Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We have with us Dr Dan Hull, the CAL Committee researcher, and Suzie Cave, who is the Environment Committee researcher. We thank them for their presentation this morning.

Dr Dan Hull (Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service): Thank you, Chair. Good morning, members. Suzie and I will address two different but related stages leading up to the development of a new sports stadium. First, Suzie will describe what should happen in the case of a planning application and, specifically, the responsibilities of each of the agencies involved and at what stage they become involved. I will describe the guidance presented in the 'Northern Ireland Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds', otherwise known as the "red guide", particularly regarding the calculations of safe exiting and emergency evacuation capacity.

It is important to say that neither of us is qualified or experienced enough to interpret what planning legislation or, indeed, safety legislation says, so, while we will do our best to describe what should happen in both cases ordinarily, we cannot go as far as to interpret that. That is for two reasons: first, neither of us is a technical safety expert by background; and, secondly, we do not have access to or possession of the detailed plans and documentation that safety planners would presumably require. With that in mind, I hand over to Suzie.

Ms Suzie Cave (Northern Ireland Assembly Research and Information Service): Thank you. As Dan has already explained, my paper gives a general overview of the dispersed responsibilities in relation to fire safety and emergency exiting, taking it from the planning stage to the post-construction phase of the development. The paper is made up of a table detailing the different phases, the responsible bodies and the powers that they have in considering emergency and fire evacuation plans. Also in the paper, at the last page, is a diagram illustrating the general process from the plan to the construction phase across the responsible bodies. I will go through the paper highlighting some of the key points. I know that the Committee had a particular interest in planning responsibilities for assessing fire and emergency exiting.

The fundamental purpose of the planning system is to manage the development and use of land and to balance competing interests.

DOE Planning has no legislative authority over health and safety aspects, such as fire and safety plans, evacuation plans and emergency exiting. They do not form part of the material considerations that Planning uses to base its decisions on. However, when considering an application, Planning must consult other statutory consultees, and those may include the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) if there are hazardous substances present and there is any potential increased risk of major accidents in the vicinity. It will also consult the Department for Regional Development on roads and access. The consultees use their areas of expertise to advise Planning on whether the proposal is acceptable. They may also propose conditions to be attached to any approval. However, the final decision rests with DOE Planning.

The diagram at the back of the briefing paper shows the process from the plan stage. I will now describe the rest of the stages very briefly.

Mr B McCrea: May I just check that I am at the right place? Which paper are we on?

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are on page 29.

The Committee Clerk: It is in the tabled papers. The briefing paper starts on page 22, and the diagram is on page 29.

Mr B McCrea: Thank you. I thought that that was it. I was just checking.

Ms Cave: Once the plans are approved by DOE Planning, they are sent to the building control service of the relevant local council, and it is at this stage that fire and safety plans and emergency exiting are assessed against building regulations. The overall purpose of building regulations is to look after the health, safety and welfare of people in and around buildings.

Further to that, any sports grounds proposals are sent to the council's environmental health department. It assesses the plans and grants a safety at sports grounds certificate. The process involves the consideration of capacity, emergency exits, and so on, under the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 and any associated guidance, also known as the "red guide". Dan will take you through the detail of the red guide.

Those are the stages of the pre-construction phase. Once the premises are built, it is up to the owner and the employer or person in control to conduct a fire risk assessment. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service may carry out assessments or inspections to ensure that the premises and the risk assessments meet required standards. Importantly, fire and rescue legislation is not fully effective in premises where the 2006 Order is being applied. However, in those cases, the Fire and Rescue Service may inspect certain parts of the premises that are under its remit. Those may include any restaurants or shops but will not include the central sports pitch or ground and the surrounding stands.

That is a general and broad overview of the main regulatory stages. I hope that that brings a bit of clarity to the process and explains where the responsibilities lie from the planning stage through to the construction stage. I will now hand over to Dan.

Dr Hull: If it is OK with you, Chair, we will take questions afterwards, since the two presentations are interlinked in a way.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Yes.

Dr Hull: I will briefly describe the legislation and move on to talk about the guidance in more detail. As Suzie said, in Northern Ireland, we have the Safety of Sports Grounds (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. Essentially, that provides for a system whereby local councils issue safety certificates. Those certificates contain two things: the first is an indication of safe capacity, so, if you like, it is a hard number; and the second is the terms and conditions that may be attached to that number. Whatever the number is, that number of people can be admitted but only if the terms and conditions are followed.

