Notting Hill Carnival 2001

Report: 6
Date: 8 February 2001
By: Commissioner

Summary

This document has been prepared to update the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) on the planning for the policing arrangements for the Notting Hill Carnival in 2001. The readers' attention is drawn to the initial report from the Metropolitan Police Service to the MPA dated 14 September 2000.

A. Recommendation

That Authority members note the contents of this report.

B. Supporting information

There follows a description of the planning process to support the policing operation for Notting Hill Carnival in 2001.

A copy of the MPS submission to the 'Mayor's Review Group' which provides an MPS perspective on key issues is attached at Appendix 1.

Operational planning

The policing operation forms one part of the whole Carnival process. The planning undertaken by the MPS is intended to complement and take into account the differing requirements and perspectives of the various agencies and groups involved in Carnival.

Fundamental to the planning is the strategy set down by the event commander, an ACPO officer, designated as 'Gold'. For Carnival 2001 Commander Michael Messinger QPM has been appointed as Gold. The responsibility for ensuring that this strategy is delivered through the development of a tactical plan is the responsibility of the operational commander Chief Superintendent Mackie, designated as 'Silver'. The tactical plan will be implemented by the sector commanders, superintendents designated as 'Bronzes'.

The strategy for Carnival 2000 was:

It is the intention to police this event in a manner compatible with our 'Statement of Common Purpose and Values' by endeavouring to:

1. Ensure public safety;
2. Prevent public disorder;
3. Prevent damage to property;
4. Prevent crime and take all reasonable steps to arrest offenders if crime is committed;
5. Minimise congestion to vehicle and pedestrian traffic in the surrounding area; and
6. Minimise disruption to community life in the area.

In 2000 the carnival was, for police purposes, divided into five geographical areas. These are defined according to the nature of the geographical area, anticipated workload or the particular characteristics present. The aim of this is to ensure that no one sector or sector commander becomes so stretched that he or she is unable to undertake effective decision-making. For this reason, the sensitive or busy sectors will be geographically smaller than the quieter less dense areas.

The tactical planning for each sector will be conducted within the framework laid down by Gold, by the respective sector commanders and his/her leadership team. They will work throughout the year supported by the Carnival Unit from the Public Order Branch at NSY and, based upon this information will formulate plans, emergency procedures and make recommendations about the required levels of staffing and other requirements. These plans will then be discussed and updated within the sector commanders meetings. It is anticipated that there will be four sector commanders meetings held during the year, beginning in February. They aim to ensure that the plans put forward not only work to support the set strategy, but also complement the plans being proposed by the neighbouring sectors.

Once agreed the resource requirements to support these plans then need to be put in place logistically, and communicated to the other MPS agencies and departments involved. This is achieved by the MPS Carnival Working Group, which is made up of the various support services and contractors involved in the policing operation. This group will arrange for catering, transport, communication and support elements to be put in place to enable the 8,000 police officers currently employed over the weekend to be managed and deployed effectively.

The communication with other voluntary and public sector agencies takes place with the Safety Advisory Group (SAG). This is a multi-agency group of members from the agencies who will largely be involved on the day of the event itself. Chaired by Claire Holder of the Notting Hill Carnival Trust (NHCT) it includes representatives from the following:

• Metropolitan Police Service
• Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
• City of Westminster
• St John Ambulance
• London Ambulance Service
• British Transport Police
• London Underground Limited
• London Fire Brigade

This co-ordinating body aims to ensure that all organisational plans are complimentary, that respective aims and objectives are understood and that, as far as is possible within the Carnival environment, all potential hazards or risks are minimised.

The Safety Group meeting held its first meeting on the 5 December 2000.

The MPS Carnival Unit, is part of the MPS public order branch and leads on the planning processes in support of the command team. There is also an MPS sergeant on a year's secondment to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to assist with liaison and community co-ordination.

Chief Superintendent Webb (MPS Territorial Support Group) and Detective Superintendent Moore (Serious Crime Group) are currently completing a comprehensive review on our public order tactics and our crime strategy for Carnival. The Mayor's Review Group is due to publish its recommendations in March 2001. The result of these three reviews will be considered and fed into the planning for 2001.

