City of York Council

Equalities Impact Assessment

Who is submitting the proposal?

Directorate:		Place
Service Area:		Transport
Name of the proposal :		Riverside Path (Jubilee Terrace to Scarborough Bridge) Upgrade
Lead officer:		Tony Clarke
Date assessment completed:		8/3/23
Names of those who contributed to the assessment :
Name	Job title		Organisation	Area of expertise
Tony Clarke	York Central Highway Authority Lead		City of York Council	Highway Engineering

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.

To upgrade the riverside path in response to the aspirations of the local community. Subject to approvals the upgrade would be progressed on a phased basis to align with the availability of funding. An initial decision is to be made on whether to progress the scheme in a phased manner delivering the higher priory affordable elements first (lighting and CCTV subject to detailed design). Further decisions will be taken on the detailed arrangements and progression of further elements if funding is made available.

1.2	Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.)
	Local Transport Notes e.g. LTN 1/20 for walking and cycling routes

1.3	Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?
	External stakeholders – Interests include User experience of the cycle/walking network. General Public (Residents and Commuters) York Cycling Campaign

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.
	Improved facilities for pedestrians, cyclists and wheel chair users. Amendments to barriers to accommodate cycles and wheelchairs/mobility scooters, provision of benches/resting places.

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
Stakeholder Consultation programme progressed in December 2022 and January 2023 with hard copy and online survey and 2 in person events in St Barnabas Church. Consultation boards in West Office reception.		Survey to understand priorities for the upgrade of the path and initial response to concept options.

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
Consultation received responses from a broad range of users of the path however blind and partially sighted users may be under represented.		Direct contact with local blind and partially sighted groups

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 Further analysis of consultation needed to distinguish between characteristics	Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0)	High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)
Age		Older respondents were more supportive of a separate route than a shared route. Route layout to be confirmed. Overall proposal will increase the capacity of the route and reduce conflict between users. Separate route not possible for full length because of space available at area to be raised.	Positive	Medium
Disability		No clear differences between the overall priorities however although more disabled residents supported the provision of a wider path rather than a separate path there were some individual comments supporting the separation to minimise conflict between users.	Positive	Medium
Gender		General greater support for CCTV and improved lighting from female respondents.	Positive	Medium
Gender Reassignment		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process	Neutral	High
Marriage and civil partnership		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process	Neutral	High
Pregnancy and maternity		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process. However the need for the design to accommodate the needs of people using pushchairs was raised in the consultation.	Neutral	High
Race		No clear distinction of results between races.	Neutral	High
Religion and belief		No clear distinction of results between religion. Impact on access to St. Barnabas Church was raised by a number of respondents. The designs will need to accommodate the needs of disabled churchgoers and funeral vehicles.	Neutral	High
Sexual orientation		No clear distinction of results between sexual orientation.	Neutral	High
Other Socio-economic groups including :		Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes?
Carer		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process	Neutral	High
Low income groups		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process	Neutral	High
Veterans, Armed Forces Community		No reference to this characteristic was made as part of our information gathering process	Neutral	High
Other
Impact on human rights:
List any human rights impacted.

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?
Continue to adopt best practice guidance in the design, installation and application of cycling/walking design standards. Undertake further analysis of consultation results during the detailed design phase to address comments raised.

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 EIA demonstrates the proposal would generally have a positive impact for groups with protected characteristics and further design work will be undertaken to maximise the opportunities to further improve facilities to meet the comments raised during the consultation. The project demonstrates that suitable consideration has been taken into account with regards the concept design and its impact on those users who share a protected characteristic and does not lead to unlawful discrimination.

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
Additional Stakeholder Consultation		Contact to be made with specific groups such as blind and partially sighted groups to ensure designs meet their needs	Riverside Path Designer	ASAP following decision on phased approach to delivery

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?
	Further engagement will be needed during the preparation of a planning application. The results of the original consultation will be reviewed during the detailed design stage with further engagement progressed where needed.