The legislation does not specify safety standards. Instead, it sets out the nature of the certification system that, as we have said, is implemented by local councils and overseen by Sport Northern Ireland on behalf of DCAL. DCAL has published what we colloquially refer to as the "red guide", which details the standards that are to be applied at sports grounds and sits alongside the certification system. It is based very largely on the UK's 'Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds' that preceded it, which is known as the "green guide".

There are very few differences between the two, but I will mention two by way of example. There is a slightly different method for calculating safe-exiting capacity, which I will talk about in a little more detail in a moment. Moreover, the red guide is more specific on arrangements for people with a disability. Therefore, although those arrangements and the relevant building regulations are referred to in the green guide, the red guide spells them out in more detail.

The red guide has no statutory force, although many of its recommendations are, in effect, given force of law through the terms and conditions. Therefore, as I said earlier, a sports ground can host an event only if the terms and conditions set by the local council are abided by for the number of people stipulated. Those terms and conditions are very often drawn directly from the red guide.

It is also important to say that it does not supersede building regulations — any of the regulations that Suzie referred to a moment ago — or other legislation, such as health and safety at work legislation, fire safety legislation or legislation relating to people with disabilities. All of that still stands, and, in fact, the red guide in many places draws together a whole series of references to those building regulations and legislation on British safety standards. For those areas that are really specific to sports grounds, where there may not be guidance in legislation, it provides that guidance.

I will now talk about calculating capacity. The capacity of a sports ground is calculated in four ways. First, there is entry capacity. Very roughly, that is the capacity of each section of the ground to be filled within one hour. More specific guidance is given that there must be enough turnstiles to admit 660 people an hour, although it is stated very strongly in the guidance that that should be regarded as a maximum, because it might be that some turnstiles are preferred by spectators over others. Therefore, that should really be the upper limit. Secondly, there is the holding capacity. Seated terracing essentially means the number of usable seats, with the proviso that seats with poor visibility may be considered as ineligible within the safety capacity, because spectators may sit down in them but then start to move, and that is where danger may creep in. With standing accommodation, it is more complex, but there is a density calculation of 47 spectators per 10 square metres. However, there is also a lot of other detailed guidance about crush barriers and the nature of those barriers — their height, width, distribution, and so on — to ensure that there is an even distribution of people across a particular terrace. Thirdly, there is the exit, or egress, capacity. Finally, of course, there is the emergency evacuation capacity.

An exit capacity calculation is made on the basis of the number of people who are able to vacate the stadium within a period of eight minutes, given a standard rate of passage. The standard rate of passage in the red guide for standing accommodation is 109 spectators per metre width per minute. If you have an exit that is 2 metres wide, you could expect 218 people to exit per minute, and so on. For seated accommodation, the recommended rate in the red guide is 73 spectators per metre width per minute, on the basis that people take longer coming out of seated accommodation than they do standing accommodation. That differs from the green guide, which specifies instead that, on a stepped surface, 66 spectators per metre width can exit per minute and, on a level surface, 82 spectators per metre width can exit per minute. In other words, the green guide is slightly more cautious in its stipulations.

I will move on to emergency evacuation capacity specifically. An emergency evacuation capacity calculation is similar in the first instance to exit capacity but with a total evacuation time that might be less than eight minutes and could be as low as two and a half minutes depending on the safe rate of passage. That very much depends on the nature of, and the materials used in, the emergency evacuation route. If all the materials that the emergency evacuation route is constructed from are seen as being fully fire retardant and fully safe, the full eight minutes might be awarded. However, it might be the case that, even though the exit capacity for a particular section states that all the people can get out of that accommodation within eight minutes, fire safety experts might say, "Well, in fact, the materials from which it's made or the route that they're following is not quite safe enough, so we're going to give you only four minutes to get people out of that particular accommodation". Sometimes, they might give only two and a half minutes. Within that time, spectators must be able to move from the viewing accommodation to what is called a "place of safety". A place of safety is defined as:

The eventual safe capacity of a sports ground, following all four of those calculations, is whichever is the lowest number, but that is not quite the end of the story, because, although that gives you a number, two further factors are taken into account. They are described as the "(P) factor", the physical condition of a ground, and the "(S) factor", which is the quality of safety management within a ground. The poor physical condition of certain terraces or the poor nature of safety management — safety management that is not up to standard — can substantially reduce the calculated safe capacity. You might have a ground that is designed to exit 10,000 people. It might be a new ground built to good standards, with a (P) factor of 1·0, so that has no effect on the 10,000 exiting capacity. However, it might be the case that, because of, for example, the distribution of the exits or other concerns about the nature of safety management, the district council awards the ground an (S) factor of only 0·6, so, of those 10,000, only 6,000 could be safely evacuated. The (S) factor can include all sorts of things, such as ticketing practices, seat and row numbering, the quality and number of stewards, grounds at which only partial cover is provided, the ability of management to keep gangways clear, and so on.

