|
With regards the report into the cessation of the active travel scheme in Heavitree.Considering the following paragraph from section 11 In considering the detrimental impact some reasonable adjustments have been made pursuant to Sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 with the amendment of the scheme to allow taxi and private hire vehicles to access the gates but mitigations have not been Those with protected characteristics, particularly disabilities would be placed at a disadvantage for which objective justification is required, in accordance with the structured approach set out by the Supreme Court in Ackerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities Ltd 1. Please provide the data used to draw the conclusion that travel times on the boundary roads were higher for those affected than pre-trial and had shown no improvement as the trial went on. , or phrase confirmation that personal reports were all that were were used without attempt to see if there was substance behind the claims. This should be available to you as you would have used it to draw conclusion and not required substantial work. This report includes information in several sections: Page 3 – thematic table identifies ‘it is making my everyday journeys longer / more difficult’ as appearing in 20% of comments and a total of 6,520 instances Page 7 – Living Options stated that ‘journey times for many disabled people continue to be significantly extended’ Page 8 – unpaid carers indicated that ‘people who also receive paid care were said to be missing out on time with paid carers and at care activities…due to increased travel times’ Page 8 – paid carers raised that ‘key issues…include the impacts of the scheme on journey times for carers travelling to appointments within the area’ Page 8 – Vranch House noted that ‘the trial scheme has significantly increased vehicular journey times to access the school and nearby businesses’ Page 9 – traffic data shows that ‘on the boundary roads, increases in traffic were recorded at most locations’ Page 10 – traffic speeds show that ‘traffic speeds have been slightly lower than those recorded prior to the trial’ with a decrease of 6% on Honiton Road 2. Please provide the legal opinion that supported the assessment that the impact was disproportionate to the aims of the scheme. Advice was taken from the Monitoring Officer and from an independent King’s Counsel. The advice is legally privileged and will not be shared. Legal considerations were provided within the HATOC report and are publicly available in the report linked above. 3. Please supply the justification for the statement “mitigations were not possible” were any mitigations considered? What were these mitigations? Why were they considered not possible? It was not considered that there were any effective mitigation which would adequately resolve the issues relating to the multiple protected characteristics (people with disabilities, the young and the old). |