The preceding paragraphs are an overview of the MPS planning which will take place this year. They do not illustrate the scale or complexity of the operation or the delicate nature of some of the negotiations that take place. Systems have been refined over a number of years and reflect the changing nature of some of the organisations involved. The overall aim of the MPS remains to work with the other partners to try to ensure that each Carnival is safe and trouble free.

Community involvement

In considering the community involvement in the planning process, it is important to acknowledge that there are a number of communities involved. Not all are resident in the Notting Hill Area. However all impact on the planning and organisation of Carnival.

The views of local residents are a major consideration for the planning process. There is a wide and often diverse range of views in local communities. These range from those who moved to the area to be a part of it to those who wish that the event would simply disappear. Local residents bear the brunt of the disruption caused by Carnival and both in terms of the inconvenience of not being able to freely travel to and from their addresses to the environmental damage caused by the noise and refuse.

The participation of the community takes place at a number of levels. Two public meetings, organised by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, are held locally to the Carnival area. One is held in February/March and the other in October. These give the local community the opportunity to put their views regarding the joint management of Carnival and to question those in charge of the respective operations. Additionally officers from the joint RBKC/MPS Carnival Unit will deal on a group or individual basis with residents who have more specific concerns.

This unit will also deal with the wider Carnival community including the Carnival participants, traders and sponsors. Training and liaison sessions are held throughout the year to increase knowledge of the wider Carnival operation and to enlist appropriate assistance from the Carnivalists. Examples of this would include training on crowd dynamics, emergency procedures and security in the event of a bomb threat. Food hygiene and fire safety training is also given where the particular involvement of the individual demands it.

Partnership implications

The Notting Hill Carnival Trust (NHCT) involves the local Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, not only to represent the views of local residents but also to ensure that the financial and operational plans of NHCT are relevant and suitable. This is arranged within two meetings, the Carnival Operations Group (COG) and the Funders Group (FG).

The COG is chaired by the Leader of Council for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and comprises senior officials from the Borough, NHCT and the MPS and the National Arts Council who discuss, at a strategic level, the Carnival planning process. They are advised from an operational perspective but final decisions are made at the senior level. Whilst largely based within the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, it is accepted by all parties involved that Carnival has a pan-London and arguably national impact in the eyes of the public. It is therefore essential that actions taken and their repercussions are fully considered.

The Funders Group comprise the parties involved in the direct or indirect financial support of the Carnival Trust or the relevant art forms. These have typically included, the Arts Council, London Arts Board and the London Boroughs Grant Committee. They meet with the Royal Borough (again typically the leader or a senior councillor), NHCT and the MPS to discuss the levels of funding, its uses and any attached conditions. Although not directly an area, which would necessarily involve input from the police, attendance was felt appropriate, as there were occasions when conditions of funding may have had an impact on the operational imperatives at Carnival. An example of this occurred in 1999, when Masquerade Bands were required to carry out a 'performance', at a fixed judging point. This caused delays to the throughput of bands and resulted in huge congestion and a delay to Carnival finish time.

The process of having two separate meetings with largely the same personnel involved was felt by the council to be somewhat unwieldy and the two have now been combined. They typically meet early in the year, mid-summer and shortly after Carnival.

C. Financial implications

The policing costs for the Notting Hill Carnival are estimated at about £3 million. This includes pay for all officers on duty at Carnival (normal rates and enhanced rates for overtime or bank holiday), support service costs and year long planning costs.

D. Review arrangements

Nicholas Long, MPA member sits on the GLA Review Group and is overseeing MPS planning.
Tactical review by Chief Superintendent Webb.
Crime review by Detective Chief Superintendent Moore.

E. Background papers

• Report 64 considered by the Metropolitan Police Authority on 14 September 2000

F. Contact details

The author of this report is Chief Superintendent Stephen French, MPS Public Order OCU.

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Review of Notting Hill carnival

1. Introduction

1. This document has been prepared in response to the Mayor of London's invitation for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to contribute to the review of Notting Hill Carnival that he has commissioned.

2. The MPS welcomes this review of Carnival and the opportunity it provides to address the challenges presented to all the agencies involved in its management. It is hoped that this process will result in a strategic framework that will deliver the necessary change to ensure a future safe and successful Carnival.