To illustrate some of the ways in which a calculation is carried out, I have provided an example from the red guide, which is in your papers. If the Committee will indulge me just for a moment, I will take you through the example. If you are viewing it in colour, it is the blue box.

Mr Humphrey: What page are we on?

The Assistant Committee Clerk: It is on page 17 of tabled papers.

Dr Hull: I will run through it briefly. The example is for a fictitious ground, and it deals with a particular terrace, but it gives you an idea of the kind of calculation that is done for an emergency evacuation. The terrace of the ground is non-combustible, and exit routes are described as being good. Therefore, the maximum emergency evacuation time is indeed the maximum of eight minutes, and that should be deemed acceptable. In addition to the normal exits, there are four gates on the pitch perimeter providing forward evacuation on to the pitch, at a rate of passage of 109 persons per metre width per minute. Each gate is 1·1 metres wide and stairways are 5·5 metres wide, so each perimeter gate is 4·4 metres wide. Therefore, and I have set out the sums in the table, the total emergency exit capacity is 881 people from that section per minute. If you multiply that by eight minutes, it is 7,048 for that terrace.

However, that is not your final number necessarily, because that may not be the same as the holding capacity of that terrace. Looking at that, 881 people can safely exit that accommodation. Therefore, 2,074, which is the seated capacity, divided by 881 means that you can get all the people in that terrace into the exiting system in 2·35 minutes, which is indeed less than the eight minutes, so it is declared safe. That takes you through the kind of calculation that is usually carried out, and that is just for one terrace. That has to be done for all the accommodation and then for the ground as a whole.

Moving away from calculations, I will now give a bit more detail on exit routes. The red guide states that exit routes should be:

However, it is fair to say that the red guide is perhaps less clear in dealing with the issue of an exit that might suddenly become impeded and therefore cannot be used in an evacuation. While it is stated that, if a designated exit point is impeded for any reason

I am not sure that it is stated clearly in the guide what impact that diversion then has on your recalculation of the emergency exiting capacity. The implication is that the validity of any diversions that might have to be put in place depends on the quality of safety management arrangements or the (S) factor that I mentioned earlier.

The red guide recommends that new sports grounds are planned with four zones. There is a diagram in the research paper showing those. That is the zonal planning that is advised, particularly for new constructions. Those four zones are as follows: zone 1 is the pitch or the playing area, if it is a different kind of sport; zone 2 is the spectators' accommodation; zone 3 is what is called an "outer circulation area", which is an area outside of the seated accommodation but still within the bounds of the ground where spectators can circulate, either on the way in or the way out, to find the right exit; and zone 4 is described as being a buffer zone outside the sports ground perimeter entirely that is used for the public to gather before entry or then to find their transportation network once they have got outside the ground.

There are a couple of points to make on those zones. The red guide states that zone 1, which is the pitch, can be used as part of the emergency evacuation route but only if it:

It states in the red guide that it cannot be considered a final place of safety but that it can be considered part of the route. It says of zone 4 that spectators should be able to walk freely around that zone and that it should be considered the designated place of safety in the event of an emergency. The red guide does acknowledge that there is scope for variation, particularly with pre-existing guidance. An example that I know well outside of this jurisdiction is the London Road ground, which is where Peterborough United play. It does not have a zone 3 at all, but it does have a very large zone 4. Therefore, you go directly into zone 2 from zone 4. Other grounds — for example, Trent Bridge cricket ground — have an extensive zone 3, which is outside of the seated area but sits underneath the stadium within its bounds so that spectators can circulate quite freely.

The final point is to describe what the red guide says about deviation from its guidance. As I mentioned —

Mr B McCrea: Before you move on to that point, can you clarify for me whether there is such a thing as a zone 5?

Dr Hull: I am not aware of that.

Mr B McCrea: Is there nothing in the green guide?

Dr Hull: I cannot say definitively whether it is the green guide. I can certainly look and come back to you quite quickly on that. It is certainly not in the red guide.

