APPENDIX H

Equality impact assessment (EIA) form: evidencing paying due regard to protected characteristics

(Form updated October 2023)

Princess Close, Ripon - Structural Stability and Options Appraisal

Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) are public documents.  EIAs accompanying reports going to County Councillors for decisions are published with the committee papers on our website and are available in hard copy at the relevant meeting.  To help people to find completed EIAs we also publish them in the Equality and Diversity section of our website.  This will help people to see for themselves how we have paid due regard in order to meet statutory requirements. 

Name of Directorate and Service Area	Community Development - Housing
Lead Officer and contact details	Imogen Downie – Housing Policy and Strategy Officer (Service Improvement)
Names and roles of other people involved in carrying out the EIA
How will you pay due regard? e.g. working group, individual officer	This overarching EIA has been carried out by the Housing Policy and Strategy Officer (Service Improvement).
When did the due regard process start?	July 2025

Section 1. Please describe briefly what this EIA is about. (e.g. are you starting a new service, changing how you do something, stopping doing something?)

This EIA supports the options appraisal for the structurally compromised block at Nos. 1-7 Princess Close, Ripon. The building is currently vacant and presents significant safety and liability risks due to geological instability, including peat compression, gypsum dissolution and drainage failure.

The report outlines three options:

- Option 1: Retain and Monitor - maintaining the building in its current state with ongoing inspections.

- Option 2: Undertake Remedial Works – implementing extensive ground and structural repairs.

- Option 3: Demolition (Preferred) - controlled demolition of the block, with future use of the site to be determined.

This EIA considers the potential equality implications for each option, particularly in relation to people with protected characteristics and other vulnerable groups. All former tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation.

Section 2. Why is this being proposed? What are the aims? What does the authority hope to achieve by it? (e.g. to save money, meet increased demand, do things in a better way.)

This proposal is being made in response to structural and geological risks at Nos. 1–7 Princess Close, Ripon. The building is at risk of collapse due to ground instability caused by peat compression and gypsum dissolution. The authority aims to identify a solution that prioritises public safety, minimises financial and legal liability, and supports the long-term sustainability of the housing stock. Demolition is recommended as it removes the immediate risk, avoids the high cost and uncertainty of remedial works. The proposal also ensures that all former tenants have been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation, maintaining equitable outcomes.

Section 3. What will change? What will be different for customers and/or staff?

If the preferred option of demolition is supported, the structurally compromised building at Nos. 1–7 Princess Close will be removed. This will eliminate the risk of sudden collapse and improve safety for the surrounding area. For customers, there will be no direct change, as all former tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation. For staff, the change will reduce the need for ongoing monitoring, emergency planning, and risk management associated with the site. It will also remove a long-term void from the housing portfolio, improving asset performance and enabling future consideration of the site’s use in line with strategic priorities.

Section 4. Involvement and consultation (What involvement and consultation has been done regarding the proposal and what are the results? What consultation will be needed and how will it be done?)

A comprehensive programme of consultation has been undertaken throughout the investigation and assessment process. This has included engagement with structural and geotechnical experts, drainage specialists, Legal Services, internal housing and asset teams, and the former tenants of Nos. 1–7 Princess Close, who have all been decanted into alternative accommodation. The technical consultants provided detailed assessments confirming the severity of the structural and ground instability issues, and Legal Services advised on the statutory process required for demolition of Housing Revenue Account stock. No further public consultation is required at this stage, although communication with relevant internal services will continue as the proposal progresses.

Section 5. What impact will this proposal have on council budgets? Will it be cost neutral, have increased cost or reduce costs?

The financial implications of the proposal vary significantly depending on the option selected:

Option 1 – Retain and Monitor

While this option avoids immediate capital expenditure, it incurs ongoing costs for structural monitoring, insurance premiums, and potential emergency response. Retaining a high-risk asset may lead to increased insurance premiums or withdrawal of cover. There is also reputational risk and potential legal liability if collapse or injury occurs.

Option 2 – Undertake Remedial Works

Estimated to exceed £200,000, including ground stabilisation, repairs, structural reinforcement, and refurbishment. Early discussions suggest insurers may not cover costs if the issue is deemed pre-existing or undisclosed. Due to the unpredictable nature of gypsum dissolution and peat compression, there is no guarantee of long-term success, meaning significant investment could be lost.

