Initial Equalities Impact Assessment Template ES 2.2

Department:
ENVIRONMENT AND SPORT / Completed by (lead):
John Turner /Mark Anderson / Date of initial assessment:
13th November 2012
Revision Dates:
19th November 2012
24th January 2013
29th January 2013
5th February 2013
Area to be assessed: (i.e. name of policy, function, procedure, practice or a financial decision) / Closure of two Household Waste Recycling Centres – through non replacement of Bowling Back Lane and closure of Sugden End
Is this existing or new function/policy, procedure, practice or decision? / Decision
What evidence has been used to inform the assessment and policy?
Audit of visitor usage of Council Household Waste Recycling Centres in terms of waste tonnages.
Site / Recycling / Residual / Total
Dowley Gap / 3,504 / 1,032 / 4,536
Midland Road / 3,195 / 1,183 / 4,377
Wilson Road / 2,901 / 820 / 3,721
Royd Ings / 2,672 / 999 / 3,671
Bowling Back Lane / 2,072 / 1,002 / 3,074
Sugden End / 1,900 / 882 / 2,782
Ford Hill / 1,909 / 832 / 2,740
Golden Butts / 1,952 / 568 / 2,520
All Sites / 20,104 / 7,318 / 27,422
1. Describe the aims, objectives or purpose of the function/policy, practice, procedure or decision and who is intended to benefit. / There are eight Bradford Council Household Waste Recycling Centres which are open to the public and take a wide variety of waste materials and recyclates, ranging from general waste to green waste and some bulky recyclates, plus the recycling of paper, glass/cans, plastics, soil/rubble, plasterboard, batteries, electrical goods, textiles, shoes/books, paint, oil, chemicals and tetra paks.
The site at Bowling Back Lane is one of the two least used HWRC’s and the least developed. The site must close in order to facilitate the development of the long term waste treatment facility.
This option to not replace Bowling Back Lane HWRC when the site closes and in addition close a further HWRC at Sugden End – which is one of the least used facilities in the district - would leave the Council with a total of six HWRC sites which, as the vast majority of visits involve the use of a motor vehicle, would still offer coverage based on journey times of 20 minutes. We recognise that the proposal would mean a slight inconvenience in that current HWRC users will have to travel further to access a facility, but consider that there would be little detriment as pedestrian usage of HWRC sites is extremely low.
Residents who live within 50m of a site have been known on occasion to walk and bring small amounts of waste, but this is extremely unusual so we do not anticipate a need to mitigate against this.
The Council already provides a number of community based recycling points in Supermarket car parks and other locations as alternative disposal sites and will be introducing fortnightly domestic recycling collections in 2013, which will include recycling of plastic bottles.
The change will be monitored to ensure there is no disproportionate impact on different groups of citizens.
Equality issues raised in consultation & equalities challenge:
Respondents perceived that not replacing Bowling Back Lane waste site will have a major effect on the area, and is based on the assumption is that everyone drives.
Respondents perceived that Sugden End is the most accessible waste site in the District.
Service Response:
Nearly all use of household waste recycling centres is by people in private transport; virtually all residents will be within a 20min drive time of a HWRC. The majority of other sites have seen investment to improve accessibility and efficiency. The Council will also shortly be introducing increased frequency (fortnightly) kerbside recycling collections and expanding the range of materials to be collected to include plastics.
ThePublic Sector Equality Duty requires the Council to have “due regard” to the need to:-
(1) eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;
(2) advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and
(3) foster good relations between different groups
(see guidance notes) / 2. What is the level of impact on each group/ protected characteristics in terms of the three aims of the duty?
Please indicate high (H) medium (M), low (L), no effect (N) for each. / 3. Identify the risk or positive effect that could result for each of the group/protected characteristics? / 4. If there is a disproportionately negative impact what mitigating factors have you considered?
Protected characteristics / Age / N
Disability / N
Gender reassignment / N
Race / N
Religion/Belief / N
Pregnancy and maternity / N
Sexual Orientation / N
Sex / N
Any other area / N
5. Has there been any consultation/engagement with the appropriate protected characteristics? / Yes - proposal and potential equalities issues have been consulted upon as part of the budget engagement programme running from August 2012 to February 2013.
6. What action(s) will you take to reduce any disproportionately negative impact, if any?
The change will be monitored to ensure there is no disproportionate impact on different groups of citizens and fly tipping levels in the vicinity of closed sites will be monitored.
7. Based on the information in sections 2 to 6, should this function/policy/procedure/practice or a decision proceed to Detailed Impact Assessment? (recommended if one or more H under section 2) / YES / NO X
Assessor signature: Mark Anderson. / Approved by: John Turner/Ian Bairstow
/ Date approved:
13thNovember 2012
Dates revisions approved:
19th November 2012
24th January 2013
29th January 2013
5th February 2013