Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd. v Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 800 (Admin) (22 February 2010)

Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd. v Welsh Ministers [2010] EWHC 800 (Admin) (22 February 2010)

The decision to list Llanishen Reservoir was not irrational or unlawful. The Welsh Ministers were entitled to list the reservoir on the basis of its historic interest as part of a major civic engineering scheme, and the decision was within the scope of the statutory criteria and policy. There was no requirement for new evidence akin to appellate standards, and the focus of the 2008 request justified reconsideration. The court declined to interfere with the decision.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 800 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Western Power Distribution Investments Limited; Defendant: Welsh Ministers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Listed Buildings, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Planning Policy, Heritage Protection

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Western Power Distribution Investments Limited

Claimant

Welsh Ministers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the decision to list Llanishen Reservoir as a building of special architectural or historic interest was lawful under Section 1 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the Welsh Ministers acted irrationally or unlawfully in departing from policy or failing to select only the best examples for listing
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justified reconsideration of a previous decision not to list

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to list Llanishen Reservoir was not irrational or unlawful. The Welsh Ministers were entitled to list the reservoir on the basis of its historic interest as part of a major civic engineering scheme, and the decision was within the scope of the statutory criteria and policy. There was no requirement for new evidence akin to appellate standards, and the focus of the 2008 request justified reconsideration. The court declined to interfere with the decision.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for judicial review dismissed
  • Claimant to pay the defendant's costs, assessed summarily at £21,596.00