Legal Assistants (Litigation and Planning)
Appeal court quashes planning permission because council did not discharge race relations duties PDF Print E-mail
Tuesday, 22 June 2010 21:29

The Court of Appeal has quashed planning permission for a development in Haringey after ruling that the London borough had failed to discharge its duties under the Race Relations Act 1976.

In Harris, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2010] EWCA Civ 703, planning permission had been granted to demolish the existing buildings on a site known as Wards Corner on the High Road in Tottenham and erect a mixed use development in their place.

The site was in an area predominantly made up of local independent traders with a mix of Turkish, Cypriot, Colombian and Afro-Caribbean influences. It also incorporated an indoor market comprising 36 units of which 64% were from Latin America or were Spanish speaking.

During the consultation process, a number of individuals expressed concern at the increase to business rents that would have been charged following the redevelopment. The council itself estimated they would have risen threefold. There were also concerns about the cost of the residential part of the development.

Janet Harris, who helped set up the Tottenham Civic Society in 2006, challenged the grant of planning permission. However, Deputy High Court Judge Keith Lindblom QC refused an application for judicial review in July 2009.

Giving the lead judgement in the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Pill ruled that the council, when granting permission, had not met its duties under s. 71 of the RRA 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

The Act required the council, in taking its decision, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination, and – of particular importance to this case – to promote quality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

Haringey had conducted an appropriate consultation exercise, with a very full report to the appropriate committee containing references to the representations made. The report referred to the positive aspects of the proposed development, the need for environmental improvement in the area, and the fact that Wards Corner was acknowledged to be a deprived area.

However, it did not make specific reference to s. 71 or the duties it imposes, or indeed the substance of those duties.

Counsel for Haringey, Peter Harrison QC, argued that the granting of  permission was an attempt to regenerate the area and was of overall benefit to the community, including ethnic minorities.

But Lord Justice Pill said: “I say at this stage that I can only commend the thoroughness of the report, its focus on regeneration and its expression of concern for the future of displaced market traders. I find it impossible, however, to find any focus on the substance of the section 71 duty when the complex issues to be decided by the council’s committee are set out and debated.”

The judge distinguished the cases of Baker v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ1 141 and R (on the application of Isaacs) v Secretary of State [2009] EWHC 557 (Admin). He said council policies did not specifically address the requirements imposed upon the council under s. 71.

He added: “Not only is there no reference to section 71 in the report to the committee, or in the deliberations of the committee, but the required ‘due regard’ for the need to ‘promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups’ is not demonstrated in the decision-making process.

“Due regard need not require the promotion of equality of opportunity but, on the material available to the council in this case, it did require an analysis of that material with the specific statutory considerations in mind…..There was no analysis of the material before the council in the context of the duty.”

Lord Justice Pill expressed “some regret” at his conclusion because of the general desire in the borough for regeneration of the area in question, the amount of public and private resources spent on the proposal, and the council had – subject to its s. 71 considerations – followed a thorough and fair procedure which led to a democratic decision.

But he concluded: “The issues which arose on this planning application were, however, such that it was necessary for the requirements of section 71 to form in substance an integral part of the decision-making process and I am unable to hold that they did.”

Related articles

General awareness among decision-makers of equality matters "not enough": Local Government Ombudsman

Latest News

April 09, 2014

County council scraps energy from waste contract at cost of £30m-plus

A county council is to terminate a £600m waste contract at a cost of more than £30m, blaming the “failure to secure satisfactory planning permission”. Read more
April 03, 2014

Campaigners rule out further appeal over redevelopment of football ground

Campaigners who sought to have the planning permission for the redevelopment of Bristol Rovers’ Memorial Ground quashed have ruled out taking the case to the Court of Appeal on costs grounds. Read more
April 01, 2014

London borough to use s. 106 agreements to tackle 'buy-to-leave' homes

A London borough is consulting on plans to use s. 106 agreements to tackle the issue of “buy-to-leave” homes. Read more
March 31, 2014

Campaigners net hearing over planning permission for QPR training ground

Campaigners seeking to challenge Ealing Council’s decision to grant Queen’s Park Rangers planning permission for the redevelopment of a sports ground and to give the club a 200-year lease have been granted an oral… Read more
March 27, 2014

Court backs decision to pay only 20% of £250k recommended by LGO

A district council has fended off a judicial review challenge to its decision to pay a complainant only 20% of a £250,000 sum recommended by the Local Government Ombudsman. Read more
March 26, 2014

Councils lose High Court battle with Mayor of London over affordable rents

A group of nine councils have lost a High Court challenge to the Mayor of London’s plan to allow ‘affordable’ rents in new housing to be set at 80% of the market rate. Read more



projects portrait1
April 16, 2014

Recent changes to the CIL regime: a summary

Jonathan Darby provides a summary of recent changes that affected the Community Infrastructure Levy. Read more
Planning iStock 000002733689Small 146x219
April 02, 2014

The Planning Court comes into being

Richard Harwood OBE QC analyses the introduction of a Planning Court this week and outlines the key changes. Read more
April 02, 2014

Are local authorities bound by Ombudsman recommendations?

A High Court judge recently ruled that a council's decision to pay a developer only 20% of the £250,000 recommended by the Local Government Ombudsman was lawful. Nicholas Dobson analyses the case. Read more
April 02, 2014

Retrospective validation, exceptional circumstances and the Whitley principle

The High Court recently upheld approvals for Cardiff’s Energy from Waste scheme. Simon Bird QC analyses the case. Read more
April 02, 2014

Further chinks in the armour of town and village green status

Polly Reynolds analyses the likely impact of a key Supreme Court ruling on rectification of the register of town and village greens. Read more
March 26, 2014

Demolition – under permitted development rights or planning permission?

A recent case involving one of the Essex districts (advised by Essex Legal Services) sparked questions about the primacy of planning permission against permitted development rights in relation to demolition. Jacqueline Millward and Matthew Fox… Read more
March 26, 2014

Application forms and lawful uses

The High Court recently considered whether a local planning authority had lawfully substituted - under s. 191(4) of the TCPA 1990 - a lawful use of another description for that claimed in the application form. Peter Wadsley considers the case. Read more


Older news and features

March 05, 2014

Core stability

March 05, 2014

The sound and the fury

February 26, 2014

Applying the sequential test

February 13, 2014

Action stations

January 16, 2014

Bearing witness

January 16, 2014

Hunston upheld

January 09, 2014

Restrictions at retail parks

Click here for full section archive

Now Previewing on Green Belt Development - The Legal Issues (Click on bottom right of screen for full size.)

Featured Jobs

East Sussex Solicitor Planning and Highways
Ashford Borough Council Planning Lawyer

CLICK HERE to search all current vacancies

Featured Courses & Events

Sign up for Courses and Events Updates

* indicates required

Services v2

Yellow pages iStock 000009762383XSmall cropTo access details of individual advertisers, please click on the relevant banner below.

To search all entries in the Local Government Lawyer Services Directory, please click here


Easton Bevins Chartered Surveyors
Ivy Legal


 Shout_to_the_top_looking_left_iStock_000006002590XSmall_98x74 Latest Blog Posts





Snap Judgement

Is the role of monitoring officer worth the risk?