Budget Proposal: EIA 1 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Front Door for Families reduction 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Kirsty Hanna, Director, Family Help and Protection 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Families, Children & Wellbeing, Safeguarding and Care  

A reduction in the staffing establishment of 1.0 FTE – currently vacant - in the Front Door for Families.  Contacts have reduced by 13%, therefore this reduction can be managed without significantly impacting service performance in providing children safeguarding services to the city in a timely way.    

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

This reduction in budget may impact on the response to referrals to the Front Door for Families regarding Children’s Social Care.  Black and Global majority children, including separated children arriving in the UK, are over-represented in this cohort and so, if there was an impact, they would be disproportionately affected.  A significant number of the children referred to the service are also disabled, neurodivergent and/or experiencing mental health issues so they would also be disproportionately impacted.   

Age 

YES  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

YES  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

YES  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

YES  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

YES 

Gender Reassignment 

Not applicable 

Sexual Orientation 

Not applicable 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

Not applicable 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

Yes 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

Not applicable 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

Yes 

Carers 

Yes 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

Yes 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

YES  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

YES 

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

YES 

Human Rights 

Not applicable 

Another relevant group: 

Those experiencing substance misuse  

 YES 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

yes 

All the young people this will impact will be under 18 and will be among the most vulnerable children in society, experiencing trauma and vulnerability 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

yes 

Many of the young people requiring support will be disabled, neurodivergent and / or experiencing mental health issues.  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

yes 

Black and Global Majority Children are over-represented in our services and this is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds. 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

no 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

Yes 

A number of children in our services identify as non-binary or trans. These young people will often also have additional complex needs and vulnerability and may require support from social care. 

Gender Reassignment 

N/a 

N/a 

Sexual Orientation 

N/a 

N/a 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

N/a 

N/a 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

yes 

Social care services support families during pregnancy and early infancy 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

N/a 

N/a 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Social care services support separated children arriving in the UK and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing social care are more likely to be young carers and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Social care services support children in care and care leavers and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

yes 

Young people in social care services are more likely to have come from families that have experienced domestic violence and are more likely to experience this in their own relationships 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing social care services are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in adolescent services will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing the social care services are often at risk of homelessness and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Human Rights 

n/a 

n/a 

Another relevant group: Substance misuse 

Yes  

Young people accessing social care services are more likely to have come from families who have experienced substance misuse and are more likely to have experienced these issues themselves 

1. SMART action 1: We are a demand led service and are therefore not able to reduce the demand as such.  While we do everything possible to prevent children requiring our support, at times children will need to be safeguarded.  By July 2026, we will implement the Families Transformation.  Families First is a national programme led by the Department for Education (DfE).  The overall aims of Families First are to refocus the children’s social care system on prevention and to ensure that there is a robust multi-agency child protection system in place. As part of Families First we will create Family Help pods that focus on targeted early help and social work support, as well as creating a Multi-Agency Child Protection Team, which will have oversight of child protection decisions.  One of the expected outcomes of Families First is that it will lead to a reduction in demand for high level services and this would include a reduction in referrals, and especially re-referrals, to our services in the longer term.    

2. SMART action 2:  By July 2026, as part of Families First Transformation we will create roles focused on prevention that support families to create sustainable change and reduce the number of re-referrals to the Front Door for Families. 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

4 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Accountable Manager: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Budget Proposal: EIA 2

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Extended Adolescent Service reduction 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Kirsty Hanna, Director, Family Help and Protection 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Families, Children & Wellbeing, Safeguarding and Care  

A £50,000 saving on the Extended Adolescent Service, through reduction of a 1.0fte post currently vacant.  This savings proposal could lead to less direct support to vulnerable teenagers. The service aims to keep children out of care; therefore, the risk is that more children enter care if this service is depleted. This will be older children as the Extended Adolescent Service works with 11+, these placements tend to be more expensive and far more likely to be high cost residential.  

