Harris, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey

A public authority must consciously consider the specific needs identified by section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 before making a decision materially affecting racial equality. The duty concerns equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups. It is distinct from promoting the interests of a particular minority group.

Express reference to the provision is unnecessary if the substance of the duty is demonstrably addressed. General regeneration policies or anticipated benefits for minority communities are insufficient unless the decision-making process analyses the relevant evidence by reference to the statutory needs. Those needs need not determine the outcome, and their weight remains for the decision-maker.

The council granted planning permission for the demolition and mixed-use redevelopment of Wards Corner in Tottenham. The site contained homes and businesses predominantly occupied by black and minority ethnic communities, including a market with a substantial Latin American presence. Objectors warned that redevelopment would displace traders, remove specialist services and damage community cohesion.

A deputy High Court judge dismissed the application for judicial review, holding that the council had discharged its equality duty through its regeneration policies: [2009] EWHC 2329 (Admin). The appellant challenged only the council's compliance with section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The central issue was whether the council had, in substance, given due regard to equality of opportunity and good relations between racial groups before granting permission.

1. Appeal allowed and planning permission quashed. The potential effects on Latin American traders, minority ethnic residents, equality of opportunity and relations between racial groups were sufficient to engage section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The statutory concerns were neither remote nor peripheral.

2. The duty to have due regard requires a conscious approach and state of mind. It is a duty to consider the specified statutory needs, rather than a duty to achieve a particular result. The decision-maker must address the need to eliminate unlawful racial discrimination and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.

3. Compliance is assessed in substance. A decision-maker need not refer expressly to section 71. Another policy may indirectly discharge the duty where its purpose and application address the statutory equality concerns. Baker [2008] EWCA Civ 141 and Isaacs [2009] EWHC 557 (Admin) involved a planning policy specifically designed to address the relevant problems and were distinguishable.

4. The council's regeneration policies did not specifically address the statutory needs. Although its report was thorough, recognised deprivation and considered the position of displaced traders, neither the report nor the committee's deliberations demonstrated analysis of the evidence with equality of opportunity and relations between racial groups in mind. A policy intended to benefit areas containing minority ethnic communities does not, without more, satisfy the duty.

5. Promoting the economic interests of a minority group is not equivalent to promoting equality of opportunity and good relations between different racial groups, although the matters will commonly be connected. Section 71 operates in a more nuanced way.

6. The statutory considerations need not be decisive. Their weight is for the decision-maker. On the evidence before the council, however, they had to form an integral part of the decision-making process. Pill LJ would therefore allow the appeal and quash the permission. Arden and Sullivan LJJ agreed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the planning permission: [2010] EWCA Civ 703.

2. Administrative Court: Keith Lindblom QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, refused the application for judicial review, holding that the council had complied in substance with section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976: [2009] EWHC 2329 (Admin).