On deviations from the guidance, the recommendations provided in the red guide do not themselves have any statutory weight, although they can be given that weight through the certification system. However, the guide is careful to point out that the stipulations and calculations that it makes are provided on the basis on detailed research and observation. For example, going back to that figure of eight minutes, it states that that has been arrived at as a result of research and experience, which suggests that, within that period, spectators are less likely to become agitated or experience frustration or stress, provided that they enter an exit system at an acceptable rate. To give an example of that research, as I understand it, one of the differences between the green guide and the red guide is that red guide states that the recommended rate of passage for egress is 73 spectators per metre width per minute, while the green guide more recently has said 66. That was done on the basis of viewing CCTV extensively, which came to the conclusion that spectators tend to move more slowly out of grounds than had been thought previously.

It is stressed that a deviation from the recommendations made in the red guide is acceptable only when it is considered to be necessary and reasonable, and the precise nature of that deviation should be recorded with supporting written evidence, and adherence to that variation in the future should be strictly monitored. If there is some kind of variation that is then approved and documented, there should be the ability to check that there has not been subsequent variation that has not been written and not been recorded.

That is all from us, Chair. We are happy to try to field any questions.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you. What date was the red guide published?

Dr Hull: 2007.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): And the green guide?

Dr Hull: The fifth edition was 2008, so it is slightly more recent.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Suzie, you mentioned the 2006 legislation on safety in sports grounds: what was the position prior to that?

Ms Cave: Prior to 2006? Dan, do you have any idea about that?

Dr Hull: I do not, I am afraid. We will find out and get back to you.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): That is fine.

Mr Ó hOisín: Thank you, Dan and Suzie. Dan, obviously, these are what they are: guides. I have attended enough events, sporting occasions and what have you in my day to realise that different crowds have different dynamics. On a local level, 10,000 people — a capacity crowd — in the Odyssey watching the Belfast Giants would have a slightly different dynamic from, say, 10,000 in Celtic Park in Derry watching a different game. I know that the conditions of the stadia are important, but is there any factor there to be considered on internal and external —

Dr Hull: There are some variations described for different sports. For example, for racecourses it is acknowledged that it is much more difficult to control the circulation of people in a large area. The guide also refers to the fact that, if you have a different event in a sports stadium — say, a music event or another public event — you might have a different dynamic or demographic in the crowd. You might have children or elderly people, and a different nature of stewarding would have to happen for a safety certificate to be awarded.

Mr Ó hOisín: The catalyst for this inquiry was the evidence of Mr Paul Scott, who is an "expert" on the subject. It was his contention that zone 1 would not be used as a place of safety in the circumstances, particularly in reference to Casement Park. What is your take on that?

Dr Hull: There are two kinds of safety zone described in the red guide. One is the "place of safety", which is assumed to be the final place of safety, where you are finally free of risk from any emergency situation. The red guide states that the pitch should not be used for that. However, it is mentioned that there is what they call a "place of comparative safety", and I can describe what it says. It says that, in a large sports ground, there may be a need to designate a place or places of what it calls "comparative safety", where people can be safe from the effects of fire for 30 minutes or more, thus allowing extra time for them to move directly to a place of safety. It —

Mr Ó hOisín: That would change the ratio of exiting.

Dr Hull: It does not change the calculation.

Mr Ó hOisín: No, but the consideration would make it easier to exit.

Dr Hull: Yes, and it can then form part of the emergency plan, which —

Mr Ó hOisín: The green guide is from 2006, and the red guide is from 2008, is that right?

Dr Hull: The red guide is 2007, and the green guide is 2008.

Mr Ó hOisín: Obviously, the green and red guides are written for certain types of stadia. You will appreciate that the average soccer pitch is half the size of an average GAA pitch. That is another factor that is perhaps not covered in the two guides.

Dr Hull: Yes. I looked at the list of sports, which says that it is not definitive but that the guide should apply to things such as athletics, cricket, golf and greyhound racing. You are right, of course, that the origin of the green guide is the then Football Licensing Authority in 1989.

Mr Ó hOisín: It is generally based on soccer.

Dr Hull: It was initially, yes, but through the five editions it is meant to apply to a range of sports.

Mr Ó hOisín: Did the red guide take any account of the likes of GAA sports?

Dr Hull: It is mentioned as one of the family of sports; it says "Gaelic sport".

Mr Ó hOisín: Even within Gaelic sport, there is a difference between hurling and football when it comes to the size of the playing field.

Dr Hull: Yes.

Mr Ó hOisín: Thank you.

Mr Humphrey: I apologise for missing part of your presentation. I know that the green guide is for the UK and the red guide is for Northern Ireland, but do we know whether they are consistent with European health and safety regulations?

