The decision to take a year off in 2001 has a simple cause : gatecrashers - or, more accurately, fence-jumpers. Although the event passed off without major incident it was widely recognised that the number of people on site was significantly in excess of the number permitted by the Public Entertainment Licence. The site is licenced for 100,000 people; with the addition of gatecrashers the site was completely full. In assessing trends and risks for the 2001 event, the Festival acknowledges that the rate of increase in numbers of gatecrashers suggests that there is a strong likelihood that the site could be dangerously over-crowded in 2001. After considerable work to develop controls, the Festival and the authorities are not sufficiently confident that effective controls can be put into place in time for 2001. However, all parties believe that a year off will allow sufficient time for adequate systems to prevent non-ticket holders entering the site to be introduced, and for the key message of the dangers of overcrowding to be publicised. The issue has come to a head following concerns raised by the Mendip District Council : Report on Glastonbury Festival 2000, October 12th 2000 (Adobe Acrobat 4 format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat 4 or Acrobat Reader 4 mail webmaster and include subject line "Mendip Report.") and by the Police. Mendip District Council have since confirmed their intention to prosecute Michael Eavis over breaches of the terms of the Licence. The prosecution also alleges breaches of noise limits as well as attendance numbers.
The numbers game.
	Various methods - some more credible than others - have been used to estimate the numbers present last year, but the festival acknowledges that there were tens of thousands of gatecrashers. Although there have always been some people who gain entry to the festival without a ticket, 2000 saw these numbers reach astonishing proportions. In the early 70s gaining free admission was part of the culture of the events, and it is widely known that Michael Eavis was inspired by his visit to the Bath Blues Festival in 1970 - where he entered through a hole in the fence ! But that was a long time ago, and anyone who recently saw the film of the Isle of Wight festival from that era, replete with very 60s-style hippies condemning the "capitalist" fence, will probably have had an inner smile at how out-dated and cliched that behaviour seems now when compared with the enormous advances in production values, quality and quantity of entertainment, and audience safety and welfare resources which have come to characterise the modern Glastonbury festivals.
Organisation.
If Glastonbury is by far the best-known music festival throughout Europe, its closest rival for that title must surely be Roskilde, a weekend event in Denmark usually held on the weekend after Glastonbury (although in some years the events have run simultaneously.) 2000 saw a tragic event at Roskilde, where nine people were killed in a front of stage crush. This event shocked many, not least the Avon and Somerset Police who have frequently referred to the tragedy when voicing their concerns over Glastonbury's control of numbers on site. The police in Britain are exercising great caution to large scale events following their experiences at Notting Hill Carnival last summer, on Millennium Eve in London, and in the light of the Roskilde tragedy, and are looking to become more familiar with the complexity and competence of Glastonbury's large management team.
	It is worth noting that in the aftermath of Roskilde, organisers, governments and promoters' associations have been looking around for the best models and guidelines for safe event management and it is little surprise that the best resources have been found here in the UK.
Elsewhere on this website we have long recommended the Health and Safety Executive's publication The Event Safety Guide (ESG) as the standard reference work for an introduction to safe event planning. The ESG is now being voluntarily adopted in many other countries. It is notable that some of the core recommendations of the ESG, particularly designs and specifications of front of stage barriers, were not followed at Roskilde. In other developments, The Production Services Association (PSA) - the trade body representing live event professionals - has been called in as consultants to promoters' organisations and european governmental departments.
The Danish Government Working Party's Study of Safety Aspects of Music Festivals is now published. (Adobe Acrobat 4 format. If you do not have Adobe Acrobat 4 or Acrobat Reader 4 mail webmaster and include subject line "Danish Report.") Most of Glastonbury's key personnel are PSA members; many were core contributors to The Event Safety Guide, as were staff of Mendip District Council : a great deal of expertise has been pioneered around Glastonbury Festival, and the local authority, service providers, festival staff and contractors have become recognised experts in their fields.
2002 and beyond.
	Even before the Mendip District Council meeting in October at which the Council and the Police's concerns over the issue of potential overcrowding were given formal voice, work had begun to address the issue. Michael consulted Eve Trackway, the contractors who have provided the perimeter fence in recent years, to look at improved fencing solutions. A prototype of a new fence, commissioned by the Festival, was demonstrated in September. At 20 feet high the fence dwarfs the previous structure and has a number of other features which make it vastly more formidable as an obstacle to freeloaders. Michael stated that he was prepared to install a finalised version of the fence for the entire perimeter at a cost of £1.5 million. Feedback was invited from all parties including the Festival's own safety and emergency personnel, the emergency services and the local authority.
It was agreed that such an imposing new fence would be a major step forward in preventing overcrowding. It was also recognised that the presence of the structure brought with it some added responsibilities, and several vital ideas for improving fencing yet further came forward. The festival is now considering several final choices of design and is committed to providing a vastly improved perimeter fence for 2002. It was also agreed that the fence is only a partial solution. Other aspects of event planning can significantly help to dissuade people from attempting to enter without tickets and to avoid crowding on site. Amongst the main ideas under consideration are :
Public Transport. Ensuring that only ticket-holders are permitted to use the special bus, coach and train services to the Festival. Practical discussions with the main service providers are well advanced. Vehicle ticket checks. These would be carried out at some distance from the site, before traffic turns off main routes. Checks would ensure that all vehicle occupants had a festival ticket. Once checked, vehicles would be issued with their car parking permit. Only vehicles with parking permits will be waved through; other vehicles will be directed straight on. Remote car parks. Instead of using adjacent land the car parks may be established some distance away and shuttle transport for ticket-holders provided. Internal controls on access to troublespots. This has been strongly proposed by some authorities with regard to the main arena(s). The need to control the density of crowds in certain key areas of the site is being carefully examined. The Festival is opposed to fencing the arenas and would naturally want to retain the complete freedom of all ticket-holders to move at will through all parts of the site other than the obvious secure work areas, but organisers and authorities are aware of certain specific points and times where crowd densities tend to be very high and are in need of careful management. Other factors. These include increasing the number, professionalism, resources, legal empowerment and monitoring of perimiter and gate security staff; seeking the co-operation of the local community in not providing private parking nor other facilities to non-ticket-holders; developing a legally-informed strategy in co-operation with all relevant parties to prevent intrusion and damage to the fence.