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

This reduction in budget will impact on young people who are supported by the specialist adolescent service.  This service supports the young people who are in care or who are at risk of significant harm.  This includes young people at risk of criminal exploitation.   Black and Global majority young people are over-represented in this cohort and so will be disproportionately affected.  A significant number of the young people in the service are also disabled, neurodivergent and / or experiencing mental health issues so will also be disproportionately impacted. Young people open to the service are impacted by complex problems and trauma, including substance misuse.  

Age 

YES  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

YES  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

YES  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

YES  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

YES 

Gender Reassignment 

YES 

Sexual Orientation 

Not applicable 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

Not applicable 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

Not applicable 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

Not applicable 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

Not applicable 

Carers 

Yes 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

Not applicable 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

YES  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

YES 

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

YES 

Human Rights 

Not applicable  

Another relevant group: 

Those experiencing substance misuse  

 YES 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

yes 

All the people this will impact will be under 18 and will be among the most vulnerable children in society, experiencing trauma and vulnerability 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

yes 

Many of the young people supported by the service are also disabled, neurodivergent and / or experiencing mental health issues 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

yes 

Black and Global Majority Children are over-represented in our services and this is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds. 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

no 

no disproportionate impact for this group 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

Yes 

A number of children in our services identify as non-binary or trans. These young people will often also have additional complex needs and vulnerability and may require support from the adolescent service. 

Gender Reassignment 

N/a 

N/a 

Sexual Orientation 

Yes 

LGBTQ+ young people will often also have additional needs and vulnerability 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

N/a 

N/a 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

N/a 

N/a 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

N/a 

N/a 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

n/a 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

n/a 

Young people accessing the adolescent service are more likely to be young carers 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

n/a 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

yes 

Young people in the adolescent service are more likely to have come from families that have experienced domestic violence and are more likely to experience this in their own relationships 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing the adolescent service are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in adolescent services will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

n/a 

Young people accessing the adolescent service are often at risk of homelessness 

Human Rights 

n/a 

n/a 

Another relevant group: Substance misuse 

Yes  

Young people accessing the extended adolescent service are more likely to have come from families who have experienced substance misuse and are more likely to have experienced these issues themselves 

SMART action 1: We are a demand led service and are therefore not able to reduce the demand as such.  While we do everything possible to prevent children requiring our support, at times children will need to be safeguarded.  By July 2026, we will implement the Families Transformation.  Families First is a national programme led by the Department for Education (DfE).  The overall aims of Families First are to refocus the children’s social care system on prevention and to ensure that there is a robust multi-agency child protection system in place. As part of Families First we will create Family Help pods that focus on targeted early help and social work support, as well as creating a Multi-Agency Child Protection Team, which will have oversight of child protection decisions.  One of the expected outcomes of Families First is that it will lead to a reduction in demand for high level services and this would include a reduction in high level need in the adolescent service.  

SMART action 2:  As part of Families First, by July 2026, we will create Youth Keyworker roles in the Adolescent Service to reduce demand on the Extended Adolescent Service. 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

4 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Accountable Manager: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Budget Proposal: EIA 3

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Partners in Change Hub  

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Kirsty Hanna, Director, Family Help and Protection 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Families, Children & Wellbeing, Safeguarding and Care  

A 0.8 FTE reduction in the Partners in Change Hub staffing establishment. The Partners in Change Hub supports social work practice providing direct interventions to families and supporting Social Work Students and newly qualified social workers. The number of newly qualified social workers employed has decreased over the last 2 years. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable:  

This reduction in budget will impact on the support to social workers and keyworkers who are providing support to families from a targeted early help stage, through child in need work, child protection plans and children in care. Tasks will need to be re-distributed within the Partners in Change Hub and this will impact on their workload. Black and Global majority children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, are over-represented in this cohort and so will be disproportionately affected.  A significant number of the children in the service are also disabled, neurodivergent and / or experiencing mental health issues so will also be disproportionately impacted.   

