By Olly Galvin, Director, Acumen Safety
Safety Advisory Groups (SAGs) sit at the heart of safe event delivery in the UK. Established to bring together key agencies, local authorities, police, fire, ambulance, and other stakeholders, their purpose is simple: to provide advice, not instruction, on the safety plans and management of public events.
The SAG concept is a fundamentally sensible one: bring together the key stakeholders for public safety to discuss and advise on the planning for the safe delivery of events in the region.
However, if you talk to a handful of event professionals, you’ll quickly discover a much more complex reality. SAGs elicit strong and varied reactions: respect, frustration, confusion, appreciation and, at times, outright exasperation. A recent LinkedIn conversation sparked by a post I wrote captured exactly this divide and shone a light on why SAGs are currently among the most debated parts of the event safety ecosystem.
As the sector evolves and grows, questions about the role, consistency and capability of SAGs are being asked more than ever. And across the industry, a number of influential voices are working to address the challenges and future-proof the process.
So what’s going on?
The purpose of SAGs: Advice, not enforcement
One of the strongest messages from industry professionals is also one of the simplest: many feel SAGs have drifted from their intended purpose.
As 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.”
This sentiment is echoed widely across the sector. While some SAGs operate collaboratively and constructively, others are perceived as overly directive, pushing conditions, making demands, or treating SAG attendance as tantamount to seeking permission.
This misunderstanding creates friction not just between organisers and advisory bodies, but also within public agencies themselves.
Inconsistency across local authorities
A recurring theme is inconsistency.
Some SAGs are described as supportive, communicative, and highly skilled. Others are flagged as lacking experience in crowd safety, event dynamics or real-world production environments.
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 the advice offered doesn’t correlate with accepted practice, tensions deepen. And when different authorities apply entirely different approaches, confidence in the system falters.
This inconsistency is one of the key drivers behind industry efforts to standardise and clarify what SAG membership should involve.
Misconceptions about “approval” and “sign-off”
One of the biggest frustrations among organisers is the myth that SAGs “sign off” events.
As 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 can lead to dangerous overconfidence among organisers and unrealistic expectations of SAGs. The SAG does not approve events, nor do they carry legal responsibility for safety outcomes.
Calvin Hanks emphasised this point:
“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.”
This misunderstanding highlights the need for clearer guidance, for both organisers and SAG members themselves.
Communication breakdown
Another area of challenge is communication:
- Late feedback
- Conflicting advice
- Requests for changes without clear rationale
- Limited opportunity for discussion or clarification
When communication stalls or guidance arrives too close to event day, organisers may feel set up to fail, or pressured into accepting advice they don’t fully agree with.
On the flip side, some SAG chairs feel equally frustrated when organisers delay documentation, withhold information or misunderstand the purpose of the meeting.
This is a two-way issue, and ultimately one that can only be solved with mutual respect, aligned expectations and clear processes.
SAGs can be empowering
Not every story is negative. Many event managers praise SAGs as invaluable partners who elevate safety planning, strengthen collaboration and provide critical insight.
Event director Sarah Belchambers summed this up perfectly:
“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 don’t just reduce risk, they help create better events. This is why improving the system is so crucial.
Working to improve the SAG ecosystem
Several influential figures are currently contributing to efforts to reform, strengthen and standardise SAG practice across the UK.
1. Brighton’s Push for Primary Authority Recognition – Led by Ian Baird
Primary Authority status would allow Brighton (and Ian’s team) to develop and disseminate nationally recognised guidance for SAGs. This could:
- Reduce inconsistency
- Offer a trusted benchmark for SAG practice
- Professionalise advisory expectations
- Give organisers clearer, nationally recognised standards
2. New Guidance for SAG Members – Issued by the Resilience Academy, Chaired by Ben Crabb
Currently in development, this guidance aims to support SAG members with applying a consistent approach to their roles across the range of events they invite to SAG groups in their local authority.
This work will be hugely influential if adopted across local authorities.
Why now is the right time for industry discussion
The events landscape is more sophisticated than ever. Post-pandemic, the expectations on organisers have grown significantly, but the skillsets within some SAGs haven’t evolved at the same pace.
At the same time:
- More large-scale events are being produced by newer or less experienced organisers
- Public safety expectations are higher, and this is compounded by the incoming Protect Duty
- Margins are tighter than ever for promoters and event organisers
- Agencies are overstretched
- Legal scrutiny is increasing
It’s no surprise that the industry is hungry for clarity, consistency and fairness.
A path toward better SAGs
From the LinkedIn conversation and wider industry insight, several themes emerge as essential next steps:
1. Clarifying purpose
Reinforcing that SAGs advise – not approve, not enforce.
2. Improving member training
Especially around crowd safety, risk management and proportionality.
3. Standardising processes nationally
Work already underway could be transformative.
4. Setting clear communication expectations
For both organisers and SAG members.
5. Encouraging constructive collaboration
Building relationships, not adversarial dynamics.
6. Ensuring transparency and accountability
Documented reasoning, consistent methods, and open dialogue.
SAGs can make or break an event
The intense response to my post demonstrates just how passionately the event sector feels about SAGs, because everyone recognises their importance.
An effective SAG can be the backbone of a safe, successful event. A dysfunctional SAG can become an obstacle, a point of confusion, or a barrier to innovation.
The reality is that SAGs are not going away and nor should they. But they do need support, clarity, resourcing and modernisation. And thanks to ongoing efforts from leaders like Ian Baird, Ben Crabb and others, the path to improvement is already being laid.
Author: Guest Author
This post is by a guest author for eventindustrynews.com If you would like to feature as a guest author please contact us by emailing features@eventindustrynews.com
