In R (Buckley) v Bath and North East Somerset Council & Anor [2018] EWHC 1551 (Admin) local residents successfully challenged the grant of outline permission for an estate redevelopment on grounds that the LPA had failed to discharge the equalities duty imposed by Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 (PSED).
The PSED requires public authorities to have due regard when exercising functions to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities. That includes the removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by specific protected groups and taking steps to meet their needs. The protected characteristics include age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or benefit and sex.
The applicant sought permission to redevelop an existing estate in parallel with a neighbouring estate redevelopment that allowed a seamless decant within the area for elderly and disabled residents. Information about displacement effects and an acknowledgment of the risks of the effects of displacement were addressed at committee. No PSED assessment was carried out nor was there any reference to it in the material in front of the planning committee.
The focus of the “considerable attention“ given to decant strategy was to mitigating displacement of residents. The claim alleged that no PSED consideration was given to the impact on groups with protected characteristics, in particular the elderly and the disabled, of the loss of their existing homes per se.
Lewis, J held that the PSED applied albeit the content or scope could be affected by the outline nature of the scheme. Some matters may require “little or no consideration at the outline stage but may need to be considered carefully at a stage when […] matters come to be considered for approval”. The impact of the demolition on the elderly and disabled persons who occupy adapted dwellings may need to be considered at the outline stage where their demolition is authorised.
The Judge recognised that “it may well be that not a great deal would have been needed to be said on this matter” given the thoroughness of the assessment and policies in place in connection with the scheme. It may have been sufficient to simply “draw that matter to the decision-maker’s attention and the decision-maker could decide whether the contemplated benefits of the proposed development did outweigh any negative impacts”.
It had been a close vote and other options were in play. There was no basis to exercise the discretion not to quash the decision (and no requirement to refuse a remedy under Section 31(2A) Senior Courts Act 1981 on grounds that the outcome would not have been substantially different).
Roy Pinnock is a partner in the planning and public law team at Dentons