3. This document has been prepared to respond to those key issues arising from the 'consultation questions' attached to the letter of invitation. The MPS has commented on those issues which are relevant and appropriate to the policing of Carnival. Our contribution is therefore predominantly about safety, security and crime.

4. It is the view of the MPS that the key background issues against which any review must operate are:

• an acknowledgement of the unique nature of the event, which has the status of London's single most diverse and celebratory community festival. In particular that the event has evolved over many years and public celebration would take place in this area of Notting Hill irrespective of the attempts by a variety of organisations to manage events;
• the number of people attending Carnival has now reached a stage where it has a very detrimental impact on the ability of all the agencies involved to provide an effective service and discharge their individual organisational responsibilities;
• the large number of people attracted are focussed at a number of key popular locations and not spread out over the whole Carnival 'footprint';
• a large numbers of people in a small area of London provides an environment for criminal behaviour;
• in public safety terms the Carnival is a unique public entertainment event and has developed to a scale far beyond the capacity of Notting Hill Carnival Trust (NHCT) to manage. As a result the emergency services and local authorities fill this void. In particular the MPS and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

2. Public safety

1. The greatest priority for Carnival must be public safety and it has, in recent years, been the single most important strategic consideration in developing the policing plan. The ownership and responsibility for public safety and the discharge of this responsibility at Carnival is a complex issue and does not rest solely with any single organisation. This is driven by the fact that the major elements of the event do not take place on private land. In consequence, the principle guidance for organising such events, for example the Health and Safety Executive publication 'Guide to Health Safety and Welfare at Pop Concerts and Similar Events' (The Purple Guide), does not fully meet the unique geography and infrastructure of Carnival.

2. This unique situation is acknowledged by the creation of the Carnival Safety Liaison Group, chaired by the Chief Executive NHCT. This group brings together key practitioners from all agencies involved in safety with the aim of ensuring effective and co-ordinated communication flows and provision of safety advice to the variety of individuals responsible for decisions.

3. Carnival brings the possibility of threats to public safety from a variety of sources -fire, crime and disorder, building collapse, crowd distress and so on. Several public agencies have individual responsibilities to prevent or respond to these threats. This is why the leading agencies undertaking safety planning for Carnival (local authorities, the emergency services and the event organisers NHCT) agree in advance a 'memorandum of understanding' about their respective responsibilities and joint intention.

4. It is the MPS view that the organisation of Carnival is outside the normally accepted working arrangements and protocols for public safety when compared with other commercial events on the public highway. It is normal for the event organiser to take responsibility for public safety issues and put controls in place to discharge this obligation.

5. Whilst the MPS and all other public agencies contribute towards public safety, it should in our view be a medium to long term aim that the event organiser, NHCT, be in a position to fully comply with their responsibility for safety. Clearly, there are major resourcing implications to this proposition. A significant step towards achieving this position would be the employment of a full-time, qualified and professional safety officer.

6. Part of the planning process should include a thorough risk assessment by the event organisers to identify the critical control measures need to be imposed. For example, a critical control measure would be the number of stewards/route marshals required for the event and where they should be deployed. Training for these individuals must be provided before the event and they should have a comprehensive command and management structure working in close liaison with the police. The present level of 200 route marshals/stewards is insufficient and the police are therefore required to manage the consequences of the shortfall, which in turn takes those officers away from policing responsibilities. Clearly, there are major resourcing implications in a proposal that significantly increases the number of stewards or route marshals.

7. All street traders need to be licensed by the local authority and this requirement must remain in place. In view of the crowded environment in which they operate, training in appropriate 'health and safety' procedures should be compulsory and a condition on the grant of a licence. Council officers supported by police officers must continue to monitor the licensed sites throughout the event.

8. Whilst it is acknowledged that this review will be focussing on a medium to long term strategy for Carnival the immediate challenges facing key stakeholders for the 2001 event must also be considered. It is incumbent on all agencies to examine how urgent and critical issues can be factored into planning for next year. However, it is acknowledged that funding is perhaps the single and most important contribution to necessary change and in consequence this review must address this key issue with urgency.

