Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Anor

The Secretary of State did not make a material error of fact regarding public cost, as 'public cost' was accurately used to refer to direct government expenditure. The appellant lacked standing due to insufficient participation in the planning process and failure to present his grievance during the inquiry.

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
Judicial Review (planning Law) / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing in Judicial Review, Material Error of Fact, Environmental Impact Assessment, Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Public Cost in Planning Decisions
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Standing in Judicial Review Material Error of Fact Environmental Impact Assessment Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Public Cost in Planning Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 14 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

Judicial Review (planning Law) / Appeal From High Court 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 'public cost' was accurately used to refer to direct government expenditure. The appellant lacked standing due to insufficient participation in the planning process and failure to present his grievance during the inquiry.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no error of fact found in Secretary of State's decision
  • Appellant lacked standing under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990