City of York Council

Equalities Impact Assessment

Who is submitting the proposal?

Directorate:		Housing and Communities
Service Area:		Safer York Partnership
Name of the proposal:		PSPO to be introduced in the City Centre
Lead officer:		Paul Morrison
Date assessment completed:		12 November 2025
Names of those who contributed to the assessment:
Name	Job title		Organisation	Area of expertise
Jane Mowat	Head of Community Safety		CYC
Jen Stockwell	NYP Inspector		North Yorkshire Police
Carl Alsop	Operations Manager		York BID

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 renew the PSPO within the City Walls so authorised officers can deal with alcohol-related anti-social behaviour and intimidating group behaviour. It aims to keep the city centre safe and welcoming for residents, businesses, and visitors.

1.2	Are there any external considerations? (Legislation/government directive/codes of practice etc.)
	The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Public Sector Equality Duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 Winter of Action 2025 Home Office Initiative Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG) Purple Flag

1.3

Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests?

Residents – want safe streets and reduced ASB Visitors & tourists – want a safe city centre experience Local businesses – need a safe trading environment North Yorkshire Police – need clear, enforceable powers Homelessness & resettlement services – want their service users protected Students – safe access to the city and nighttime economy City of York Council – legal compliance, community safety People who are homeless or rough sleeping – may be directly affected by enforcement

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.
	· Reduce alcohol-related ASB · Reduce intimidating behaviour by groups · Improve how safe people feel in the city centre · Keep York a safe and welcoming city for all · Support Purple Flag status and city-centre safety work (including VAWG initiatives) · Align with Council Plan priorities such as ‘ Build Community Pride’ and ‘Make the City Centre Work for Everyone’

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
Working group made up of Council Officers, Partner agencies, and voluntary sector partners		To establish the scale of the problem and whether the re-introduction of PSPO’s would be proportionate and support reducing the issues in the area.  Also to examine how he previous PSPO had been managed and implemented by NYP to ensure proportionality and consistency
Consultation with Ward Councillors		To determine whether local residents support the issues and whether they were concerned about being marginalised
Undertook a survey of local residents including asking for details about protected characteristics		To understand whether these residents had different thoughts on the subject because of their lived experiences

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
Limited consultation feedback on extended future powers		A more detailed consultation will take place in 2026.
Limited data showing how impacts differ for protected characteristic groups		Work with partner agencies to gather better qualitative information.
Need more structured engagement with homelessness and support services		Build this into 2026 consultation and ongoing partnership work.

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 Most impacts are neutral or positive. The only group with any meaningful risk is people who are homeless or rough sleeping, if enforcement is not used proportionately.	Positive (+) Negative (-) Neutral (0)	High (H) Medium (M) Low (L)
Age		Older people and young people may feel safer because ASB is reduced	0/+	L
Disability		A reduction in intimidating behaviour supports disabled people, especially those with mobility or sensory conditions. Officers must remain aware of hidden disabilities.	0/+	L
Gender		The PSPO supports wider safety work (including VAWG), helping women and girls feel safer in the city centre.	0/+	L
Gender Reassignment		No evidence that the PSPO disproportionately affects people who are trans; no specific risks identified. To note LGBTQIA+ individuals are at increased risk of homelessness, particularly young people and trans individuals.	0/+	L
Marriage and civil partnership		No specific impact identified. This group is not disproportionately affected by the PSPO.	0	L
Pregnancy and maternity		Reduced intimidating or disruptive behaviour helps people who are pregnant or with very young children feel safer when moving through the city.	0	L
Race		No evidence of disproportionate impact on racial or ethnic groups. Officers must remain alert to avoiding unconscious bias in enforcement.	0	L
Religion and belief		No link between the PSPO and any faith group. No disproportionate impact identified.	0	L
Sexual orientation		No evidence that the PSPO disproportionately affects LGBTQ+ people. To note LGBTQIA+ individuals are at increased risk of homelessness, particularly young people and trans individuals.	0	L
Other Socio-economic groups including :		Could other socio-economic groups be affected e.g. carers, ex-offenders, low incomes?
Carer		A safer, less intimidating city centre benefits carers who support people accessing services.	0	L
Low income groups		People on low incomes may spend more time in public spaces, so there is a small risk of disproportionate engagement by officers. This is mitigated through a support-first, proportionate approach.	-	L
Veterans, Armed Forces Community		There is a higher level of homelessness amongst armed forces veterans. Officers should consider this and how to use trauma informed approaches.	-	L
Other		People who are homeless or rough sleeping This group is more likely to be present in the city centre and could therefore be more frequently approached by officers. However, enforcement only applies when actual ASB is occurring, and risks are reduced through: a support-first approach partnership with homelessness and resettlement services clear guidance to ensure proportionality and avoid unfair targeting.	-	M
Impact on human rights:
List any human rights impacted.		Impact: Neutral with safeguards No breach anticipated if actions remain proportionate and support based. Relevant rights: Article 8 – respect for private and family life Articles 10 & 11 – freedom of expression and assembly The PSPO only applies when anti-social behaviour is present, so rights are not restricted without cause.

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?

The Council, North Yorkshire Police and other partners recognise that the introduction of the PSPO is only one tool to tackle the increasing issues of ASB in these areas.  We are committed to providing support and advice to people involved in relation to treatment, health and accommodation services.  There are regular multi agency meetings to look at the city centre, and NYP have recently commenced Op Luscombe to tackle similar issues and work with a range of partners to offer direct support to those who are constantly coming into contact with the police. The council are looking at a stepped approach to enforcement to ensure that good practice is followed, and has established a multi agency meeting to ensure that the numbers of people who may receive Fixed Penalty Notices are kept as low as possible. The low number of Fixed Penalty Notices Issues during the previous PSPO supports that the unwanted adverse impact has been minimised and that PSPO does act as a deterrent to committing ASB, promoting behaviour change amongst those who may have become involved.

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		Residents, voluntary groups and partner agencies have all been consulted to minimise the risk of unlawful discrimination. The Council will continue to provide support and assistance to people who are drinking and causing ASB in these areas, both from within the council and from partner agencies such as NYP and voluntary organisations such as the Salvation Army

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

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?
	We will need to undertake a review of the PSPO’s after 3 years.  This will ensure that we can monitor residents and organisations thoughts about the process once it is in place. This review will also allow the council to review the impact on protected characteristics where we have that information.