3. Carnival location and route

1. Tradition dictates the location of Carnival which, despite developing from a local community festival into one of international significance, has not increased in size. The present location appears to be preferred by the Carnival organisers and many of those who attend the carnival. It is important that the Carnival area is within the capacity of the organisers and other agencies to effectively manage. It must be acknowledged that to simply increase the length of the Carnival route or size of the overall area may not provide a solution to existing problems and would require extra personnel from all agencies including NHCT. It is likely that more funding would be required to manage this, from both the statutory agencies and the voluntary organisations such as St John Ambulance.

2. To make use of other areas nearby which have been suggested such as Hyde Park may appear initially attractive, but there would be extensive public safety issues to be addressed. Such locations may not be suitable for large crowds due to the terrain, lighting and access routes, especially after dark. Any alternative or supplementary locations would have to be considered by a comprehensive risk assessment. There are likely to be considerable funding issues associated with the imposition of necessary control measures.

3. The artistic content of those participating in Carnival is not a matter for the MPS. However, as the route necessarily includes a judging point, there are vital public safety considerations attached to this key location. The route for the procession must allow the floats to display their creativity while at the same time permit the safe passage of pedestrians around the floats, and into and out of the carnival area. This would be more easily achieved if a smaller number of floats were authorised to be on the route.

4. As with the size of the Carnival area, any expansion of the route would lead to a corresponding increase in the number of route marshals needed, which in turn would require extra funding. Any proposal for an expansion of the Carnival route must be treated on its merits and is subject to a risk assessment applied to specific locations.

5. In a similar way, if it were possible to achieve a conclusion of the Carnival parade by the early evening this would have several potential benefits: The floats would be able to return to their 'camps' and de-rig during daylight. Similarly the crowds could leave the Carnival area during daylight and it would be possible to stagger their use of public transport. With a gradual move away from the centre of Carnival the local authorities would then be able to clean up, and return the area to normal more quickly. This would reduce the disruption to the local community. It should also be borne in mind that any increase in tension or criminal behaviour normally occurs as darkness arrives.

4. Density of people

1. It may be useful to consider whether there is any best practice in such environments as modern theme parks or transport terminals. The best instrument for managing the crowd is a well-designated pedestrian route layout, defined by suitable barriers and using one-way flows where necessary. One critical aid in helping to manage crowd congestion is to provide ample signage and better information to those attending. This could include information on the nature of the attractions, where the events are happening and how to enter and exit the area. The complexity of providing this information should not be under-estimated, as should not the related funding considerations.

2. Stewarding has already been referred to above. It is potentially one of the most significant factors to impact on crowd movement and management. More stewards with better training and an efficient communications system are essential. There are of course resourcing implications to this proposal.

5. Travel to and from carnival

1. The nature of the carnival environment and the geography of the Carnival area make travel by car impractical and effective public transport a key requirement. The ability of the crowd to enter and exit locations close to the Carnival area by public transport is an essential safety and comfort factor. There needs to be trains and buses available to get people to and from Carnival throughout the day.

2. The MPS will continue to work jointly with the British Transport Police (BTP) and the transport providers throughout the whole planning process. It is an essential requirement that there be sufficient trains and buses available to get the crowd away from Carnival throughout the day.

3. The constant threat of station closure during the event adds to uncertainty for planners when trying to deal with crowd movement and can cause confusion for the public on the day of the event. The reasons for these closures are understood, however there is a constant requirement to balance public safety issues in and outside railway stations. Communication is a key issue and investment in sophisticated and dynamic electronic signage and other means of communicating would be of great assistance.

6. Police presence

1. The policing of Notting Hill Carnival is normally the single largest policing operation in London throughout the year. The MPS deploys in the region of 2,500 police officers on the Sunday and 4000 police officers on the Monday. There are very considerable real and opportunity costs incurred by the MPS.

2. One of the overriding objectives of the policing operation is to provide the residents and visitors to this residential area, with as effective a policing response as could be anticipated or expected at any other time of the year. Whilst the Metropolitan Police Service have no specific responsibility for the safety of the public, we would seek to be in a position to be able to react, where necessary to any reasonably foreseeable occurrence, either individually or in concert or support of the other agencies involved.

