NPSA issues guidance document on terrorism mitigation techniques for venues

This guidance outlines potential vulnerabilities during ingress and egress and then provides a scalable approach to security regimes, from a basic design concept right through to more complex solutions.

The NPSA’s document covers crowding during ingress and egress, the key components of reducing risk, understanding potential threats, identifying vulnerabilities during ingress and egress, control measures to be considered when looking to reduce risk and the importance of recording security processes, testing, reviewing and revising. Using examples, there’s also instruction on how control measures may be applied at a venue.

During ingress and egress there are potential safety issues through overcrowding, which could lead to crushing, trampling or other potentially life-threatening consequences. These concerns are hugely important to the management of events and should be considered as part of the overall planning and risk assessment process. They’re not covered in this guidance, but further information can be found on the ProtectUK website.

Crowds can become targets

Crowds can become targets of terrorist attacks, especially so during events at major and popular venues.

The start and finish times of events are usually predictable, as are the areas where there will be increased crowd density during ingress and egress. This increases vulnerability at these times and locations and must be taken into consideration as part of the security planning process.

During ingress, venues can create potential target areas as crowds form. This could be during the approach to the venue, at gates or restrictions on the outer perimeter, at a ticket check area, search area or point of entry. Clearly, safety is an important consideration in all of these areas. Safety and security should always be considered together.

The threat during egress differs in that crowds may form while leaving a controlled environment and entering an uncontrolled area where they can become a potential target. A site can become particularly vulnerable at this stage as exits are opened and people flow out into public areas.

The people leaving may be exposed to risk, as well as those still in the venue where control measures may have been lifted to facilitate egress, thereby affording an opportunity for a threat actor to enter the site – or the proximity of the site – unhindered.

In both cases, the problem centres around the congregation of people who are vulnerable to attack where there are limited security measures in place. This is particularly relevant in areas that may be outside the curtilage or direct control of the venue.

Add to that mix the complications of long queues, checking tickets and th requirement for bag searches, etc and the need to identify the vulnerabilities and control or manage the risks becomes clear. Being prepared is key to combating any threat. Hostile actors may identify the entry and exit points at a venue as ‘soft targets’ if security is poorly developed.

Manchester Arena attack

An example of the threat posed, of course, occurred at the Manchester Arena on 22 May 2017. A lone attacker (namely Islamic extremist Salman Abedi) waited in a large foyer area adjacent to the Manchester Arena. When the pop concert by Ariana Grande finished at around 10.30 pm, people were making their way out of the event while others had come from outside the venue into the foyer area to meet up with friends or family members.

When the foyer was full of people, Abedi detonated his suicide explosive device. More than 20 individuals (including Abedi) died, while over 1,000 others were injured.

There are many lessons to be learned from this incident including the vulnerability of crowds during egress and the need to make sure that ‘grey space’ (ie the area outside a site in the vicinity of the venue, which may be either a public or private space and perhaps not under the direct control of that venue) is considered as part of security planning and operations.

Originally published on 16 October last year, the draft Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill – often referenced as Martyn’s Law in honour of Martyn Hett, the son of campaigner Figen Murray OBE and one of those who died in the Manchester Arena episode – is ‘on hold’ ahead of the General Election. The fervent hope is that it’s picked up and progressed immediately once Parliament is back in session.

Factors for consideration

According to the NPSA, the key in terms of ingress and egress is to understand the potential threats, identify vulnerabilities during entry and exit times, mitigate the risk and record, test, review and revise all plans and procedures.

The profile of the audience, the location of the venue, the space available and the landscaping are just some of the factors that need to be considered when devising a plan. The NPSA guidance provides pointers to help keep people safe and secure, from basic changes to the venue operation through to more complex security-led design approaches.

*Copies of the National Protective Security Authority’s guidance on ‘Mitigation of Terrorist Threats at Venues During Ingress and Egress’ are available to view online and may be downloaded in PDF format