Age 

YES  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

YES  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

YES  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

YES  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

YES 

Gender Reassignment 

Not applicable 

Sexual Orientation 

Not applicable 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

Not applicable 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

Yes 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

Not applicable 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

Yes 

Carers 

Yes 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

Yes 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

YES  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

YES 

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

YES 

Human Rights 

Not applicable  

Another relevant group: 

Those experiencing substance misuse  

 YES 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

yes 

All the people this will impact will be under 18 and will be among the most vulnerable children in society, experiencing trauma and vulnerability 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

yes 

Many children and young people in our services are disabled, neurodivergent and / or experiencing mental health issues. 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

yes 

Black and Global Majority Children are over-represented in our services and this is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds. 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

no 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

Yes 

A number of children in our services identify as non-binary or trans. These young people will often also have additional complex needs and vulnerability  

Gender Reassignment 

N/a 

N/a 

Sexual Orientation 

N/a 

N/a 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

N/a 

N/a 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

yes 

Social care services support families during pregnancy and early infancy 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

N/a 

N/a 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Social care services support separated children arriving in the UK and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing social care are more likely to be young carers and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Social care services support children in care and care leavers and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

yes 

Young people in social care services are more likely to have come from families that have experienced domestic violence and are more likely to experience this in their own relationships 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing social care services are more likely to have come from families in poverty, therefore any cuts in adolescent services will impact on those children affected by childhood poverty 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

yes 

Young people accessing the social care services are often at risk of homelessness and so reduction in these services may have a disproportionate impact for these children 

Human Rights 

n/a 

n/a 

Another relevant group: Substance misuse 

Yes  

Young people accessing social care services are more likely to have come from families who have experienced substance misuse and are more likely to have experienced these issues themselves 

SMART action 1: We are a demand led service and are therefore not able to reduce the demand as such. While we do everything possible to prevent children requiring our support, at times children will need to be safeguarded.  By July 2026, we will implement the Families Transformation.  Families First is a national programme led by the Department for Education (DfE).  The overall aims of Families First are to refocus the children’s social care system on prevention and to ensure that there is a robust multi-agency child protection system in place. As part of Families First we will create Family Help pods that focus on targeted early help and social work support, as well as creating a Multi-Agency Child Protection Team, which will have oversight of child protection decisions.  One of the expected outcomes of Families First is that it will lead to a reduction in demand for high level services and this would include a reduction in need from the Partners in Change Hub and recruitment of newly qualified social workers. 

SMART action 2:  By July 2026, we will create Change Practitioner roles in the Partners in Change Hub to help reduce demand on children’s social care. 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

4 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Accountable Manager: 

Kirsty Hanna 

24.10.25 

Budget Proposal: EIA 4

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Reduction of Youth Arts programme 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Kirsty Hanna 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Families, Children and Wellbeing 

The proposal is to reduce the Youth Arts Programme through change to staffing establishment: removal of 0.8 FTE, currently vacant. The Youth Participation Team provide a range of services for children and young people who are/have been in care or receiving social work support; this includes youth advocacy, Children in Care Council, Independent Visitor Programme. The service also provides an accredited Youth Arts Programme and wider participation activities, e.g. Youth Council, Youth Wise.  

The Youth Arts Award Programme targets young people aged 11 to 19 years (SEND up to 25 years) particularly Children in Care (CiC), Care leavers (with SEND) or young people who are emotionally distressed and are disengaged from education, training or employment. The staff (1.21fte) deliver and accredit the bronze, silver & Gold awards and their aim is to improve mental health and to re-engage the young people into education, training and increase employment opportunities  

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

This would result in a loss of opportunity for the most vulnerable children living in the city, including CiC, who are disengaged from education, to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment. 

 15 young people have been supported since April 2025. 

In addition to CiC, the information provided highlights that young people aged 11 to 19 years (SEND up to 25 years), particularly LGBTQ+ young people, those living in poverty, young people with poor mental health, young women and young people with SEND will be disproportionately impacted.  