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Somebody's phone is apparently interfering with the sound.

Dr Hull: I cannot give you a definitive answer on that, but both guides are consistent with domestic health and safety legislation.

Mr Humphrey: Given the evidence that the Committee has heard over the past month — I missed the evidence presented last week — could the variation between the two guides that you mentioned explain or be used to explain away people taking a different position to what has just been articulated to the Committee on health and safety at GAA, football and rugby grounds?

Dr Hull: The key differences that I referred to are simply the evacuation numbers. You will get a slightly different evacuation capacity.

Mr Humphrey: Do you agree with me that the size of the pitch is irrelevant? It is about the free movement of people. Given the calculations that you have just stated on movement towards the exits, the safe exiting of the ground is the key thing, not the size of the pitch.

Dr Hull: What I can say is that the red guide does not refer to the size of zone 1 as being of any relevance to the calculations. It talks about the nature of entrances or exits on to the place of play and about two roles at the place of play in those arrangements. I cannot recall that the size or specific shape is —

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Belfast City Council will be coming in a few weeks' time, and we will be able to ask the experts.

Mr Humphrey: I just want to reinforce my point. I understand that getting people to safety and getting them to a safe place are different. For example, if a stand is on fire — an old wooden one, for example — bringing people on to the pitch gets them to a safer place. They are not entirely safe. However, if there were a bomb, the pitch is not a solution, because you would have to get the people out. Is that right?

Dr Hull: Theoretically, what is recommended is that those instances be covered by a contingency plan. A bomb threat or, indeed, an actual bomb would be one of those extraordinary incidents. Other incidents that should be described —

Mr Humphrey: We have in Northern Ireland had no bomb hoaxes at sports grounds, thank goodness.

Mr Hilditch: This is really about the same point. Having done the safety officers' course as a safety officer at a sports ground — dealing with hundreds rather than thousands of people, luckily — I know that the training tells you that the pitch is not to be considered the place of safety, as you outlined. The size of the pitch is of little relevance. It is never taken into consideration, because you are taking those people towards the same exits, which are not suitable for taking people out of the ground. Let us not get hung up on the size of the pitch. You are still pushing people towards an exit of an unsuitable size. That pitch has to be cleared within a certain period, albeit a slightly longer period. You are still putting people in a situation in which panic will potentially set in after a period as they make for the same exits. That is more a point than a question as such. You probably outlined that anyway, Dan, to be fair.

Mr B McCrea: I asked you earlier about a zone 5 because there is a letter here from Populous that states:

What does this letter mean by "zone 4/5"?

Dr Hull: I am not aware of a zone 5 being referred to in the red guide. Perhaps it is in the green guide. I will need to come back to you on that.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Populous will be with us in two weeks' time.

Mr B McCrea: When it says that it is not feasible to provide a zone 4, what does that mean?

Dr Hull: I can tell you now. Zone 4 is referred to in more detail as:

Mr B McCrea: So, this letter is saying that it is not possible to bring forward a place of safety. It says:

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Could I just make a point here? Dan is in a slightly difficult position, in so far as he is not an expert in this. As a researcher, he has been researching it for us and has done an excellent job, as has Suzie, in providing the papers. That has been very valuable, but some of our questions may more easily directed towards the Belfast City Council staff when they are with us in a couple of weeks' time. We will be able to put them directly to Populous, because that is a quote from a letter that it sent.

Mr B McCrea: I am only seeking clarity on what we think is the definition.

I have only two more points to make. Mr Humphrey raised an issue that was stated, I think, in section 9.9:

What is your understanding of the guides if a pitch or area of activity is wholly surrounded by covered accommodation?

Dr Hull: I think it does refer to that; you are right. That is part of the assessment of whether it can be used as a comparative place of safety or whether it should be used as part of the evacuation route. The way I read it was that the implication is that, if it is covered all the way round, there may be a greater fire risk, because fire can spread more quickly in a fully covered stand.

Mr B McCrea: Yes, that is how I would read it as well.

I have one final question, just in case Suzie thought she was going to get off lightly. I do not mind who answers; I am just saying there are two of you. There is an issue about doing the fire safety analysis at the end when the stadium is built. That seems pretty logical, because you have to check what materials are on the ground and what it looks like. There is no point in just having a plan; you have to go and do that. Part of the argument that we have heard is that you should be taking a broad-brush approach to a feasible emergency exit plan at the beginning of the process just to see whether such a thing is possible. Obviously, new stadiums should be at 360 degrees in a greenfield site. However, if you are trying to put a new stadium in an old site, where there may be constraints and whatever, is there any evidence of best practice, or is it normal practice to have a rough establishment, shall we say, of whether it is feasible at the start of a project? Maybe you do not have the answer to that here now.

