Western Power Distribution Investments Ltd. v Welsh Ministers

In judicial review of a listing decision, the court reviews legality and rationality rather than the merits of architectural or historical judgment. A decision may be reconsidered after an earlier refusal where the later application supplies new evidence, presents a materially different focus, or shows that special interest may previously have been overlooked. Policy guidance on reconsideration does not displace the statutory duty under the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990. Historic interest may independently justify listing where a structure illustrates important aspects of national social or economic history. The requirement for physical quality or interest applies to buildings listed for close historical associations, not necessarily to structures illustrating wider historical development. A structure may be assessed as an integral component of a larger scheme, and substantial survival may enhance its interest.

The claimant, owner of Llanishen Reservoir, sought judicial review of the Welsh Ministers’ decision to list it as a building of special architectural or historic interest under section 1 of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990. CADW had declined to list the reservoir in 2005, but reconsidered the matter following a 2008 application which presented it as the fourth major component of the Taf Fawr water-supply scheme and relied on further historical material and an Institution of Civil Engineers listing.

The claimant argued that the decision departed from policy, failed to apply the policy of selecting only the best examples, and irrationally relied on the scheme’s virtually intact survival. The central issues were whether reconsideration was permissible, whether the listing was rationally open on the evidence, and how the policy criteria applied to historic interest.

1. Claim dismissed. The court declined to interfere with CADW’s decision on behalf of the Welsh Ministers under section 1 of the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990.
2. Judicial review is not an appeal on the merits. The court does not substitute its assessment of architectural or historical interest for that of the statutory decision-maker. The question is whether there was material on which a reasonable decision-maker could reach the conclusion reached, applying the approach in Iveagh v Minister of Housing Local Government [1964] 1 QB and R (Bancroft) v Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport [2004] EWHC 1822 (Admin).
3. Policy paragraph 53 did not require evidence equivalent to fresh evidence admissible on appeal. It was pragmatic guidance for requests to reconsider an earlier listing decision. It did not qualify the statutory duty to consider architectural and historic interest. The 2008 application had a materially different focus from the 2005 request, which had coupled Llanishen with Lisvane. The later application addressed Llanishen as an integral component of the complete scheme and supplied further material. Reconsideration was therefore open to CADW.
4. The listing could properly rest on historic interest under Annex C paragraph 1’s reference to structures illustrating important aspects of Wales’s social and economic history. Annex C paragraph 5, requiring some quality or interest in the physical fabric, was directed to buildings listed because of close historical associations with people or events. It was not necessarily applicable to a structure illustrating wider historical development.
5. The decision-maker was entitled to assess Llanishen as part of the integrated water-supply system from the Beacons to Cardiff. The policy’s emphasis on selection and best examples did not make the listing irrational where the identified basis was the reservoir’s historic role in a major Welsh civic engineering scheme. Its virtually intact survival could add to its interest, even though that was not the essential basis of listing. The listing notice and related correspondence, read together, sufficiently disclosed the decision’s basis.
6. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs, summarily assessed at £21,596.