misuse after having drugs
  confiscated
 160 (40.5%) seizures were for cannabis bush - 251 (43%) in 2004
 91 (23%) seizures were for ecstasy - 128 (22%) in 2004
 68 (17%) seizures were for cannabis resin - 89 (15%) in 2004
 33 (8%) seizures were for cocaine - 60 (10%) in 2004

Calls for Service
  Calls for Service at the festival to the police increased by 50.5% this year.
                                                    +/-               % Change

Year                   Calls for Service


        2000                   613                   n/a                n/a

        2001                   n/a                   n/a                n/a

        2002                   231                  -382               -62.3%

        2003                   215                   -16               -6.9%

        2004                   93                   -122               -56.7%

        2005                   140                   +47               +50.5%

    4 (3%) of calls received required an immediate response
    36 (26%) of calls received required a prompt response
    70 (50%) of calls received were for information only purposes
    56 (40%) of calls received were not related to any incident
    42 (30%) of calls received were in relation to traffic matters

    Vehicle Removals
    There were 4 more vehicles removed this year when compared to 2004.



                                                    +/-               % Change

Year                   Vehicle
                       Removals


        2000                   229                   n/a                n/a

        2001                   n/a                   n/a                n/a

        2002                   86                   -143               -62.4%

        2003                   49                    -37                -43%

        2004                   28                    -21               -42.9%

        2005                   32                    +4                +14.3%
 Main reasons were 16 for obstruction, 7 due to collisions and 4 stolen
  vehicles
 Every year since 2002 has shown that most vehicles were removed on
  Saturday




Conclusions
Every year the most recent Glastonbury Festival is described as “the best ever”.
This is a tremendous testament to the multi-agency planning process in the form
of the Tri-Partite meetings and the close multi-agency working relationship
adopted during the event itself. Excluding drug offences, another significant
reduction in crime has been achieved due to the desire by all partners to
continually improve.

There is little doubt that the effective debriefing of each festival held since 2002
has provided a structured multi-agency approach to “design out crime”. Each
year the issues that emerge from the debriefing process are actioned in the Tri-
Partite planning meetings. Examples are contained in this report such as the
Castle Cary Railway Station working group and the work undertaken with the
security companies.

There was once again an effective emphasis on the sale, security and publicity
surrounding tickets this year which assisted greatly in reducing crime and
deterring those without tickets from attending and causing problems in the
villages surrounding the site. Ticket touts appear to have almost given up.

A greater degree of management and security around the site post festival was
implemented this year in conjunction with local police officers and police staff and
GFL. These new arrangements worked well and will form the basis for post
festival operations in the future.

The number of drug seizures fell this year but the percentage of seizures of
different classes of drug was comparable to last year. Drug arrests more than
doubled due to security staff and police officers having more time to focus on
proactive work in this area coupled with a greater understanding of drug policies
and procedures.

The weather on the Friday was atrocious with serious flooding occurring on site.
Dealing with this scenario was not the primary responsibility of the police but the
force was impressed with the way all the agencies responded and dealt with the
problems created in line with the thorough Major Incident Plan arrangements.


The level of police resources deployed to the festival this year was reduced by
26% and for the first time Police Communications was operated remotely from
Police HQ. This year approximately 600 tours of duty per day of the festival were
performed by police officers and police staff instead of over 800 tours per day up
until last year. These resource reductions were achieved by reducing the
resources on the festival site, with GFL backfilling by employing more security
staff, and in the supporting infrastructure. Nothing adverse occurred from these
fundamental changes.


Having made these substantial resource reductions this year the force feels that
the resource levels are now more proportionate to the demands posed by the
festival. Should any festival be held in the future under similar arrangements
then the resource levels are likely to remain on a par with those deployed this
year.


The buses provided by the festival were subject to breakdown and caused delays
in Pilton village, in particular post festival. It is recommended that the festival
obtain better buses or ensure the buses provided are serviced and fully fit for
purpose.
No issues arose regarding the use of fireworks and no offences reported under
the Fireworks Regulations 2004 (Fireworks Act 2003).


At its peak the festival had 150,000 people on site. The overflow car parks were
utilised this year, in particular due to displacement issues caused by the flooding.
The view of police officers and police staff together with the observations of the
Audit Team and aerial photography question whether this number could be safely
increased or whether the facilities to accommodate extra people could be
provided.


