df
Beginner
Posts: 17
|
Post by df on Feb 12, 2011 7:59:00 GMT
I have just found out that East Lindsey District Council (the Lincolnshire LA covering Belchford and Cadwell) have a Safety Advisory Group (ELESAG) which is in theory a one stop shop for event organisers (Police Highways Entertainments First Aid etc ) and that they have Belchford and Cadwell 'on their radar'. There is also a County SAG covering Cadwell generally.
At first glance, ELESAG require additional paperwork and can summon organisers to attend, They also have a minimum timescale of 3 months (pref 6 or even 12 months if possible. They have clout and banned a music festival.
I will of course alert the Cadwell and Belchford organisers. For 2011 ELESAG may or may not be interested in these events and may be satisfied with knowing that these events are properly organised?
However, I would appreciate knowing three specific things:
If this sort of body is being replicated around the UK?
This came up in the context of local public funding. ELESAG approval would be a condition. Has anyone come across similar conditions in relation to funding (from any source)?
For example, Sport England require that Sports be 'Recognised'. Luges are 'Recognised' but no other gravity discipline is so this funding is barred to most gravity sports. It appears that Sport England might, emphasis on might, require stronger controls than gravity sports have. This requirement is not clear but how would organisers view trading some independence for funding?
DF
|
|
|
Post by team-art on Feb 12, 2011 10:16:54 GMT
My view is that if an event is not capable of self funding then it’s not in the long term truly viable.
For Soapbox I hope organisers concentrate on finding funding from within/local sponsors and retaining as much independence as possible for their event.
I want to see Soapbox remain very amateur/fun/innovative and accessible, dependence on outside funding seems unlikely to promote any of those things.
Rich
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Feb 12, 2011 12:11:19 GMT
If this sort of body is being replicated around the UK? I've been organising cartie races and advising other race organisers since 2005 and I've spent many hours discussing event planning with the police, local authorites, local action groups, community groups, landowners and stakeholders. I never even heard of any such body. Has anyone come across similar conditions in relation to funding (from any source)? No. The only conditions we've had regarding funding have been to do with ensuring inclusivity, accessibility, publicity, match funding, accounting and reporting. For example, Sport England require that Sports be 'Recognised'. Luges are 'Recognised' but no other gravity discipline is so this funding is barred to most gravity sports. It appears that Sport England might, emphasis on might, require stronger controls than gravity sports have. This requirement is not clear but how would organisers view trading some independence for funding? Thanks but no thanks.
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Feb 12, 2011 16:10:29 GMT
I don't think at this point it would be very sensible to go much into this topic.
|
|
df
Beginner
Posts: 17
|
Post by df on Feb 13, 2011 0:26:10 GMT
Thanks for the responses on the funding aspect. The message is clear. I think organisers ought to have the opportunity to see the background to SAGs, which I found rather sobering. In Lincolnshire the Local Authority official position is that the County and District councils set up SAGs following a review of their own duty of care in respect of events in the light of 'the Manslaughter Act' which I took to mean the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 which came into effect in 2008. With variations, the Act applies throughout the UK, but of course each LAs response to it will vary with devolved powers and county. At a practical level I also suspect that some LAs find piecemeal and often last minute applications across a wide range of amateur events rather irksome and inefficient. I will now attempt to include links to FAQs about ELESAG and an intelligible guide to the Act. If that fails, there are good guides to the CMCH Act by Googling 'Manslaughter Act' and I think the ELESAG FAQs are on the East Lindsey website . Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Feb 13, 2011 1:31:17 GMT
I think you might have got a bit startled by your first exposure to council paperwork. This is nowhere near as big a deal as you might think. I've had a look through the attachment and the supporting documents, and to be honest this is all fairly standard event organisation stuff and entirely normal. We go through something similar every year for CSEx, although it is coordinated by the council's Chief Exec' office rather than a Safety Advisory Group. You can see all of our documentation deliverables (Event Outline, Safety Plan, Risk Assessments, etc) on our website ( soapboxracing.co.uk/downloads) if you want an example of the sort of stuff they'll be looking for. But this has nothing to do with funding per se. It is all related to permissions, consultation, authorisation, licensing, etc, and would be necessary regardless of whether you wanted to apply for funding or not. I expect all events go through a procedure that is similar and appropriate for their circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Feb 13, 2011 20:18:45 GMT
Team Art, Quote: My view is that if an event is not capable of self funding then it’s not in the long term truly viable. For Soapbox I hope organisers concentrate on finding funding from within/local sponsors and retaining as much independence as possible for their event. I have to agree with the self funding statement but don't quite pick up on the difference between say 'kick start funding, and any subsequent grant aid for further event development as against funding from local sponsors? None of the above constitute event self funding and the only way I can see to achieve self funding for a gravity race is via entry fees and income derived from spectators and event spin off rights. However I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have missed some valid point you were trying to get over. ;D
|
|
df
Beginner
Posts: 17
|
Post by df on Feb 14, 2011 6:47:04 GMT
Not much surprises me with official paperwork! I expect to have to state my collar size in six different ways ;D
I think ELESAG are signalling a more stringent approach but is this happening elsewhere? The cycling forums infer wide variations with some places virtual 'no go' areas for racing.