Age 

Yes  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

Yes  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

 No 

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

No 

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

Yes 

Gender Reassignment 

Yes  

Sexual Orientation 

Yes  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No  

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

No  

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No  

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

No  

Carers 

No  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

Yes   

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

No  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

Yes   

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

No  

Human Rights 

No  

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

Yes  

Children not engaged with education  

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

Yes 

This project targets young people aged 11 to 19 years (SEND up to 25 years). There would be reduction in the number of young people being supported to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

Yes 

The award is carefully tailored and delivered to meet each individual young person’s needs, resulting in a high level of success in engaging and sustaining participation from disabled young people and particularly autistic young people. 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

Yes 

Black and Global Majority Children are over-represented in our services and this is especially the case for children of mixed heritage or from Gypsy, Roma, Traveller backgrounds. 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No 

Sex  

Yes 

The Arts Award predominantly supports young women who could be disproportionally impacted with the reduction  

Gender Reassignment 

Yes 

A number of trans and non-binary young people use the service 

Sexual Orientation 

Yes 

A number of children in care identify as LGBTQ and these young people will often also have additional needs and vulnerability 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

Yes 

Young people accessing social care are more likely to be young carers 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

Yes 

The programme supports young people from these groups who could be impacted by the reduction 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

Yes 

Young people in social care services are more likely to have come from families that have experienced domestic violence 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

Yes 

Young people accessing social care services are more likely to have come from families in poverty 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

Yes 

This programme targets young people presenting with emotional distress (poor mental health), CiC, Care Leavers (with SEND) and other vulnerable young people that are disengaged from education, training or employment. This would reduce the number being supported to achieve a nationally accredited award and reintegrate them back into education, training or employment  

The award is carefully tailored and delivered to meet each individual young person’s needs, resulting in a high level of success in engaging and sustaining participation from young people with severe mental health issues including young people who find engaging with other services difficult. 

2. SMART action 1: Consider the use of SEND and AP programme to deliver service for children not engaged in education 

3. SMART action 2:  Implementation of new young futures hubs to meet the needs of the young people. The programme will provide a one stop shop for support services with a focus on young people’s health and wellbeing, those at risk of crime and education and employment from 1^st April 2026 and complement the reduced offer. 

Proposal’s impact score: 

1 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Joanne Templeman 

18 November 2025 

Accountable Manager: 

Kirsty Hanna 

18 November 2025 

Budget Proposal: EIA 5

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Violence Against Women and Girls Budget 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Anne Clark, Strategic Lead Commissioner VAWG 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Families, Children & Wellbeing  

£75,000 saving by reducing funding for Pan Sussex posts associated with the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse Board and funding the Transformation Manager post at Stonewater Refuge. The project work of this post has now reached completion. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

This reduction in budget will impact on the partnership contributions to the Board and may mean that East and West Sussex County Councils will have to increase their contributions. The Council has been contributing to the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse Board Manager and Community Engagement Officer role. Both roles are line managed via West Sussex Council and focus primarily on East and West Sussex engagement. Officers from Brighton and Hove will continue to be a member of the Board.  There is no significant impact on the wider groups in the community. The work of the Transformation Manager has completed so there is no impact from this saving. 

Age 

No 

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

No 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

No 

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

No 

Sex 

Yes, all postholders are females who are affected 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

Not applicable 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

No 

Carers 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

No 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and   people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

YES 

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

No 

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

No 

Human Rights 

Not applicable  

Another relevant group: 

Those experiencing substance misuse  

 No 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

No 

These roles do not provide support to those affected by VAWG 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

No 

These roles do not provide support to those affected by disability 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

no 

As above 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

Yes 

Although the majority of people affected by VAWG are female, these posts do not work directly with those affected by VAWG to provide support. 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

These roles do not provide support to people  

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No  

These roles do not provide support to people 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people  

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

yes 

These roles work to support the implementation of the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse Strategy and administrate the Pan Sussex Domestic Abuse Board. There is minimal interface with those affected currently by Domestic Abuse. However, withdrawing financial support for these functions may mean that there is a minimal impact on those affected by DA in the City.  

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

Human Rights 

n/a 

n/a 

Another relevant group: Substance misuse 

No 

These roles do not provide support to people 

1. SMART action 1: Brighton and Hove City Council’s VAWG Unit will continue to support the Pan Sussex Board and attend its meetings and subgroups.  

