Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 600 (24 May 2010)

Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 600 (24 May 2010)

The Secretary of State did not make a material error of fact regarding 'public cost' as the term was used to mean direct cost to taxpayers, not including soft-funding; the appellant lacked standing under section 288 due to insufficient participation in the planning process and failure to demonstrate a sufficient interest before the decision-maker.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 600
Parties
Appellant: William Ashton; First Respondent: Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government; Second Respondent: Coin Street Community Builders Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing (locus Standi), Material Error of Fact, Planning Permission, Section 288 Challenge, Environmental Impact Assessment, Affordable Housing, Section 106 Agreements
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Standing (locus Standi) Material Error of Fact Planning Permission Section 288 Challenge Environmental Impact Assessment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ashton

Appellant

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

First Respondent

Coin Street Community Builders Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Court (queen's Bench Division) Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State made a material error of fact regarding 'public cost' in granting planning permission
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had standing as a 'person aggrieved' under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Ratio Decidendi

The Secretary of State did not make a material error of fact regarding 'public cost' as the term was used to mean direct cost to taxpayers, not including soft-funding; the appellant lacked standing under section 288 due to insufficient participation in the planning process and failure to demonstrate a sufficient interest before the decision-maker.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed