In this blog, Olly Galvin, director of Acumen Safety, explores the challenges facing Safety Advisory Groups and the reform efforts underway to improve them.
Safety Advisory Groups sit at the heart of safe event delivery in the UK. They bring together local authorities, police, fire, ambulance services and other stakeholders to advise on public event safety plans.
The concept is sound: get the key players around a table to discuss how to deliver events safely. But talk to event professionals and you’ll hear a different story. SAGs elicit respect, frustration, confusion, appreciation and, at times, outright exasperation.
A recent LinkedIn post I wrote sparked exactly this debate. It revealed why SAGs are currently among the most argued-about parts of the event safety ecosystem.
As the sector grows, questions about the role, consistency and capability of SAGs are being asked more than ever. And several influential voices are working to address the challenges.
Advice, not enforcement
One of the strongest messages from the industry is simple: many feel SAGs have drifted from their intended purpose.
Hugo Kibasi commented: “The middle word is arguably the most important and overlooked. A reminder that the A stands for Advice, not Admonishment. If they aren’t receiving actual, meaningful advice from the group, they shouldn’t be afraid to ask for it.”
While some SAGs operate collaboratively, others are seen as overly directive, pushing conditions or making demands. Some organisers feel SAG attendance has become tantamount to seeking permission.
This creates friction between organisers and advisory bodies, and even within public agencies themselves.
The inconsistency problem
Some SAGs are supportive, communicative and skilled. Others lack experience in crowd safety, event dynamics or production.
Event safety expert Eric Stuart QPM put it plainly: “I would remind them that SAGs sometimes lack experience and some of the members know far less about event safety (especially crowd safety) than the event organisers.”
When SAG members don’t have specialist knowledge, tensions arise. When advice doesn’t match accepted practice, tensions deepen. When different authorities apply entirely different approaches, confidence in the system falters.
This inconsistency is driving industry efforts to standardise what SAG membership should involve.
The sign-off myth
One of the biggest frustrations is the belief that SAGs “sign off” events.
Fire safety practitioner Daniel Pyett observed: “I get told quite a lot that their event is safe… because it has been signed off by the SAG.”
This misconception leads to dangerous overconfidence and unrealistic expectations. SAGs do not approve events, nor do they carry legal responsibility for safety outcomes.
Calvin Hanks emphasised: “Explain the benefit of SAG and the knowledge of those who sit on it, but that they are not the ones who decide if the event is safe.”
Communication breakdowns
Other challenges include late feedback, conflicting advice, requests for changes without clear rationale, and limited opportunity for discussion.
When communication stalls or guidance arrives too close to event day, organisers feel set up to fail or pressured into accepting advice they don’t agree with.
SAG chairs feel equally frustrated when organisers delay documentation, withhold information or misunderstand the meeting’s purpose.
This is a two-way issue that can only be solved with mutual respect, aligned expectations and clear processes.
When SAGs work well
Not every story is negative. Many event managers praise SAGs as invaluable partners who strengthen safety planning and provide critical insight.
Event director Sarah Belchambers said: “I think it’s key to have mutual respect, effective communications and joined up objectives with transparent and agreed milestones. It can be a really supportive and positive process…”
When SAGs work as intended, they help create better events. This is why improving the system matters.
Work underway to improve SAGs
Several figures are contributing to reform efforts:
Brighton is pushing for Primary Authority recognition, led by Ian Baird. This status would allow Brighton’s team to develop and share nationally recognised SAG guidance. It could reduce inconsistency, offer a trusted benchmark for practice, professionalise expectations and give organisers clearer standards.
The Resilience Academy, chaired by Ben Crabb, is developing new guidance for SAG members. It aims to support consistent approaches across local authorities. If adopted widely, this work will be hugely influential.
Why now?
The events landscape is more sophisticated than ever. Post-pandemic expectations on organisers have grown, but some SAG skillsets haven’t evolved at the same pace.
More large-scale events are being produced by newer or less experienced organisers. Public safety expectations are higher, compounded by the incoming Protect Duty. Margins are tighter. Agencies are overstretched. Legal scrutiny is increasing.
It’s no surprise the industry wants clarity, consistency and fairness.
A path forward
Several themes emerge as essential:
Clarifying that SAGs advise, not approve or enforce. Improving member training, especially around crowd safety and risk management. Standardising processes nationally. Setting clear communication expectations. Encouraging collaboration, not adversarial dynamics. Ensuring transparency and accountability through documented reasoning and open dialogue.
SAGs matter
The intense response to my post shows how passionately the sector feels about SAGs. Everyone recognises their importance.
An effective SAG can be the backbone of a safe, successful event. A dysfunctional one can become an obstacle or barrier to innovation.
SAGs aren’t going away, nor should they. But they need support, clarity, resourcing and modernisation. Thanks to ongoing efforts from leaders like Ian Baird and Ben Crabb, the path to improvement is already being laid.