Ms Cave: If you are referring to the very beginning of the process, at the planning application stage, I can say that there is no statutory requirement for that. However, where best practice is concerned, having some idea of the plans would be an advantage if you were to put in an application and it was to go through the building control stages and any major development needed to be made to the premises, whether that was an alteration in height, an extension or any alteration to the site boundary to facilitate a safety plan. In that case, a new planning application would need to be put in. To try to identify what you need at the very beginning of the planning stage could reduce the potential of having to put in a new application.

Mr B McCrea: That is useful. Maybe we could ask for some follow-up research, because it would be interesting to see how many people would take your advice if it is standard practice. I am not saying that that would happen in every case, and I know that it is not statutory. Would it be standard practice to have an initial evaluation to try to minimise any alterations later on? Perhaps you could do that for us; that would be good.

Dr Hull: I have just one further thing to add, in case it is useful. On the involvement of fire safety professionals, the red guide says that a multi-agency emergency plan should be formed. The red guide deals with completed stadia, but the implication is that, because they are multi-agency talks led by the managers of the sports ground, the plan has to be ready on the day the stadium opens and those talks have to commence before the stadium is completed. It does not say specifically at what stage that should happen, but that nonetheless seems to be the guidance.

Mr D Bradley: Thank you very much for the presentation. During one of the evidence sessions last week, one of the witnesses said that, in some areas, the standards of the green guide might be higher than those in the red guide and vice versa. Did you discover anything in relation to safety issues in the standards in the two guides?

Dr Hull: Almost all the text is identical. The calculation that really stands out is that on what is called egress time. The key difference, as I understand it, is that, in the green guide, it is 79 people per 1·2 metre-wide exit — in other words, it is 66 spectators per metre width per minute — whereas it is 73 people per metre width per minute in the red guide. That is the key difference in that calculation.

Mr D Bradley: That is the main difference, safety-wise, between the two.

Dr Hull: Yes. If you were to make a calculation of a particular terrace or a stadium as a whole following the green guide guidance, you would end up with a lower number. In those eight minutes, fewer people can pass out during that time, according to the green guide guidance. The red guide assumes a slightly faster flow of people — 73 as opposed to 66.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Broadcasting has asked whether, if phones are to be kept on — they should not be — they can be kept as far away from the microphones as possible. It is interfering with the sound recording system.

Mr B McCrea: I would just like to state for the record that my phone is not only on silent: it is off.

Mr Cree: Good.

Mr Humphrey: He is not broadcasting.

Mr B McCrea: That makes tweeting harder, but it is OK.

Mr Dunne: Is the battery flat?

Mr D Bradley: Will you pass it over to me, please?

Mr McMullan: Dan, I will not keep you. Which is the main guide for here: the red or the green?

Dr Hull: That would be the red guide.

Mr McMullan: Is that the one that all the exiting and all that for the stadiums here is taken from?

Dr Hull: I could not say that. All I can say is that, for grounds that require certification here — designated grounds and any ground that has a terrace that can contain more than 500 people — it is the red guide that sits alongside the legislation. I could not say definitively; perhaps some grounds follow the green guide also.

Mr McMullan: It talks about forward motion: is there anything to explain that a wee bit more?

Dr Hull: Do you mean in the use of the pitch?

Mr McMullan: Yes, the pitch.

Dr Hull: Yes. The red guide says that the pitch may be used as a part of the emergency evacuation route as long as it has been considered safe to do so. That comes back to the factor of the nature of the surrounding accommodation. Also, in some circumstances, it may be regarded as a comparative place of safety but not the final place of safety.

Mr McMullan: Does it allow you to step outside of the green and red books on issues as long as they are compatible or nearly compatible with the red and green books?

Dr Hull: What it says about deviations is that there needs to be written evidence to support them and that any deviations need to be recorded.

Mr McMullan: Yes, but does that allow you to step outside the red and green books?

Dr Hull: Theoretically, it could do. It is acknowledged in both guides that they are meant to cover all sports grounds. They cover a variation of sports, as well as a variation of new and existing constructions.

It nonetheless emphasises throughout that those recommendations have been based on sound research.

