Agenda item
HEQIA QA Review: Update Paper
Minutes:
The Senior Consultant introduced the report
and stated that officers had been reviewing the DCOv1 (version one)
submission, and had been discussing this with the HE team for some
time, including the impact of the proposed route and potential
mitigation measures. He explained that the paper presented to the
Task Force considered the methodology of the Health and Equalities
Impact Assessment (HEqIA)v1. He added that the paper had been
developed by Stantec, but all nine local authorities impacted by
the scheme, either directly or indirectly, had been involved in
agreeing the independent review. He stated that the paper sought to
decide if the methodology of the HEqIA was adequate compared to
best practice standards, which in this case was the Wales Health
Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) guidance. The Senior
Consultant then mentioned that this paper provided a short summary
of the findings of this exercise and had been paid for via the
Planning Performance Agreement. He highlighted section 4 of the
report and stated that Stantec had developed a number of
recommendations for HE to consider and respond too, but these
recommendations centred around the methodology of the HEqIA, rather
than impacts or direct mitigation measures. He stated that the team
had summarised their findings and had outlined in the report that
they did not have much confidence in the adequacy of the
methodology used by HE. He described how the team hoped HE would
use officer’s findings to improve version two of the HEqIA.
He summarised and stated that HE were still developing the second
version of the HEqIA and this would not be ready for some months
yet, and would be completed in stages after discussion with the
CIPHAG group (with Public Health England in attendance).
The Strategic Lead for Public Health added that the review covered
different aspects of the HEqIA, and used a variety of methods to
decide if the document methodology was adequate. She explained that
these sources ranged from a review against the WHIASU guidance; a
review against the Equalities Act; and a review of the HEqIA
against Authorities’ Health and Wellbeing Strategies and
Equality Objectives where they have them. She stated that these
reviews had been conducted on version one of the HEqIA, and helped
officers to form an opinion of the HEqIA and made recommendations
on how it could be improved for version two. She stated that when
these recommendations are addressed this should assist in giving
a clearer idea of the health and
equalities impacts, and therefore what mitigation and legacy
benefits need to be in place. The Strategic Lead for Public Health
added that the report presented 19 high level recommendations to
HE, and there are many more recommendations were included in the
full 100 page report. She stated that HE had currently agreed to 11
of those 19 recommendations; partially agreed to 2 recommendations;
and had noted and were involved in further discussion for 6 of the
remaining recommendations. She summarised and stated that the next
step would be to discuss the recommendations with HE and at future
CIPHAG meetings.
Councillor Muldowney thanked officers for their work on the report
and for ensuring that HE were complying with methodological
standards. She stated that the document was highly technical, and
asked if the Task Force could see the actual HEqIA document, and
the baseline data for health impacts. She commented that many
Thurrock residents suffered from underlying conditions such as
COPD, and residents wanted to understand the impact that the route
would have on them personally. She explained that the route would
affect numerous people such as the elderly, young people, and
people with a variety of underlying conditions. She stated that in
the full Hatch report some impacts had been quantified, such as
severance and how this could affect A&E facilities and social
isolation in East Tilbury, and wanted to see the same impacts
discussed for health inequalities. She questioned if the new
consultation would have any more information regarding health
impacts, and queried how residents could meaningfully respond to
the consultation if they did not know how the route could affect
their health. The HE Population and Human Health Lead responded
that the report presented to the Task Force was a highly technical
and methodological document, and had been conducted independently
by Stantec. She stated that the HE team were working with Stantec
and Thurrock Council to analyse the document on a line-by-line
basis, and HE would consider lots of methodological guidance,
including the WHIASU standard. She explained that HE mainly used
the Design of Roads and Bridges Manuals for methodological
guidance, but would consider other aspects such as mental health
wellbeing as part of the HEQIA version two. She added that HE would
share as much as information with Thurrock Council on the health
perspective as they could, and the team were still currently
receiving feedback from CIPHAG.
Councillor Sammons left the meeting at 7.58pm.
The HE Population and Human Health Lead added that HE
were currently working to build a picture of health and wellbeing
along the route, and had drilled down to ward level data to fully
understand the impact the route would have on health. She mentioned
that the HE team were looking at instances of COPD along the route,
and how populations were clustered, for example where the majority
of elderly people lived in the borough. She stated that the team
could currently only generalise the health response, but would work
through the recommendations made in the report by Thurrock Council
and would work alongside officers and CIPHAG on the six outstanding
recommendation. She summarised and stated that the consultation
would provide the team with granular detail and feedback, and would
flag areas of concern, such as severance and noise issues. She
explained that based on this feedback, the team would update the
necessary assessments before DCO submission. She stated that the HE
team were also currently working on a new Community Impact Report,
which would look at detail on a ward level and would consider the
wider impacts of traffic, including in areas such as
Stanford-le-Hope and Corringham.
The Senior Consultant added that Thurrock Council had communicated
their methodological criticisms over version one of the HEqIA, and
had shared these with HE. He stated that a full response to these
criticisms would be received in the next two to three weeks. He
explained that Thurrock Council had felt the methodology behind the
HEqIA had not been adequate, and hoped version two of the HEqIA
would meet the necessary standards and could then be shared with
the Task Force.
Councillor Muldowney expressed her concern that the Task Force had
not yet seen the health impact data, including data provided by
CIPHAG, and felt that residents would not be able to engage with
the consultation without this data. The Senior Consultant replied
that officers hoped the ward impact summaries would include health
data and would have some measure of consumable detail for
residents. He clarified that HE would not make the final Health
Impact Assessment available for some months yet, although it would
be available before DCO submission. The Strategic Lead for Public
Health added that it is important for the HEqIA to be participatory
and that residents are able to understand the impacts on them and
respond to this. She explained that public health will be looking
in the next iteration of the Health and Equalities Impact
Assessment that it is participatory, and that the current
consultation could help provide HE with necessary
feedback.
Supporting documents: