Details of how due regard was given to equalities issues during sponsor meeting to approve 'Mini-Holland' plans for Enfield

Transport for London did not have the information requested.

Dear Transport for London,
On 23 June 2015 Transport for London representatives attended a Sponsor Review meeting at New City Court, 20 St Thomas Street, London along with representatives of London Borough of Enfield and Ringway Jacobs consulting engineers. At the meeting the seven potential options drawn up by LB Enfield/Ringway Jacobs for consideration under the 'Mini-Holland' funding stream were discussed. TfL representatives confirmed that there were two options (out of a total of seven ) that TfL would be willing to fund and which TfL would allow Enfield to take out to consultation (and, following that, implementation of one of those two shortlisted options).

The TfL representatives who attended the meeting were Alex Sexton, Brian Deegan, Jo Fricker, Katharina Kroeger, Ross Ferrington and Nathaniel Chin. A copy of the TFL Sponsor Review Excel Spread sheet was provided to justify the decisions made and a copy of this has been provided to me by London Borough of Enfield.

The general equality duty requires public authorities - this includes TfL - to have due regard to the aims of the general equality duty when making decisions. Due regard is fulfilled "before and at the time a particular policy that will or might affect people with protected characteristics is under consideration as well as at the time a decision is taken. Due regard involves a conscious approach and state of mind."

I can find no evidence of any such consideration in TfL's Sponsor Review Sheet and LB Enfield has been unable to provide any other relevant written evidence from the meeting relating to or demonstrating how the impact on groups protected under the General Equality Duty was considered by TfL in the shortlisting decisions.

I therefore have two requests:
1) will you please accordingly provide written evidence that TfL took the potential impact of the seven alternative plans on protected groups into account when reviewing the alternative options and when making the shortlisting decision; and
2) please provide an evidenced account of the assessments made by TfL of the likely impact of the seven 'Mini-Holland' options presented by LB Enfield on the various groups protected under the Equality Act and the conclusions drawn.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Linda Miller

FOI, Transport for London

Dear Dr Miller

TfL Ref: FOI-1266-1516

Thank you for your email received by Transport for London (TfL) on 6 October 2015. Your request will be processed in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and TfL’s information access policy.

A response will be provided to you by 3 November 2015. We publish a substantial range of information on our website on subjects including operational performance, contracts, expenditure, journey data, governance and our financial performance. This includes data which is frequently asked for in FOI requests or other public queries. Please check http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transpar... to see if this helps you.

In the meantime, if you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Ida Harris | FOI Case Officer
FOI Case Management Team
Transport for London

show quoted sections

FOI, Transport for London

1 Attachment

Dear Ms Miller

 

TfL Ref: FOI-1266-1516

 

Thank you for your email received by us on 6 October 2015 asking for
information about 'Mini-Holland' plans for Enfield.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of
the Environmental Information Regulations and our information access
policy.  I can confirm that we hold the information you require.

 

The meeting Transport for London (TfL)  attended with Jacobs and Enfield
was to go through the preliminary designs of seven options. Over one
option (Option 6) there was concerns regarding the shared use approach at
key junctions (Silver Street/ London Road and Genotin Road/Southbury Road
having no signals). The concerns were to do with congestion at these
junctions and impacts on the visually impaired. This therefore was removed
from going any further.

 

TfL then received 6 designs which a Cycling Level of Service Assessment
was conducted. A Cycling Level of Service Assessment details where there
are “criticals” in the design for cycling. This showed another two options
(Option 4 and 5) were not adequate. In addition to this, Option 3 was
deemed inadequate due to the proposals suggesting to keep existing traffic
down Church Street. This design was not transforming the primary town
centre which the bid objectives looks to achieve. Enfield decided Option 2
was not adequate for consultation due to potential delays. Please visit
[1]http://cycleenfield.co.uk/have-your-say/...
for more information.

 

TfL’s Sponsors Review process is coordinated by the Borough Cycling
Programme Team and is a mandatory TfL process for Mini-Holland projects at
concept design stage. This process is mainly to look at whether the
designs meet the requirements of the funding and where these can be
improved. It also took on board comments from other departments within TfL
(Network Development, Bus Infrastructure, Outcomes Delivery and Traffic
Infrastructure). The designs are at concept design stage for Enfield Town.
This process was carried out for Option 1 and Option 6a (the remaining
options).

 

In addition, a Partnership Board meeting was held by London Borough of
Enfield to view these two options and comment on them. A number of
disability groups and organisations were invited. Also, Enfield has
contacted them by letter regarding the scheme options.

 

With these concept designs now out to consultation, comments will be
received from the public which will help choose the preferred concept
option, and enhance the design for all users, including groups protected
under the Equality Act. An Equality Impact Assessment will be conducted on
both Option 1 and Option 6a which will also aid the design. The needs of
all users will be captured within the detailed design phase and TfL will
ensure that conditions for vulnerable people and all users are met.

 

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable
to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to
appeal as well as information on copyright and what to do if you would
like to re-use any of the information we have disclosed.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Ida Harris | FOI Case Officer

FOI Case Management Team

Transport for London

 

 

 

show quoted sections