2. SMART ACTION 2: The workload of VAWG Unit staff will continue to be monitored and we will continue to work to ensure those affected by Domestic and sexual violence are not disadvantaged by these budget saving proposals. 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

1 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Anne Clark 

30.10. 2025 

Accountable Manager: 

Anne Clark 

30.10. 2025 

Budget Proposal: EIA 6 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Community Care Budget 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Steve Hook, Director of Adult Social Care  

Directorate and Service Name:  

Health and Adult Social Care, Operations  

The overall net budget for this service area is £77.2m and the proposed saving for 2026/27 is £2.296m. 

 This is proposed to be done by continuing with the agreed direction of travel for Adult Social Care focusing upon reducing demand through several approaches:    

• reduction of long-term care placements in nursing and residential care, particular focus on working age service users 

• ensure reviews demonstrate support services are adequate to meet needs and represent efficiency and value for money 

• increase the reablement offer to those who require it 

• managing provider fee uplifts considering the current market fee position 

• focus on preventative interventions and promoting independence in line with the target operating model, including advice, and signposting and increasing the use of technology enabled care 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

Older people, disabled people and carers are groups who are affected when changes are made in Adult Social Care, considering intersectional impacts. However, due to the nature of these changes being focused on prevention of admission into long term residential and nursing care, promoting independence in the community and ensuring value for money, there are no identified negative disproportionate impacts for these groups. 

Age 

YES  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

YES  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

YES  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

YES 

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

YES  

Gender Reassignment 

NO  

Sexual Orientation 

YES  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

 NO 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

Not applicable 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

 NO 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

NO 

Carers 

YES  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

 Not applicable 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

 NO 

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

 NO  

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

YES 

Human Rights 

 NO 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

 NO 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

No 

Focus on prevention of admission into long term residential and nursing care and promoting independence in the community. 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

No 

Focus on prevention of admission into long term residential and nursing care and promoting independence in the community. 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

No 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

No 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

No 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

No 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

1 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Steve Hook, Director Adult Social Care 

06-11-2025 

Accountable Manager: 

Genette Laws, Corporate Director Homes & Adult Social Care 

06-11-2025 

Budget Proposal: EIA 7 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Housing Demand Management 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Harry Williams, Director of Housing People Services 

Directorate and Service Name:  

Homes & Adult Social Care – Housing People Services  

4 key workstreams which will deliver savings in Homelessness, Rough Sleeping and Temporary Accommodation and the proposed saving totals £5.143m:

• Increasing supply: of more affordable Temporary Accommodation (delivery of the Dynamic Purchasing System, exempt accommodation, EPC Grant Scheme & Council owned TA  

• Reducing unit cost: of existing Temporary Accommodation: delivery of Greenwich Model & TA Charging Policy  

• Improving effectiveness in prevention homelessness: Reduce households placed in Temporary Accommodation with new Housing Advice Team  

• Accelerating move on from Temporary Accommodation: direct offers of social housing to households in Interim Accommodation 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

All households accessing help with housing and homelessness from the council could access and therefore be impacted by this policy. However, the data shows that there are a number of groups most likely to experience homelessness and would more likely take up this offer and be impacted by the policy. These groups are:  

• People aged between 25 and 44 

• Disabled people 

• Single parent households 

• Black, Caribbean, African residents and residents of ‘other ethnic groups’  

• Women 

• Other groups including survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse; care leavers and people with substance misuse issues.   

The initiative works on a consent basis and households have the choice to refuse or not proceed the offer. 

Age 

Yes  

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

Yes 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

Yes   

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

Yes   

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

Yes  

Gender Reassignment 

Yes   

Sexual Orientation 

Yes   

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

Yes  

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

Yes  

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

Yes  

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

Yes   

Carers 

Yes  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

Yes   

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

Yes   

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

Yes  

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

Yes   

Human Rights 

Not applicable  

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

Yes  

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

No 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

Yes 

In Brighton & Hove, disabled people disproportionately experience homelessness and are therefore more likely to be impacted by this programme.  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

Yes 

In Brighton & Hove, Black, Caribbean, African residents and residents of ‘Other ethnic group’ disproportionately experience homelessness and are therefore more likely to be impacted by this programme. 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

Yes 

Women are disproportionately represented among lead homeless applicants and are therefore more likely to be impacted by this programme.  

