Equality Impact Assessment Form Reference - 4R5
Department / Department of Place / Version no / 3.0Assessed by / Richard Gelder / Chris Eaton / Date created / 21/11/16
Approved by / Julian Jackson / Date approved / 25/11/16
Updated by / Chris Eaton / Date updated / 09/02/17
Final approval / Julian Jackson / Date signed off / 13/02/17
TheEquality Act 2010 requires the Council to have due regard to the need to
· eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation;
· advance equality of opportunity between different groups; and
· foster good relations between different groups
Section 1: What is being assessed?
1.1 Name of proposal to be assessed.
Increase charges within Planning, Transportation & Highways Services.
1.2 Describe the proposal under assessment and what change it would result in if implemented.
The scope of this proposal is to increase discretionary charges within the Planning, Transportation & Highways Services together with introducing new charges for aspects of the services functions which bring it in line with neighbouring authorities. Specific proposals within Transportation & Highways include:
· Increasing charges associated with Section 38 and Section 278 Agreements including raising the minimum amount of charge payable including to £2,000 per agreement with a standard charge of 9% of the bond amount for technical inspection and validation.
· Introducing a new annual charge for café licence applications, inspections and approvals of £500 per permit.
· Introducing a minimum charge for events on the highway to cover staff costs associated with their planning and co-ordination except where such events are street parties.
· Introducing a charge to permit the temporary installation of developer signs on street lighting columns inclusive of their manufacture and removal at the end of a prescribed period.
Proposals within Planning include:
· Increasing pre-application advice service charges above the standard rate of inflation.
· Introducing a charge for dealing with high hedge complaints.
· Introduction of a charge for the street naming and numbering services with appropriate exception for street names associated with injured/killed military service personnel.
Section 2: What the impact of the proposal is likely to be
2.1 Will this proposal advance equality of opportunity for people who share a protected characteristic and/or foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those that do not? If yes, please explain further.
No.
2.2 Will this proposal have a positive impact and help to eliminate discrimination and harassment against, or the victimisation of people who share a protected characteristic? If yes, please explain further.
No.
2.3 Will this proposal potentially have a negative or disproportionate impact on people who share a protected characteristic? If yes, please explain further.
The introduction of fees and charges in relation to dealing with high hedge complaints may lead to disproportionate impacts on the low paid sectors of the community and senior citizens. Currently, receipt and investigation of complaints in relation to high hedges are processed by the Council on a free of charge basis.
Introduction of a minimum charge for co-ordination and marshalling of events on the highway could adversely affect those community interest groups/areas of protected characteristics who wish to arrange an event on the highway. The impact of this proposal may lead to a number of events (e.g. Bradford Mela) no longer taking place along traditional routes given the costs associated with the administration and approval of traffic management.
2.4 Please indicate the level of negative impact on each of the protected characteristics?
(Please indicate high (H), medium (M), low (L), no effect (N) for each)
Protected Characteristics: / Impact(H, M, L, N)
Age / L
Disability / L
Gender reassignment / L
Race / L
Religion/Belief / L
Pregnancy and maternity / N
Sexual Orientation / L
Sex / N
Marriage and civil partnership / N
Additional Consideration:
Low income/low wage / L
2.5 How could the disproportionate negative impacts be mitigated or eliminated?
(Note: Legislation and best practice require mitigations to be considered, but need only be put in place if it is possible.)
· Discounts for various types of organisations in relation to charges for events on the highway could be introduced to help minimise the impact of this aspect of the proposal. It should be noted that this proposal will not affect the holding of a street party which will remain free of charge as per national guidance.
· The mechanism for charging for dealing with high hedge complaints may similarly introduce a discount for members of the community over a certain age making a complaint.
Section 3: Dependencies from other proposals
3.1 Please consider which other services would need to know about your proposal and the impacts you have identified. Identify below which services you have consulted, and any consequent additional equality impacts that have been identified.
Consultation with Agents and Developers will be required to establish the “acceptable” level of charges for pre-application advice on planning applications.
Consultation with organisations holding annual events on the highway will similarly be required to review the potential impact on any current existing arrangements.
Consultation with Emergency Planning will be required in relation to the proposal to introduce a charge for events of the highway.
Consultation with WYCA will be required to establish what proposals exist for co-ordination and approval of events on the Key Route Network together with the wider West Yorkshire Traffic Manager’s meeting.
Consultation with the Council’s Executive will be necessary to approve any proposed charges for the activities described in this EIA.
Section 4: What evidence you have used?
4.1 What evidence do you hold to back up this assessment?
· Emerging Traffic Manager’s Events Policy.
· Emerging WYCA Events Policy.
· Highways & Transportation Fees and Charges 2015/16.
· Pre-application service usage statistics.
· CYGNUM officer charging records.
· S38/S278 historic records & charges summary.
4.2 Do you need further evidence?
The emerging Events Policy which is being co-ordinated by Bradford on behalf of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority will consider measures which are appropriate to manage events of the Key Route Network.
Section 5: Consultation Feedback
5.1 Results from any previous consultations prior to the proposal development.
There have currently been no previous applications on this proposal prior to its development.
5.2 The departmental feedback you provided on the previous consultation (as at 5.1).
Not applicable.
5.3 Feedback from current consultation following the proposal development (e.g. following approval by Executive for budget consultation).
There was the suggestion that charges for high hedge complaints should come with a concession for those on low incomes, not a concession for older people. The example was given that a younger disabled person may be living on benefits and hardly ever leave their home - their next door neighbour’s hedge may block their view of the outside world but they have to pay whilst the person over 70 with a private retirement pension and large savings up the street gets it for free. This wasn’t felt to be fair or equitable.
5.4 Your departmental response to the feedback on the current consultation (as at 5.3) – include any changes made to the proposal as a result of the feedback.
All West Yorkshire authorities charge to investigate high hedge complaints, except Bradford. Some of these other authorities do provide a concession, such as Leeds Council who has a 50% reduction to their £330 charge for people on certain types of benefit, e.g. recipients of housing benefit, disability allowance and Jobseekers Allowance. Bradford currently charges £100 fee which is returnable if the complaint is valid (£20 refundable concession). This means that there is a cost to the Council on every case it investigates; on average it costs £713 per case to investigate.
5