Annex D – Equalities Impact Assessment

City of York Council

Equalities Impact Assessment

Who is submitting the proposal?

Directorate:		Place
Service Area:		Highways and Transport
Name of the proposal :		Coppergate Traffic Regulation Order Update
Lead officer:		Gary Frost
Date assessment completed:		25-11-2022
Names of those who contributed to the assessment :
Name	Job title		Organisation	Area of expertise
Gary Frost	Major Transport Projects Manager		CoYC	Highway design, construction, infrastructure development, civil engineering and project management.

Step 1 – Aims and intended outcomes 

1.1	What is the purpose of the proposal? Please explain your proposal in Plain English avoiding acronyms and jargon.
	The aim of the proposal is to reconcile the current temporary traffic regulation order applied to Coppergate and propose that the measures become permanent for now and look ahead to future studies and possibilities for Coppergate.  Currently, motorised vehicles can only travel in one direction from Piccadilly to Nessgate.  Pedestrians and cyclists can travel in both directions.

1.2	Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.)
	The Road Traffic Act, 1984. The Equality Act 2010.

1.3	Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?
	The following stakeholders are affected: 1. All road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorists, taxis and public transport users. 2. Frontagers, mainly business proprietors, but including some residents and a church. 3. Bus operators.

1.4

What results/outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom?  This section should explain what outcomes you want to achieve for service users, staff and/or the wider community. Demonstrate how the proposal links to the Council Plan (2019- 2023) and other corporate strategies and plans.

The desired outcome is that the temporary traffic regulations order becomes permanent in order to maintain the current arrangements whilst wider studies and evolving policy emerges to understand future proposals for use and streetscape of Coppergate.  Therefore this outcome is about ensuring procedural compliance in the short term whilst ideas and studies can be undertaken in the future about Coppergate.

Step 2 – Gathering the information and feedback 

2.1	What sources of data, evidence and consultation feedback do we have to help us understand the impact of the proposal on equality rights and human rights? Please consider a range of sources, including: consultation exercises, surveys, feedback from staff, stakeholders, participants, research reports, the views of equality groups, as well your own experience of working in this area etc.
Source of data/supporting evidence		Reason for using
Consultation undertaken for the proposed TRO, and feedback from bus operators.		It provides views on the current arrangements from the public including cycling groups and bus companies.

Step 3 – Gaps in data and knowledge

3.1	What are the main gaps in information and understanding of the impact of your proposal?  Please indicate how any gaps will be dealt with.
Gaps in data or knowledge		Action to deal with this
Understanding the long term impact on bus services and long term impact on bus users.		Proposed City Centre Bus Study.

Step 4 – Analysing the impacts or effects.

4.1	Please consider what the evidence tells you about the likely impact (positive or negative) on people sharing a protected characteristic, i.e. how significant could the impacts be if we did not make any adjustments? Remember the duty is also positive – so please identify where the proposal offers opportunities to promote equality and/or foster good relations.
Equality Groups and Human Rights.		Key Findings/Impacts	Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0)	High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)
Age		May find using the road easier to use and negotiate with safer layouts and more space.  Likewise those who take up the opportunity to walk or cycle will find it easier and safer to use the road.	+	M
Disability		May be encouraged to cycle more.	+	M
Gender		None	0
Gender Reassignment		None	0
Marriage and civil partnership		None	0
Pregnancy and maternity		None	0
Race		None	0
Religion and belief		None	0
Sexual orientation		None	0
Other Socio-economic groups including :		Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes?
Carer		None	0
Low income groups		More encouraged to cycle for utility purposes.	+	M
Veterans, Armed Forces Community		None	0
Other		Restrictions to overall motorised traffic could lead to improvements in air quality will provide benefits to people with respiratory problems.	+	M
Impact on human rights:
List any human rights impacted.		None	0

Use the following guidance to inform your responses:

Indicate:

- Where you think that the proposal could have a POSITIVE impact on any of the equality groups like promoting equality and equal opportunities or improving relations within equality groups

- Where you think that the proposal could have a NEGATIVE impact on any of the equality groups, i.e. it could disadvantage them

- Where you think that this proposal has a NEUTRAL effect on any of the equality groups listed below i.e. it has no effect currently on equality groups.

It is important to remember that a proposal may be highly relevant to one aspect of equality and not relevant to another.

High impact (The proposal or process is very equality relevant)	There is significant potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or public facing The proposal has consequences for or affects significant numbers of people The proposal has the potential to make a significant contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights.
Medium impact (The proposal or process is somewhat equality relevant)	There is some evidence to suggest potential for or evidence of adverse impact The proposal is institution wide or across services, but mainly internal The proposal has consequences for or affects some people The proposal has the potential to make a contribution to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights
Low impact (The proposal or process might be equality relevant)	There is little evidence to suggest that the proposal could result in adverse impact The proposal operates in a limited way The proposal has consequences for or affects few people The proposal may have the potential to contribute to promoting equality and the exercise of human rights

Step 5 - Mitigating adverse impacts and maximising positive impacts

5.1	Based on your findings, explain ways you plan to mitigate any unlawful prohibited conduct or unwanted adverse impact. Where positive impacts have been identified, what is been done to optimise opportunities to advance equality or foster good relations?
If measures are implemented to restrict motorised traffic it is likely that the profile of the scheme will be high and members of the public will have awareness through press and social media.  People will use the street in their daily lives and will experience a quieter, safer and more pleasant environment.

Step 6 – Recommendations and conclusions of the assessment

6.1	Having considered the potential or actual impacts you should be in a position to make an informed judgement on what should be done. In all cases, document your reasoning that justifies your decision. There are four main options you can take:
- No major change to the proposal – the EIA demonstrates the proposal is robust.  There is no                          potential  for unlawful discrimination or adverse impact and you have taken all opportunities to    advance equality and foster good relations, subject to continuing monitor and review.
- Adjust the proposal – the EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. This involves taking steps to remove any barriers, to better advance quality or to foster good relations. - Continue with the proposal (despite the potential for adverse impact) – you should clearly set out the justifications for doing this and how you believe the decision is compatible with our obligations under the duty - Stop and remove the proposal – if there are adverse effects that are not justified and cannot be mitigated, you should consider stopping the proposal altogether. If a proposal leads to unlawful discrimination it should be removed or changed. Important: If there are any adverse impacts you cannot mitigate, please provide a compelling reason in the justification column.
Option selected		Conclusions/justification
No major change to the proposal		The proposal is concerned with ensuring compliance with the traffic regulations in the short term and seeking a harmonious solution in the longer term.

Step 7 – Summary of agreed actions resulting from the assessment

7.1	What action, by whom, will be undertaken as a result of the impact assessment.
Impact/issue		Action to be taken	Person responsible	Timescale
Safety of people with protected characteristics		Road Safety audit of the cycle right turn into Coppergate.	TBA	3 months
Improvement of air quality		Publication of benefits realisation report (monitoring and evaluation).	TBA	TBA

Step 8 - Monitor, review and improve

8. 1	How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward?   Consider how will you identify the impact of activities on protected characteristics and other marginalised groups going forward? How will any learning and enhancements be capitalised on and embedded?
	This will be considered in the study and the evolving policies which will emerge in due course.

8. 1	How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward?   Consider how will you identify the impact of activities on protected characteristics and other marginalised groups going forward? How will any learning and enhancements be capitalised on and embedded?
	This will be considered in the study and the evolving policies which will emerge in due course.