Gender Reassignment 

Yes 

The number of people indicating that their gender identity is different from their sex registered at birth in Brighton & Hove is more than three times greater than the average across of England. 

Brighton & Hove is home to health services, charities and peer support services for LGBTQ+ residents. 

Sexual Orientation 

Yes 

Brighton & Hove is home to health services, charities and peer support services for LGBTQ+ residents. 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

Yes 

In Brighton & Hove, single parent households disproportionately experience homelessness and are therefore more likely to be impacted by this policy.   

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

Yes 

9% of applicants to Brighton & Hove City Council between April and December 2024 –were found to have a priority need for accommodation as a result of being homeless due to that person being a victim of domestic abuse.  

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

No 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

Yes 

Implications outlined above.  

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

2 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Harry Williams, Director of Housing People Services – Homelessness & Housing Options  

06-11-2025 

Accountable Manager: 

Genette Laws – Corporate Director Homes & Adult Social Care 

06-11-2025 

Budget Proposal: EIA 8 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Introduce/review car parking charges at Victoria Park and other City Parks sites 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Mike Harris, Head of Parks and Leisure 

Directorate and Service Name:  

City Operations, Parks & Leisure 

Introduce/review car parking charges at Victoria Park and other City Parks sites, e.g. Lower and Upper Waterhall, Wild Park, Saunders Park, Rottingdean Recreation Ground, Happy Valley, Easthill Park, Sheepcote Valley car park and view point, Devils Dyke x 2 parking areas, Castle Hill car park. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

Where parking is a problem, access for park users can be impacted by blocking dropped kerbs and pedestrian walk ways. The enforcement of marked parking bays and double yellow lines ensures that parking is limited to spaces which enable better access for all and provision of disabled bays or wider access bays in suitable locations for park users. 

At Victoria Recreation Ground the Victoria Road site is managed by One Parking Solutions (OPS), the site has restrictive parking hours (2 hours max stay) and these are reputedly limiting the use of the playground and bowling ground. The Bowls Pavillion has been allowed 8 permits for parking to be included in their lease but have failed to sign the lease in 2 years, which means we have received no income or benefit for this unusual concession.  

Displacement effects may negatively affect residential areas in Portslade, Rottingdean and Woodingdean which are not already in a parking management zone. 

Lack of access to smartphones can limit access due to reliance on paybyphone in paid parking in our public parks.  
Low income /living in a deprived area having limited access to high quality natural environment and not being able to afford paid parking is a cumulative impact of cost of living increases. 

Age 

NO 

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

NO  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

NO  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

NO  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

NO  

Gender Reassignment 

NO  

Sexual Orientation 

NO  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

NO  

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

NO  

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

NO  

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

NO  

Carers 

NO  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

No  

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

NO  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

NO  

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

NO  

Human Rights 

NO  

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

NO  

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

Yes  

Young people and older people are more likely to be on low incomes and therefore more likely to be adversely impacted by any parking charges. Age UK tell us that many older people face a difficult existence in retirement as a result of having a limited income combined with the extra costs of ageing. Introducing paid parking at city park locations may add to older people’s financial pressures and limit / deter them from visiting. Older residents may be more likely to be digital excluded - Parking Services have plans to address this in some locations. 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

Yes 

Research carried out by Scope found that the cost of living with a disability or families with disabled children is significantly higher than households with no disabled people. Transport was identified as one of the main factors for this increase in costs. Introducing parking fees may add to financial pressures on these families and limit / deter them from visiting.  Link to research.  Disability Price Tag | Disability charity Scope UK   

Blue badges are issued to disabled people who are drivers or non-drivers allowing free parking for an unlimited amount of time in pay and display bays and parking in disabled bays.   

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

No 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No 

Sex 

No 

The intersection of sex and disability and caring is a consideration. 90% of lone parent households with dependents in the city are headed up by women. The percentage of women providing unpaid care is 58% in comparison to men (42%). 