Funding. Please tell me. To what extent can a locally sponsored but stand alone gravity event still self fund despite rising costs etc ?
DF
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Cartie Association on Feb 14, 2011 10:20:40 GMT
Entry fee = (projected costs + 10% contingency) / number of entrants
|
|
|
Post by Organgrinder on Feb 14, 2011 18:14:24 GMT
I have been watching this thread with interest, but I'm still not sure where it's headed.
If I have interpreted things correctly df is concerned that failure to involve any relevant Local Authority Safety Group in event planning will make it difficult to secure funds to help with event costs from Local Authority and allied QANGO sources. This does not concern me too much. After all, if an event organiser is going cap in hand to a local authority for help with funding an event, he or she should not be surprised to be asked to comply with their requirements.
Belchford requires cooperation from the local authority, as we have to negotiate a road closure. However, this is arranged with Lincolnshire County Council, who are the local Highways Authority, rather than with East Lindsey District Council, who seem to have ELESAG within their organisation. We always notify the emergency services in advance and enjoy their cooperation too - we have even had the police in attendance with a speed camera as part of their community outreach programme.
We have never been approached by ELESAG and we were not even aware of their existance until df posted. I am surprised, therefore to see that Belchford is on ELESAC's radar.
More recent posts in this thread of the forum have concentrated on funding issues. Belchford raises funds in lots of ways, but it is essentially run in a commercial fashion. Revenue comes from entry fees, commercial sponsors (who value the publicity they can generate) food concessions, stallholders fees, bouncy castle charges, raffle and programme sales. We do not seek any funding from public bodies and generate a significant surplus, which is donated to local good causes and various charities. It has taken us quite a while to build the event to the point where it makes a significant amount of money, but we have always been able to make ends meet.
We have a great product if it's sold properly to appropriate commercial sponsors. There's lots of willing help out there from other organisers for anybody wanting to start a new race, so lets not get too hung up on complying with local authority requirements for grant aid.
Moving off at a bit of a tangent, but still I think relevant, I would be concerned about getting too reliant on funding from public bodies. In time they will come to realise that there are lots of gravity race events around and that they are run to different rules and regulations. We know, as we understand these things, that there are different rules for good reason, to suit different courses. However, I can see that organisers may find themselves having to comply with a model set of rules imposed on them by their Local Authority. This brings further problems - for example, whose rules would be chosen as the standard? Development of the sport could be held back or even prevented by rules being "cast in stone"
I say we should steer clear of any unnecessary involvement with our local authorities and we certainly shouldn't volunteer to effectively be regulated by them.
|
|
|
Post by team-art on Feb 14, 2011 20:13:47 GMT
Team Art, Quote: My view is that if an event is not capable of self funding then it’s not in the long term truly viable. For Soapbox I hope organisers concentrate on finding funding from within/local sponsors and retaining as much independence as possible for their event. I have to agree with the self funding statement but don't quite pick up on the difference between say 'kick start funding, and any subsequent grant aid for further event development as against funding from local sponsors? None of the above constitute event self funding and the only way I can see to achieve self funding for a gravity race is via entry fees and income derived from spectators and event spin off rights. However I wouldn't be at all surprised if I have missed some valid point you were trying to get over. ;D Hi Charlie, The main point I’m trying to make is that national/sports type funding might come at a high price and ultimately would probably lead to a loss of self-rule and create more obstacles for organisers and also competitors. One off, kick start funding to purchase expensive kit which can then be used without strings (or shared with other events and help reduce costs) in subsequent years may be very useful. As well as the autonomy issue an other potential problem is that funding can be withdrawn, if our sport becomes an external funding junkie then no funding=no event.As almost happened to Border Bogies. As to local sponsors, if amounts are relatively small then hopefully there are minor/no terms and conditions. " Funding. Please tell me. To what extent can a locally sponsored but stand alone gravity event still self fund despite rising costs etc ?" df: As catterlinecarties says the bulk of the essential event income surely has to come from entry fees. Sounds about right to me, you want to take part then you have to pay a proportionate part of the costs. If there’s a shortfall then it’s up to the organisers how much they really want an event to take place? Or is it viable? Organgrinder quotes Belchford and I know Richards Castle also donate several thousand pounds surplus funds to charity, so with a lot of hard work/time it can be done. It depends what type of event you want, a Gala/community/charity type or a less complicated less spectators Gravity Race. I just feel it’s perilous and unrealistic to expect someone else (an outside body) to pay for your/my/our hobby. News just in: “df to do sponsored streak to raise funds for charity Gravity event” (or pay £10 to make sure he doesn’t) ;D Rich
|
|
|
Post by peasnbarley on Feb 14, 2011 23:15:04 GMT
Thanks Rich - I think you are quite correct to state that each event organisation must retain the right to organise their event the way they see fit and of course if they are not going about it the right way they will not get the required consents from the authorities to allow the event to run. However as far as grant aid is concerned I have not as yet found any condition being stated that is particularly unreasonable. However there seems to be so many grants out there that applying for the right one is quite difficult and the work load to get the larger grants is high with uncertain end results. Certainly at the moment it all seems more hassle than it's worth.
|
|