It is hugely encouraging to once again report that in all of the main crime
categories the crime levels have reduced when compared to recent years. The
big challenge for the future is to continue to reduce still further the number of
theft from tents, theft from the person, general theft and vehicle crime offences.


There is always the potential to design out more crime and therefore this aim
should continually feature in any plans for the future. Great strides have been
made since 2000 and none of the matters mentioned in this report are major
issues, more a question of continuously reviewing and fine-tuning arrangements.

If no festival is held in 2006 then any subsequent festival that may be held in
2007 or thereafter may present fresh challenges. In particular all agencies will
need to guard against a loss of momentum that has been gained since 2002.
Consideration should be given as to how after a year off the planning for any
festival in 2007 may overcome this issue and build on the considerable success
of recent years.
Adrian Coombs
Superintendent
Operations Support
Avon and Somerset Constabulary

7 September 2005
                                                           APPENDIX A
                     Avon and Somerset Constabulary

                         Glastonbury Festival 2005

                       Reported Crimes 2000 to 2005

Crime Type                               2000    2002   2003   2004   2005
Threats to Kill                            0       1      0      0      0
Wounding                                   0       1      0      0      0
Other Wounding                            27      21     15      9      0
Possession of Weapons                      8      10     18      0      1
Harassment                                 2       1      3      2      2
Rape of a Female                           0       0      0      0      1
Sexual Assault on Female Over 12           0       0      0      0      3
Indecent Assault on a Female               0       0      1      0      0
Burglary in a Dwelling                     0       5      0      3      0
Burglary – Non-dwelling                    2       2      2      2      2
Going Equipped                             4       2      0      0      0
Robbery – Business                         0       0      1      0      0
Robbery – Personal                        157     84     18      3      3
Kidnapping                                 0       1      2      1      0
Theft from the Person                     290    175    107     89     53
Theft or Taking of a Pedal Cycle           1       0      0      0      1
Theft from Motor Vehicle                  150    120     11     33     33
Attempt Theft from Motor Vehicle           0       0      0      0      1
Theft of Motor Vehicle                    43      34      3     10      4
Unauthorised Taking of a Motor Vehicle     0       0      0      0      1
Attempt Theft of Motor Vehicle             0       0      0      0      1
Other Theft                              1519    439    338    187    164
Other Fraud                                1       7      1      4      0
Handling Stolen Goods                      3       1      2      0      2
Arson                                      1       1      0      1      0
Criminal Damage to a Dwelling              0       1      0      0      0
Criminal Damage – Motor Vehicle           30      14      7      4      4
Other Criminal Damage                     19       4      3      0      6
Other Forgery                              0       1      0      0      1
Public Order                               1       1      0      0      1
Assault on a Constable                     0          1       0        0     3
Assault ABH                                0          0       0        0     4
Common Assault                             17         1       1        6     3
Fear of Violence                           0          0       0        0     1
Vehicle Interference                       0         13       1       16     8
Dangerous Driving                          0          1       0        0     0
Vehicle/driver Document Fraud              1          0       0        0     0
Voyeurism                                  0          0       0        0     1
TOTAL (excluding drugs offences)          2276      942      534      376   304
Drug Offences                              91       107      184      102   205
TOTAL (all recordable offences)           2367      1049     718      478   509
                                                                   APPENDIX B
                      Avon and Somerset Constabulary

                          Glastonbury Festival 2005

                            Arrests 2000 to 2005

                          No. of     No. of        No. of    No. of      No. of
Arrest Offence            arrests    arrests       arrests   arrests     arrests
                           2000       2002          2003      2004        2005
Assaults                     13         4             9        10            8
Indecency Offences           0          0             0         0            2
Burglary                     0          0             0         0            2
Robbery                      16         15            3         0            2
Theft from Motor Vehs        4          1             0         1            0
Theft of Motor Vehicles      7          12            7         3            4
Other Theft                  27         40            8         9            8
Fraud/deception              2          4             5         1            0
Handling                     0          0             3         0            0
Criminal Damage              3          0             4         0            3
S25 PACE Arrest              1          3             2         0            0
Positive Breath Test         0          0             0         0            1
Drunk                        3          1             3         8            1
Place of Safety (MHA)        0          0             1         0            0
Public Order                 9          8             11        2            3
Drugs                       100         83           103       89           68
Warrants                     14         8             10        2            3
Any other offence            47         29            20        6            6
Not recorded                 0          0             0         0            1
TOTAL                       246        208           189       131         112

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:62
posted:8/11/2011
language:English
pages:51