Introducing parking fees may add to financial pressures and limit / deter them from visiting. 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

Yes 

Research carried out by Carers UK found that many unpaid carers experience financial hardship because of their caring role. Introduction of parking charges at city park locations may limit / deter them from visiting.  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

No 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

No 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (People on a low income and people living in the most deprived areas) 

SMART action 1: Engagement with park user group and community forums prior to TRO advertisement. 

SMART action 2:  Early engagement with identified relevant groups prior to TRO advertisement. 

SMART action 3: A sustainable travel plan ensuring needs of relevant groups are addressed.

Proposal’s impact score: 

1

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Mike Harris, Head of Parks and Leisure 

20 November 2025 

Accountable Manager: 

Mike Harris, Head of Parks and Leisure 

20 November 2025 

Budget Proposal: EIA 9 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Income from trade and garden waste 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Louise Lawrence, Head of Strategy & Service Improvement  

Directorate and Service Name:  

City Operations, Environmental Services 

The council currently provides a chargeable fortnightly garden waste collection to residents who sign up to the service, and a chargeable waste collection service to businesses across the city with a trade waste agreement. The proposal is to increase the cost and market both services more widely to generate a surplus to reinvest in services. 

There is also a proposal to introduce a fee for collection of waste from third sector organisations. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

It is difficult to determine the level of impact as the service is demand led, and customer equality data is not collected. There are other companies that provide garden and trade waste collections in the city. Residents can also dispose of their garden waste for free at one of the Household Waste & Recycling Sites (HWRS). 

Current policy in place provides free waste collection from third sector organisations. Introduction of a fee for this service may significantly impact organisations that don’t generate profit, compared with sites that are hired out for commercial activity and organisations with single outlets compared with multiple outlets. 

Age 

No 

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

No  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

No  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

No  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

No  

Gender Reassignment 

No  

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No  

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

No  

Carers 

No  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

No  

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

No 

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

No  

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

No  

Human Rights 

No  

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No  

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

No 

Younger and older people may have limited income and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for waste. 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

Yes 

Disabled people may have lower incomes than other working age adults and so be disadvantaged in terms of the charges for waste. Disabled people are more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people.  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

No  

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No  

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

No  

Gender Reassignment 

No  

Sexual Orientation 

No  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No  

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No  

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No  

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

No 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

Yes 

People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford to pay for the service. 

People without access to a car may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to access the HWRS to dispose of the items for free. 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No 

1. SMART action 1: Continue to promote other means of disposing of garden waste, such as taking to the HWRS, home composting or using another service. 

2. SMART action 2: Analyse Stage 1 complaints and feedback to identify trends related to accessibility or affordability. 

3. SMART action 3: Review existing approach for waste collection from third sector organisations and ensure any fees introduced are applied fairly 

 Proposal’s impact score: 

3 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Louise Lawrence, Head of Strategy and Service Improvement 

24/11/25 

Accountable Manager: 

Rachael Joy, Director of Environmental Services 

24/11/25 

Budget Proposal: EIA 10 

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Introduce new charged-for services including bin replacements, wheelie bin cleaning service and Christmas tree collection. 

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Louise Lawrence, Head of Strategy and Service Improvement 

Directorate and Service Name:  

City Operations, Environmental Services 

1. Introduce a fee for customers requesting bin replacements, for which the council currently does not currently charge. 

2. Introduce a new bin cleaning service available to both residents and businesses throughout the city. 

3. Introduce a new charged for Christmas tree collection service for residents. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

Low-income households may be disproportionately negatively impacted by bin replacement charges.   

It is difficult to determine the level of impact for bin cleaning and Christmas tree collection as these services will be demand led. There are other companies providing bin cleaning and Christmas tree collections in the city. Residents can also dispose of their Christmas trees for free at one of the Christmas tree recycling points in the city. 

Age 

No 

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

No 

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

No 

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

No 

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

No 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

No 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

No 

Carers 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

No 

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

No 

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

No 

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No 

Assess impact for different population groups 

Is there a possible disproportionate negative impact? 

State Yes or No 

Describe the potential negative impact, considering for differences within groups For example, different ethnic groups, and peoples intersecting identities e.g. disabled women of faith 

OR 

If no impact is identified, briefly state why. 

