Agenda item

Consider report by the Executive Director & Service Director Assets & Infrastructure.  (Copy attached).

4.1     Copies of a joint report by the Executive Director and Service Director Assets and Infrastructure on the Jim Clark Rally 2020 Public Consultation Process had been circulated.  Revised legislation for motor sport events on closed public roads had been introduced in 2019 and gave increased rigor to the planning process for such events which aimed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the tragic events of 2014.  As part of that process, the organisers of the Jim Clark Rally had applied to the Council, as local roads authority, for a Motor Sports Order, to hold a rally on closed roads in the Scottish Borders on 30 and 31 May 2020.  In determining whether to make a Motor Sports Order, the Council had to consider a number of factors laid out in the Regulations.  The report outlined those factors and provided an opportunity to examine the proposals submitted by the rally organisers in respect of the routes and timings for the rally on 30 and 31 May 2020. 

4.2      It was noted that the event organisers had, prior to submitting the application, been in consultation with representatives of Scottish Borders Council and Police Scotland through the established Safety Advisory Group (SAG) system in place at the Council.  The intention of the Jim Clark Rally organisers was for the event to be based in Duns and to run a total of 8 rally stages (over 4 different routes) on the Saturday and 6 rally stages (over 3 different routes) on the Sunday.  The four routes on the Saturday were Westruther, Scott’s View, Eccles and Longformacus – Abbey St Bathans. This would see a single run, in an anti- clockwise direction of travel, over the first three routes followed by vehicle servicing and refuelling in Duns and then a repeat of that earlier sequence.  Following a further re-group and service in Duns, the day would then conclude with two runs over the Longformacus – Abbey St Bathans route.  Sunday would see routes at Edrom, Ayton and Whitsome; the intention being to run a clockwise loop of those routes followed by servicing and refuelling in Duns, before a repeat loop over the three routes and a podium finish in Duns.

4.3      The Chairman welcomed the SBC Infrastructure Manager, Mr Brian Young; the Chairman of the Jim Clark Rally, Professor Dan Wright; and the Jim Clark Rally PR Manager, Mrs Frances Renton to the meeting.  Mr Young emphasised that the Jim Clark Rally was a major sporting event and brought significant economic benefit to the Scottish Borders.  It attracted a high number of spectators, supporters, staff and competitors to the area, many of whom stayed a number of nights.  By extending the route it would spread the benefits throughout the Borders.  It had been acknowledged the significant officer time spent getting the rally back to the Borders following the tragic events in 2014.  In response to a request that the Community Councils affected be contacted individually, Mr Young confirmed that the organisers had already committed to doing so.  Clarification was sought with regards to the timings of the planning of such an event and why the information had not been made available earlier.  It was confirmed that this event had been planned out-with the normal schedule and it would have usually been planned a year in advance.  There was a full discussion held and the representatives from the Jim Rally answered the following questions:-

Questions/Comments

(a)       Question – the community of Whitsome has a programme of events which run for 6 months and include a plant sale on the weekend of the rally.  It was only discovered on 22 January what the plans were for the rally, but the application must have been made back in October, so why was the community not informed earlier?

Response – Mr Young confirmed that the application to SBC came in at the end of November.  Prof. Wright explained that the organisers had started looking at routes early on and normally this would take a year to organise.  The event had stopped running while the Fatal Accident Inquiry was underway and the new legislation was only enacted in June 2019.   An event of this size had about 600 volunteer marshalls.  The preparation for the event could not start on the normal timetable and reconnaissance of routes only started around the end of November after the rally held on 9 November had finished.  The first step was to come up with a set of proposals for a route which were legal, and then apply for a permit.  Having got that permit and worked with the police, etc. the next step was to go out to the community (as was happening now) to find out the consequences of that route for the community and try to see what could be done to accommodate them e.g. change of timing.  The timing of planning in future would revert to one year and again it was explained that this was a one-off arrangement for this year only

(b)     Comment – you knew the dates last November and it was not out in the community until January this year which has caused us issues.

Response – the dates were partly down to the rally organisers and partly due to the need to negotiate with other rallies due to the national support required.  Prof. Wright would need to check to see if the information could have come out earlier.  It was already known that the rally would run on the last weekend in May in 2021 and 2022. 

(c)     Comment – the plant sale is booked for 31 May which is the main source of income.  Someone could have given us the heads up.

