Microsoft Word - Annex I - YSG - EIA

City of York Council

Equalities Impact Assessment

Who is submitting the proposal?

Directorate:		Place
Service Area:		Highways
Name of the proposal :		Bishopthorpe Bridge Strengthening
Lead officer:		Siavosh Mahmoodshahi
Date of assessment:		31-01-2024
Names of those who contributed to the assessment:
Name	Job title		Organisation	Area of expertise
Siavosh Mahmoodshahi	Structure Manager		CYC	Project Lead

EIA 02/2021

Step 1 – Aims and intended outcomes

1.1

What is the purpose of the proposal?

1. Bishopthorpe Bridge is an 11.52m single span pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete beam bridge supported on brick abutments. The structure carries the unclassified Appleton Road over a Sustrans Cycle track at OS Grid Reference SE 59000 47349.

2. An assessment of Bishopthorpe Bridge by ‘Structural and Civil Consultants’ in 2021 found the structure to be incapable of carrying 40 tonnes of assessment live loading (ALL) and recommended that an 18 tonnes weight restriction should be imposed. The assessment report raised concerns that failure could be brittle and give little warning. Additionally, the condition of the service bay is in poor condition and there are also concerns regarding the high level wingwalls. To safeguard the structure and the public, an 18-month Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO) restricting vehicles to 18 tonnes came into force on 6th October 2023.

3. A strengthening feasibility report was commissioned and an agreed option for strengthening is now being progressed. The proposed works are for a corrugated steel structure to be constructed below the existing bridge deck with the gap between the new steel structure and the existing deck to be filled with mass foam concrete and topped with non-shrink grout. The steel structure would become the primary deck element and is to be designed to accept the loading of the existing deck and 40 tonnes of ALL. This will bring the structure back up to current highway loading standards and the TTRO can be removed.

	1.2	Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.)
			· Highways Act 1980 · DMRB design and assessment codes
1.3		Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?
			· Car owners, pedestrians, local residents – bridge users · CYC internal departments · Sustrans – bridge and cycleway owner · Local businesses – require access across structure · Utility companies – Know buried services in the vicinity of the works.
1.4		What results/outcomes do we want to achieve and for whom?
		a. On removal of the TTRO, the structure is to be fit for purpose for 40 tonnes of Assessment Live Loading or with a permanent 18 tonnes restriction in place. b. A refurbished structure with the service bay and brickwork repairs carried out as a minimum. c. An enhanced structure life – if the corrugated steel arch option is taken forwards the primary deck element will have a design life of 120 years with reduced maintenance and inspection costs.

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?
Source of data/supporting evidence		Reason for using
Planning Consultation		The planned communication/engagement activity is designed to ensure that residents, visitors, road users, businesses and other stakeholders are aware of the project, understand the work being undertaken and the likely impact it will have on them, so they can plan for any disruption. An initial list of stakeholders has been identified, but the full list of stakeholders will be updated throughout the programme, where necessary, in conjunction with the project delivery team. A stakeholder mapping exercise will be completed, with stakeholders subsequently categorised to help ensure communications are not only relevant to the audience but can be delivered as efficiently as possible via the most appropriate form of engagement. Where suitable, key stakeholders will be used as intermediaries to deliver key information to their community/network (for example the cycling officer to cycle groups). Communications will be phased, with initial engagement focussed on agreeing the works details and necessary consents, followed by engagement with identified affected people, businesses, and groups. A more general engagement phase will be conducted prior to the commencement of works. A liaison officer will be identified, together with contact details for stakeholders to use, throughout the works; and all stakeholders will receive notification of completion of the works. An initial Inception Meeting with CYC Client and Communications team will be held to agree roles and responsibilities of the engagement team and to create effective ways of working and approval processes. This will include identifying a lead Engagement Manager.

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?
Equality Groups and Human Rights.		Key Findings/Impacts	Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0)	High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)
Age		N/A	Neutral	N/A
Disability		Disability groups to be consulted with respect to the existing and proposed access. However, the scheme is not thought to improve or disadvantage disability groups.	Neutral	N/A

EIA 02/2021


Gender	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Gender Reassignment	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Marriage and civil partnership	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Pregnancy and maternity	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Race	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Religion and belief	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Sexual orientation	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Other Socio- economic groups including :	Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes?
Carer	N/A	Neutral	N/A

EIA 02/2021

Low income groups	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Veterans, Armed Forces Community	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Other	N/A	Neutral	N/A
Impact on human rights:
List any human rights impacted.	N/A	Neutral	N/A

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.

EIA 02/2021

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	There is some evidence to suggest potential for or evidence of
(The proposal or process is somewhat	adverse impact
equality relevant)	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	There is little evidence to suggest that the proposal could result in
(The proposal or process might be equality	adverse impact
relevant)	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

- 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.	On removal of the TTRO, the structure is to be fit for purpose for 40 tonnes of Assessment Live Loading or with a permanent 18 tonnes restriction in place. Brickwork and soffit bay repairs to be carried out if the permanent restriction or single-lane traffic options are to be progressed.

EIA 02/2021

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
N/A

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
Initiate detailed feasibility study		CYC to organise a decision session to initiate feasibility/options regarding disability groups	Siavosh Mahmoodshahi	By end of April 2024

8. 1	How will the impact of your proposal be monitored and improved upon going forward?
	On scheme completion, a further Audit will be carried to ensure the ongoing safety to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.