Age  

including those under 16, young adults, multiple ethnicities, those with various intersections. 

Yes 

 Older people on fixed incomes may find new charges for bin replacement financially challenging; some may struggle with online payment. 

Students/young adults in HMOs and private rentals may experience more frequent bin churn (lost/contaminated bins), amplifying exposure to charges. 

Disability includes physical and sensory disabled, D/deaf, deafened, hard of hearing, blind, neurodiverse people, people with non-visible disabilities. 

Yes 

Disabled people are more likely to be unemployed or in low-waged work than non-disabled people, therefore may be disadvantaged by introduction of bin replacement charges. Disabled people may experience accessibility barriers in requesting/replacing containers.    

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers 

No 

Religion, Spirituality, Faith, Atheism, and philosophical belief  

No 

Gender and Sex including non-binary and intersex people 

No 

Gender Reassignment 

No 

Sexual Orientation 

No 

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnancy, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across intersections and non-binary gender spectrum) 

No 

Households with primary carers (disproportionately women) could experience additional burden organising replacements and payments. 

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No 

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Carers considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people considering for age, language, and various intersections 

No 

Domestic and/or sexual abuse and violence survivors 

No 

Socio-economic disadvantage considering for age, disability, D/deaf/ blind, ethnicity, expatriate background, and various intersections 

Yes 

People on low incomes may be disproportionately impacted by the proposals. They may not be able to afford to pay for the services. 

Homeless and rough sleepers considering for age, veteran, ethnicity, language, and various intersections 

No 

Human Rights 

No 

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No 

SMART action 1: Undertake a full Equalities Impact Assessment as part of drafting new policy on bin replacement charges considering accessibility needs and possible exemption criteria. 

SMART action 2: Continue to promote other means of disposing of Christmas trees, such as taking to a recycling point in the city. 

SMART action 3:  Analyse Stage 1 complaints and feedback to identify trends related to accessibility or affordability. 

Proposal’s impact score: 

1 

Signatory: 

Name and Job Title: 

Date: DD-MMM-YY 

Responsible Lead Officer: 

Louise Lawarence, Head of Strategy and Service Improvement  

21/11/25 

Accountable Manager: 

Rachael Joy, Director of Environmental Services 

24/11/25 

Budget Proposal: EIA 11

Title of budget saving being assessed: 

Introduction of charging for high footfall public toilets  

Name and title of officer responsible for this EIA:  

Louise Lawrence Head of Strategy and Service Improvement 

Directorate and Service Name:  

City Operations, Environmental Services 

Introduce a charge at public toilets with high footfall. 

Summarise the most significant impacts identified by this assessment including which groups will be disproportionally negatively affected drawing out intersectional impacts as applicable: 

The proposal will affect the community as a whole, as well as visitors to Brighton and Hove (all potential public toilet users). It may have a disproportionate impact on disabled people, children, older people, homeless people and general accessibility.  

Age 

No 

Disability and inclusive adjustments, coverage under equality act and not 

No  

Ethnicity, ‘Race’, ethnic heritage (including Gypsy, Roma, Travellers) 

No  

Religion, Belief, Spirituality, Faith, or Atheism 

No  

Gender Identity and Sex (including non-binary and Intersex people) 

No  

Gender Reassignment 

No  

Sexual Orientation 

No  

Marriage and Civil Partnership  

No 

Pregnant people, Maternity, Paternity, Adoption, Menopause, (In)fertility (across the gender spectrum) 

No  

Armed Forces Personnel, their families, and Veterans 

No  

Expatriates, Migrants, Asylum Seekers, and Refugees  

No  

Carers 

No  

Looked after children, Care Leavers, Care and fostering experienced people 

No  

Domestic and/or Sexual Abuse and Violence Survivors, and people in vulnerable situations (All aspects and intersections) 

No  

Socio-economic Disadvantage 

No  

Homelessness and associated risk and vulnerability 

No  

Human Rights 

No  

Another relevant group (please specify here and add additional rows as needed) 

No