Mr McMullan: Both books are used here. Are they used everywhere, including England, Scotland and Wales?

Dr Hull: Again, I cannot say for sure. I am not aware of any instances where the red guide has been used in England, Scotland or Wales. It really has been developed specifically for Northern Ireland.

Ms McCorley: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. Thanks for the presentation and report. Can you talk a wee bit about the rationale for why eight minutes was arrived at as the period that a certain number of people should have gone through? It is said that, in some circumstances, that could be reduced to two and a half minutes.

Dr Hull: That timing is specifically for the emergency evacuation calculation, as opposed to the exiting calculation. That relates to the safety of and materials on the route that those people are following. With the exit calculation under non-emergency conditions, it might be that up to eight minutes can be used. I will just refer to the wording. It states:

The reason behind the emergency evacuation calculation that as little as two and a half minutes could be awarded is because of the nature of any danger that is presented by the non-fire retardancy of the materials or other aspects of the evacuation route, which might mean that to afford the full eight minutes might actually be unsafe. It may be, but that is up to the fire safety team to assess.

Ms McCorley: So, does the two and a half-minute circumstance depend on the substances and route of the actual exit and whether they are fire retardant?

Dr Hull: Yes. That is right.

Ms McCorley: Just to explore that a wee bit more, is it the rationale that, when it gets to eight minutes, people would start to become agitated and panic?

Dr Hull: And experience frustration or stress. That is the point at which a situation potentially becomes much less manageable. That is the rationale behind the eight minutes.

Ms McCorley: You can see how, in those circumstances, it would be logical to use the pitch as a safe place if the gates, exits and all that comply. As long as everything was compliant, you could see in those circumstances why it would be logical to start to move people there. I am trying to think of a very serious emergency. Let us say that a fire broke out in the stand. You would not want to hold people back unnecessarily. You would see that, in those circumstances, you would use the pitch as a safe place provided that it had access to an exit route that would take people out.

Dr Hull: Yes. It says that the pitch "may" be used. Again, it depends on the materials surrounding the route, as well as the material of the pitch. It will be grass, I guess, in the case of Casement Park, but with other sports it may not be and it might be more flammable. Assuming that it is non-combustible and other aspects are satisfactory, it could be used as a comparative place of safety but only if people can be protected from fire for at least 30 minutes. It may also form part of the evacuation route. Again, it uses the terminology "may", because those other factors may come into it.

Ms McCorley: Of course, and it will depend on circumstances. You can see that. Is 3G considered fire retardant?

Dr Hull: I do not know, I am afraid.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We will be able to ask the people from the city council those technical questions when they are here.

Mr Dunne: Thank you very much for your presentation. Where the capacity of grounds is concerned, I have been to Old Trafford as a Man United supporter, and I think that one important point that needs to be made is that the design must be such that it allows quick entry to the grounds. I was there, I suppose, as a rather naive supporter. Around 20 minutes before the match started, very few people were in the ground, which surprised me, but before the match actually kicked off, the place was full. My point is that it is necessary for the design to be suitable to handle the capacity at entry and not just in the event of an emergency exit, because it is a two-way flow.

I want to come back to the design and the green book or the red book. As we understand, the red book is used here in Northern Ireland. Would it be reasonable for the project team, whoever is on it, including the architects and the consultants, to use the standards that are laid out in the red book to come up with a design and plans that are suitable and compliant to meet the regulations? Would that be reasonable?

Dr Hull: I could not say whether that would be reasonable. What I can say is that you are absolutely right that the entry capacity is one of the four calculations in the red guide. It might be that, for whatever reason, the entry capacity is the lowest of the four, in which case that would be the calculation that would be used to inspect the (S) and (P) factors. It states very strongly that, although, generally speaking, each section should be filled within one hour and each turnstile should be able to handle 660 people per hour, that is a maximum. That is because of the sometimes unpredictable nature of fans, who might prefer one turnstile over another, or there might be different fixtures or different transport arrangements. There might be a range of factors that vary that entry behaviour at different times and in different instances. Those are very much the maximum recommendations.

Mr Dunne: But it would be important to work through the regulations as part of the design process.

Dr Hull: I guess that is what the red guide is there to do. It accompanies the certification.

Mr Dunne: I have one other point. It is on the planning approval and process that is laid out. I understand that there is a responsibility and a requirement to consult the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland.

Ms Cave: Yes, there is a requirement to consult it under the 2012 Planning Order, which obviously changed in 2015. Going back to the 1991 Order, there was a requirement to consult with key consultees, one of which is the Health and Safety Executive.