Option 3 – Demolition (Preferred Option)

Estimated at approximately £70,000 based on contractor quotes. This removes liability, avoids future monitoring and emergency response costs, removing future cost concerns. There would however be loss of rental income.

Section 6. How will this proposal affect people with protected characteristics?	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
Age	ü			From information currently available we can estimate that 51% of our tenants are aged over 60. In 2021, 25% of the county’s adult population was over the age of 65. This is higher than the national percentage of 18.4%. This means that our tenant population is significantly more aged than the average population for North Yorkshire and the country. By 2035, 32.60% of North Yorkshire’s total population will be aged 65+ and 5.97% will be aged 85+. Nationally 23.26% will be 65+ and 4.05% will be 85+ by 2035. Less that 5% of our tenant population are under 29. North Yorkshire has a lower proportion of young people than the national average- 24.5% under 25 compared to 29.2% nationally. The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on age, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision relates to asset management rather than service provision.
Disability	ü			North Yorkshire has a lower proportion (19.3%) of people with a disability or long-term limiting illness whose day-to-day activities are limited a lot- against the national average of 23.69%. However, this will rise to 20.89% of the 65+ population in North Yorkshire, against a national average of 24.86%. Each option has been assessed for its potential impact on people with disabilities. As all tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation, the proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on disability.
Sex	ü			The proportion of females is slightly higher (51%) than that of males (49%). This pattern is reflected across all localities, with the exception of Richmondshire, where the large number of predominantly male military personnel have the effect of reversing the proportions. The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on sex. The building is currently vacant, and all former tenants have been rehoused. The decision relates to asset management and does not affect access to services or housing provision.
Race	ü			North Yorkshire has a much lower proportion (4.77%) of people who identify with a non-UK identity than the national average (12%). The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on race, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision relates to asset management rather than service provision.
Gender reassignment	ü			In the 2021 census 1478 (0.28%) of residents across North Yorkshire identified themselves as transsexual or with a gender identity different to that registered at birth. The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on gender identity, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision relates to asset management rather than service provision.
Sexual orientation	ü			In the 2021 census 11,291 (2.2%) of residents across North Yorkshire identified themselves as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Other (LGB+). The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on sexual orientation, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision concerns asset management rather than service provision.
Religion or belief	ü			North Yorkshire has higher levels of Christians (55.6%) than the national average (46.2%), and lower levels of all other religions than the national average. Percentages of those with no religion or not stating their religion are broadly similar to the national average. The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on religion or belief, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision concerns asset management rather than service provision.
Pregnancy or maternity	ü			In 2021 there were 5133 live births in North Yorkshire. In 2020 the conception rate per 1000 for under 18’s was 10.9. This is below the rate for England (13). In 2020/21 4.2% of deliveries in North Yorkshire were to mothers from ethnic minorities, compared to the England value of 21.6%. The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals who are pregnant or on maternity leave, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision concerns asset management rather than service provision.
Marriage or civil partnership	ü			A higher percentage of North Yorkshire’s population is married or in a civil partnership (53.7%) than the national average (46.8%) The proposal is not expected to have any disproportionate impact on individuals based on marital or partnership status, as all tenants have already been rehoused and the decision concerns asset management rather than service provision.

Section 7. How will this proposal affect people who…	No impact	Make things better	Make things worse	Why will it have this effect? Provide evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.
..live in a rural area?	ü			The population in North Yorkshire is generally sparser than the national average (77 people per square kilometre as opposed to 434 nationally). In some parts of the county this is lower still (Ryedale 36, Richmondshire 38, Craven 48, Hambleton 69). The proposal is not expected to have a disproportionate impact on rural residents, as the affected building is already vacant and all tenants have been rehoused. The decision relates to a specific site and does not alter service provision or access in rural communities.
…have a low income?	ü			The proportion of households in deprivation in North Yorkshire reduced between 2011 and 2021. In 2011 52.1% of households in North Yorkshire were deprived in at least one of the four dimensions (employment, education, health and disability, housing). By 2021 this had fallen to 46.7%. This 5.4 percentage point reduction in North Yorkshire compared with a 5.9 percentage point reduction across England as a whole, with the proportion of households in deprivation in North Yorkshire remaining below the national average. The proposal does not affect tenancy rights or access to affordable housing, as all former tenants have been rehoused. It is therefore not expected to have a disproportionate impact on people with low incomes.
…are carers (unpaid family or friend)?	ü			Carers’ allowance claimants make up 0.98% of North Yorkshire’s population. This is lower than the average for England (1.42%) but there are variations across the county. It is likely, however, that these figures do not reflect the true number of people carrying out caring roles in the county as many do not claim allowances. The proposal does not affect access to housing or support services for carers, and all tenants have already been relocated. No disproportionate impact is anticipated.
….. are from the Armed Forces Community	ü			North Yorkshire has 29,831 Armed Forces Veterans. Richmondshire has the highest proportion of Armed Forces Veterans in North Yorkshire at 9.5% (3,962), which is the third highest nationally. The proportion of veterans in Richmondshire is more than double the national average rate, which is 3.8%. Harrogate has the highest number of Armed Forces Veterans in North Yorkshire with 7,076 (5.2%). The proposal does not affect access to housing or services for veterans or serving personnel. As the building is vacant and the decision concerns asset management, no disproportionate impact is expected.