3. In planning the policing operation for the Carnival we take account of the difficult lessons learned during the 1970's and 80's when large scale violent crime and a regular breakdown of public order took place. We are conscious that whilst setting the levels of policing we should aim to strike a balance between the requirement to deal with potential large scale crime and disorder and the desire of those attending Carnivals to celebrate freely, without unnecessary intervention from the statutory authorities. We work throughout the year with the carnivalists to not only maintain suitable lines of communication but also to exchange ideas and promote a better understanding of the aims and abilities of the policing operation.

4. Notting Hill Carnival 2000 was a difficult year for the event. There was a significant identified rise in the level of criminal activity and the number of arrests for criminal offences. Analytical work and examination of the crimes reported has not indicated any clear reason for this rise and as such it is difficult to take a simplistic view on any future intervention policy. A full internal review of both the public order and crime management strategies has been put in train and the recommendations of this review will be discussed with our partners at the earliest opportunity. Any changes will be made only if they are based on clear facts and are likely to lead on an improvement of the current situation.

5. We are aware that, in the light of the events of Carnival 2000, media and political attention will be focused on many aspects of future Carnivals, not the least of which will be the policing operation. We are committed to working with our partners to reduce levels of crime and ensure that the needs of all of the parties involved are met as far as is possible. We remain supportive of Carnival as a celebration of the vitality of the multiculturalism of London. Although the MPS are not the organising body, we feel that we have a vital and positive contribution to make for all concerned, be they residents or revellers. Despite the difficulties and tragedies faced we are proud of the many successes which have come from the Carnivals of the 1990's and feel that the policies adopted have proved successful.

7. Carnival activities

1. NHCT quite rightly leads on Carnival activities although it does of course discuss these various elements with the public agencies and other key players as part of the planning process. Consideration should be given as to whether the overall mix of activities (steel bands, floats, mobile sound systems, static sound systems and stages, food and trading outlets) is right and in the necessary proportions for safety at the overall event. Furthermore, whether these various attractions are at the right locations to contribute to public safety. Any public stages must continue to be subject of a risk assessment.

2. The partner agencies including MPS and NHCT need to ensure that they maintain the present level of co-operation. This should lead to a point where all interested parties, including local resident groups, have a say in an event and how the planning process works.

8. Provision of facilities

1. The local authorities provide officers to inspect and supervise street traders and other outlets in the Carnival area. These officers are accompanied by police officers to assist them in any enforcement that may be required.

2. Toilet provision is an important issue for Carnival-goers and the MPS supports attempts by the public authorities and other agencies to provide more of these facilities.

9. Adequate communication and signage

1. It is the view of the MPS that a public information campaign should be developed by the carnival organisers to enable the public and the media to better understand the nature of the event. This should include providing realistic information to regional and national tourist boards for potential visitors to Carnival.

10. Conclusion

1. Carnival is a unique celebratory community based event which has evolved over many years and currently faces a number of significant problems, most of which revolve around issues of crowd management and public safety.

2. Solutions are complex and will require the active participation of a number of key agencies. The level of co-operation currently in place is very significant and is a testimony of the commitment of these organisations to the future of Carnival.

3. Proposals such as increasing the length of the procession or overall size of the footprint are initially attractive but do themselves present a whole host of new challenges. Any consideration must be subject to thorough risk assessment and viewed against the background of the likely impact on the resources of all of the agencies involved.

4. However, the present format of the route, with the large number of vehicles and overcrowding, results in late finishing beyond the 9pm specified in the Code of Practice for Carnival. This results in serious implications for all of the agencies involved. The number of floats on the route is key and it is clear that the number in 2000 (approximately 80) is too many for the current route.

5. NHCT should be given assistance to discharge their responsibilities for the whole of the Carnival planning process, in particular with regard to public safety issues. Clearly, funding is a major element in any such proposal since the majority of the developments and planning processes mentioned in this paper have a significant resourcing implication.

6. Consistent and realistic funding is the single most important challenge to be overcome in enabling NHCT to more fully embrace and discharge their responsibilities for public safety. The current arrangements, driven by short-term sponsorship and financial structures, are severely reducing NHCT's ability to take on responsibility for safety and event management.

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback