William Ashton v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2010] EWCA Civ 600

Court of Appeal

Facts: William Ashton challenged a planning decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Ashton had participated in some aspects of the planning process but did not engage extensively. The Secretary of State argued that Ashton did not have standing under s.288 due to insufficient participation.

Held: The Court highlighted that wide access to the courts is necessary under s.288, but meaningful participation in the planning process is typically required. Ashton’s limited participation and his position as a member of a development group without initiating proceedings did not meet the threshold for standing. The Court distinguished between feeling aggrieved and being aggrieved, stating that Ashton’s involvement did not suffice for standing. The extent of a person’s interest and the nature of their participation are crucial. Ashton’s minimal involvement and the public nature of the project limited his claim.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Justice Buxton stated, "While wide access to courts is important, mere attendance or nominal participation without substantive engagement in the planning process is insufficient for standing under s.288."