Section 8. Geographic impact – Please detail where the impact will be (please tick all that apply)
North Yorkshire wide
Craven
Hambleton
Harrogate	ü
Richmondshire
Ryedale
Scarborough
Selby
If you have ticked one or more areas, will specific town(s)/village(s) be particularly impacted? If so, please specify below.

Section 9. Will the proposal affect anyone more because of a combination of protected characteristics? (e.g. older women or young gay men) State what you think the effect may be and why, providing evidence from engagement, consultation and/or service user data or demographic information etc.

The proposal is not expected to have a disproportionate impact on individuals based on a combination of protected characteristics. All tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation, and the building is currently vacant. The decision relates to asset management and public safety rather than changes to service provision.

Section 10. Next steps to address the anticipated impact. Select one of the following options and explain why this has been chosen. (Remember: we have an anticipatory duty to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people can access services and work for us)	Tick option chosen
1. No adverse impact - no major change needed to the proposal. There is no potential for discrimination or adverse impact identified.	x
2. Adverse impact - adjust the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We will change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, or we will achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people.
3. Adverse impact - continue the proposal - The EIA identifies potential problems or missed opportunities. We cannot change our proposal to reduce or remove these adverse impacts, nor can we achieve our aim in another way which will not make things worse for people. (There must be compelling reasons for continuing with proposals which will have the most adverse impacts. Get advice from Legal Services)
4. Actual or potential unlawful discrimination - stop and remove the proposal – The EIA identifies actual or potential unlawful discrimination. It must be stopped.
Explanation of why option has been chosen. (Include any advice given by Legal Services.) The proposal has been assessed across all protected characteristics and other relevant groups. As the building is currently vacant and all tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation, no disproportionate or adverse impacts have been identified. The decision relates to asset management and public safety, and does not affect access to services.  Reasonable adjustments have already been made through the rehousing process, and no further changes to the proposal are required at this stage.

Section 11. If the proposal is to be implemented how will you find out how it is really affecting people? (How will you monitor and review the changes?)

If the proposal is implemented, its impact will be monitored through ongoing service reviews and feedback. As the building is currently vacant and all tenants have been rehoused, no direct service user impact is anticipated.

Section 12. Action plan. List any actions you need to take which have been identified in this EIA, including post implementation review to find out how the outcomes have been achieved in practice and what impacts there have actually been on people with protected characteristics.
Action	Lead	By when	Progress	Monitoring arrangements

Section 13. Summary Summarise the findings of your EIA, including impacts, recommendation in relation to addressing impacts, including any legal advice, and next steps. This summary should be used as part of the report to the decision maker.

This Equalities Impact Assessment has considered the potential impacts of the Princess Close options appraisal on individuals across all protected characteristics and relevant groups. The proposal includes three options, retention, remedial works, and demolition, with demolition identified as the preferred option. As all tenants have already been rehoused in suitable alternative accommodation and the building is currently vacant, no disproportionate or adverse impacts have been identified. The decision relates to asset management and public safety, rather than changes to service provision.

The next steps will depend on the decision taken by the Executive Member. If demolition is the preferred option, and is formally approved following the decision-making process, the council will proceed with the legal steps required for Housing Revenue Account (HRA) stock demolition.

Section 14. Sign off section

This full EIA was completed by:

Name: Imogen Downie

Job title: Housing Policy and Strategy Officer (Service Improvement)

Directorate: Community Development

Signature: Imogen Downie

Completion date: Sept 2025

Authorised by relevant Assistant Director (signature): Andrew Rowe

Date: 4 November 2025