Response – before you change the date, please check with the rally organisers to see if the event could be accommodated as part of the timing of the rally.

Comment – people come into the village from all over for the plant sale and would be put off by the road closures.

Response – there would be extra marshalling and signage put up and the organisers would do anything to help with this.  At the previous event, additional marshalling and signage had been put in place to accommodate a wedding at Wedderburn Castle.

Comment – the plant sale has been planned since the previous year and if it had been known the rally was to be on that weekend then a different date could have been chosen.  Publicity notices were already out.  They were not against the rally but concerned as to its impact.

Response – if publicity notices needed to be changed then the rally organisers could help with that, including funding.  The rally could only run with the support of the community and organisers would be happy to attend meetings with the Community Council and other groups.

(d)     Question – have you gone round the Community Councils giving presentations?

          Response – the Rally PR Manager had sent an email to all Community Councils in the area to be affected, but had only received 3 responses so far.

(e)     Question – the letter received from the Rally organisers stated that the lane at Whitsome was to be closed to both vehicular and foot traffic.  There were 9 properties on this lane and the residents would like to know the exact timing of the start, the duration and no of vehicles anticipated as people were concerned about access to their properties?

Response – the organisers would be happy to come back and have a look. The road closure was quite long as there would be up to 140 cars at 30 second intervals at this part.  They would do everything they could to allow people access to their properties during that time and would look in more detail to see if anything could be changed.

Comment – it was appalling to have an event like this in the country on a single track road.

Comment – notification was only received last week.

Comment – it was far too late to get notification.  Some people have holiday cottage lets to consider with bookings made well in advance. 

Response – as previously explained, normally planning started much earlier but this year was a one-off.  This stage was a proposal with the road closure due to start at 09:21, the first car due at 12 noon, and then the second run through from 14:20, and the road due to re-open at 16:21.  However, this could be earlier, as when the last rally car had gone through and the checks made on the road, then it could re-open earlier.  Two hour closure prior to the event was needed to get set up.  If you did need to access your property during the road closure then the rally organisers would visit you in advance and look at more detail to see if anything could be changed.

(f)      Question – with regard to the overall consultation process what happens if the route was felt to be inappropriate in its entirety for the village?  Do you have a backup plan if the Whitsome stage was cancelled and what consultation would there be on any backup plan?

Response – the planning was done before the event and a stage could be moved if there was an accident.  Tests and desktop exercises were carried out before the event took place so scenario planning with SAG and all contingencies tested before a permit would be granted.  It would not be practical to reroute the rally so the backup plan was for that stage to be cancelled.

Response – Councillor Laing commented that for very specific individual issues, these could be sent on to local SBC Councillors who would pass them on the rally organisers.  It was appreciated that this information and consultation had been issued at short notice but Prof. Wright had explained the reasons that this was for this year only.  It was necessary to thrash out the issues with each community.  Mrs Renton confirmed that any comments and complaints could be sent to communities@jimclarkrally.org and also through the consultation process website which was due to end on 8 March https://scotborders.citizenspace.com/.  Prof. Wright confirmed that this consultation was the Council one and the rally organisers worked all the time on the event making changes as necessary e.g. work access, pregnant ladies, hospital appointments, etc.

Comment – one thing that would not change would be the rally dates.

Response – it was confirmed that assuming the Motor Sports Permit was granted, the dates for the rally would not change.  It was not likely the Permit would be granted until about 15 May, with tests run on the routes before then and if these tests were not satisfactory then the Permit would not be granted.

(g)     Question – it has not been possible to find the strategy about sustainability and carbon neutral stance for the rally – where could it be found?  Formula One had managed to aim to have all events net zero carbon foot print by 2025.  If the event could not be carbon neutral then it should not go ahead.

Response – all the information, including policies, was on the MotorsportUK website as that was the governing body for all rallies.  In Formula One carbon reduction was normally handled by technical changes to vehicles.  It was not possible to run rally cars at the moment without carbon fuel as the technology did not exist.

Comment – Duns Community Council welcomed the return of the rally; although it was a pity it could not start outside the Jim Clark Museum.

Response – unfortunately, logistics dictated it was impractical to start the rally at that point. 

DECISION

NOTED:

(a)       the application by organisers of the Jim Clark Rally to run an event on 30 and 31 May 2020; and

(b)     the comments made by individuals on the proposed route, restrictions and timings for the event detailed above and given to the rally organisers.