Costing an equalities impact assessment for a public applicant
The public sector equality duty is continuing, so an equalities impact assessment has to be revisited at every material change. Budgeting for one document is the common mistake.
An equalities impact assessment for a public applicant costs more than most people budget for, and the reason is not the writing. It is that the duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 is continuing, so the assessment has to be revisited every time the scheme changes materially through the determination period. A document produced once at submission and never touched again is the version that gets criticised, and on a long application that single mistake is the expensive one.
The duty applies to public authorities and to anyone exercising a public function. A council developing its own land, an NHS trust, a university or a registered provider carrying out public functions all carry it in their own right, and the local planning authority carries it separately as decision maker.
Where the duty comes from
Section 149 requires a public authority, in the exercise of its functions, to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, to advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not, and to encourage good relations between them.
Due regard is the operative phrase. The courts have made clear, in decisions including R (Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2013), that the duty is about a conscious and rigorous consideration before and at the time the decision is taken, not a document produced afterwards to justify it. The duty is on the substance of the thinking. The assessment is evidence that the thinking happened.
Nothing in section 149 requires a document called an equalities impact assessment. Producing one is simply the most reliable way to show compliance, and many public bodies have internal policies requiring it.
Who has to carry it out
This is where the cost falls unevenly, and where private applicants are often confused.
A private developer has no section 149 duty. It may still be asked for an Equalities Impact Assessment by a validation checklist, or may produce one voluntarily to assist the authority in discharging its own duty, and that document is usually lighter because it supports someone else's obligation rather than evidencing the applicant's own.
A public applicant is in a different position. It has to show its own due regard at each stage of its own decision making: the decision to promote the scheme, the decision on the design, the decision to submit, and any decision to amend. That is four or more points of consideration rather than one document.
The screening stage comes first, and our note on screening in an equalities impact assessment sets out how to decide whether a full assessment is needed at all. Screening properly is the main cost control available.
Protected characteristics and the evidence for each
There are nine protected characteristics in the Act: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. Marriage and civil partnership engages only the first limb of the duty.
The evidence burden varies enormously between them, and that variation is what drives the fee.
- Age and disability usually need quantitative baseline data and a design response, which is the bulk of the work.
- Race, religion or belief need population data and, where a facility serves a specific community, engagement with it.
- Pregnancy and maternity and sex tend to turn on specific design features such as changing facilities, lift provision and the safety of routes after dark.
- Gender reassignment and sexual orientation are often addressed through facility design and community safety rather than through separate baseline data.
Census and local authority data cover most of the quantitative baseline without purchase. Where a scheme affects a particular group disproportionately, published data will not answer it and engagement becomes unavoidable. Our note on evidence for protected characteristics in an EqIA covers which sources withstand challenge.
Consultation and its cost
The duty stops short of requiring consultation in every case. It does require the authority to be properly informed. Where a scheme removes or relocates a facility used by a group sharing a protected characteristic, being properly informed will usually mean asking them.
The economical approach is the same one that works for health assessment: fold the equality questions into the engagement that is happening anyway. A single programme of events, with a recording method designed to capture who responded and from which group, serves the statement of community involvement and the equality analysis at once.
Where a separate exercise is unavoidable, scope it narrowly. Targeted engagement with two or three organisations representing the affected group produces better evidence than a general survey, and costs a fraction of it.
An illustrative example
This example is illustrative. A council proposes to redevelop a car park and a single storey day centre as housing with a replacement community facility at ground floor level.
The screening identifies age and disability as the material characteristics, because the day centre serves older and disabled users, and race as relevant because a community organisation uses the hall on two evenings a week.
The assessment leads to four changes: step free access throughout the replacement facility rather than at the main entrance only, a changing places facility, retention of three Blue Badge spaces that the original layout had removed, and a phasing commitment so that the existing service is not interrupted before the replacement opens. The phasing commitment goes into a section 106 obligation.
Then the scheme loses a storey on viability grounds, and the community facility is reduced. That is a material change, and the assessment has to be revisited before the committee report is written. Budgeting for one assessment would have been a mistake.
Where the assessment changes the scheme
The valuable assessments are the ones that alter drawings. Inclusive access is the usual territory: level thresholds, lift provision and resilience, accessible dwelling proportions consistent with the optional requirements in Approved Document M where a policy applies them, Blue Badge parking location rather than count, changing places provision, wayfinding legible to people with sensory impairment, seating on long routes, and lighting and sightlines on pedestrian routes.
The further detail on that is in our note on access and inclusion in an equalities impact assessment. The point for a budget is that changes identified at design stage cost drawing time, and the same changes identified at committee stage cost a deferral.
Keeping the assessment current
Three practical habits keep the duty discharged without repeated full rewrites.
- Write the assessment as a living document with a version table and a dated record of each consideration point.
- Record the decision taken at each stage and the reason, including where a recommendation was not adopted and why.
- Review it against every material amendment, and note explicitly where an amendment makes no difference.
The third habit is the one that saves money. A short, dated note confirming that an amendment does not change the analysis is a legitimate discharge of the duty, and it is far less work than reissuing the whole document.
PlanScope drafts an Equalities Impact Assessment with the section 149 structure and the nine characteristics in place, with "TO BE CONFIRMED" flags where local baseline data and engagement findings have to be added, so the specialist time goes on the characteristics that matter. See PlanScope pricing for the one free report, the per report price and the Professional tier.
This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.
Frequently asked questions
Does a private developer have to produce an equalities impact assessment?
The section 149 duty does not apply to a private developer. It may still be asked for one by a local validation checklist, or may produce one voluntarily to help the authority discharge its own duty as decision maker. That version is normally lighter, because it supports someone else's obligation rather than evidencing the applicant's.
What does due regard actually require?
Conscious and rigorous consideration of the three limbs of the duty before and at the time a decision is taken. Courts have been clear that a document produced afterwards to justify a decision does not discharge it. The thinking is what matters; the assessment is the evidence that the thinking happened at the right time.
Which protected characteristics cost the most to assess?
Age and disability, because they need quantitative baseline data and a design response that usually alters drawings. Race and religion or belief need population data and, where a facility serves a specific community, engagement with it. Gender reassignment and sexual orientation are often addressed through facility design and community safety.
Do I have to consult?
The duty stops short of requiring consultation in every case. It does require the decision maker to be properly informed. Where a scheme removes or relocates a facility used by a group sharing a protected characteristic, that will usually mean asking them. Fold those questions into the engagement already being run rather than commissioning a separate exercise.
How often does the assessment need updating?
At every material change to the scheme, because the duty is continuing. Keep it as a living document with a version table and dated consideration points. Where an amendment makes no difference to the analysis, a short dated note saying so discharges the duty and avoids reissuing the whole document.
Sources and further reading
This article is general guidance about the planning system in England and, where stated, the rest of the UK. It is not legal or professional advice. Check your local planning authority’s validation requirements and take professional advice for your specific site.