Mr Dunne: That would clearly be a requirement. I notice that your paper refers to the criterion of:

I take it that that would come in under that. There would strictly be a requirement under that criterion.

Ms Cave: DOE Planning would look at the application. Basically, it is left to its discretion whom it consults. The HSE would obviously consider those aspects and make recommendations based on the points under its remit. A lot of its remit is in relation to hazardous substances in the development of the premises and whether any of those substances are being used or stored on the premises once it is being built in a residential area.

Mr Dunne: What about the safety of people and the increased capacity? Your paper talks about people visiting or working within the area: would the impact of that come under the HSE?

Ms Cave: Yes.

Mr Dunne: It does.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): I will bring William in in a moment. I want to make two points following on from that. On page 1 of your briefing paper, which is page 24 of our packs, its states that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland should be consulted "if the development for example", and it then gives the examples of:

and so on. Is there anything that specifies the issues on which the Health and Safety Executive should comment?

Ms Cave: That is taken from the primary legislation. I have not given all the points on which the Health and Safety Executive may get involved, but that is taken from the Order.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): In the case of a sports ground, would it include a requirement that you have to be able to demonstrate that spectators can safely exit in an emergency?

Ms Cave: I am not 100% sure on that specific detail.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Would it be possible to check that out for us so that we had some clarity on that point?

Ms Cave: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): The other thing that struck me when I was looking at your presentation, which was very helpful, is the diagram setting out the process. I am sure that people will have worked on other projects where the main line of development is from the DOE planning application or the council building control service and so on. The arrows in the diagram then go off to the side for sports grounds, because they are different. One thing we might consider is what experience the people involved in this process have of working on sports grounds, as opposed to a large public building, a concert hall or office space or whatever. This is different, therefore it would be interesting to know whether people had experience of it.

Mr Humphrey: I go to football and cricket matches, although we tend not to have spectator difficulties at cricket matches in Northern Ireland. I have been listening to the evidence — I know you are not an expert — but do you think that grounds are safer if they are all-seater?

Dr Hull: Again, not having the expertise, I could not say that necessarily. I suppose there is an acknowledgement within both guides that different safety practices have to be considered with regard to seated accommodation, so people have to come out more slowly. They can be slightly more densely situated because somebody has a definite place, as opposed to people being able to move around more freely.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): We are into an area that is maybe more appropriate for some of the other folk who will be coming in later.

Mr Humphrey: Fair enough. We will be at a match on Saturday night where we have seats, and we will not use them until half-time, which is rather odd.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Is that because you only arrive at half-time?

Mr Humphrey: You were asked about stepping outside the guidelines. Your response was that that would happen only if there was sound research, and that is quite right. However, is it not also the case that you step outside those guidelines only if the proposals are better and if they therefore minimise the risk and not increase or potentially increase it? You would never step outside guidelines to create a "worser" situation, as they say.

Dr Hull: I think that it is fair to say that the implication is there, but I have not seen it referred to specifically within the red guide. It talks about what you should do when you are deviating.

Mr Humphrey: But it is always for betterment.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): There was a phrase used, possibly last week, which was "equal or better".

Dr Hull: I do not recall that being specifically said within the red guide, but it may indeed be there. I would have to check.

Mr Humphrey: Yes, but the point is that you would never make a deviation from the guidelines that would in any way increase the risk and expose those attending a ground to more risk.

Dr Hull: I suppose that would be the implication.

Mr Humphrey: Otherwise, what is the point of having the guidelines?

Dr Hull: Yes.

Mr Humphrey: Guidelines they may be, but they are there in this context to provide a higher level of safety at grounds in Northern Ireland, going by the red book.

Mr Ó hOisín: Just for clarification, are the red and green guidebooks used only in planning applications for new builds, renovation or a change of usage and that type of thing?

Dr Hull: In terms of the guidance?

Mr Ó hOisín: Yes.

Dr Hull: Any ground that has a safety certificate should conform to the terms and conditions of the local authority.

Mr Ó hOisín: So, it applies to most sports grounds, then, as we know them.

Dr Hull: It does, above a certain size and/or if they are designated. The list of those designated grounds is set out in legislation.

Ms Cave: Just to clarify, they do not come into the planning application stage. It is not one of the considerations of planning.

Mr Ó hOisín: OK; it is not a consideration. I got that. Thanks, Suzie.

The Chairperson (Mr McCausland): Thank you indeed for your research, which has been helpful and has prompted a number of questions.