High Court dismisses judicial review challenge over closure of leisure centre

The claimant in Jones, R (On the Application Of) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2026] EWHC 2709 (Admin), also brought grounds relating to section 28 of the Children Act 2004, which is the duty to promote the welfare of children ('the welfare duty'), and aspects of the well-being objective in section 3(2) of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which concerned climate impacts.

The council's plans for Pontllanfraith Leisure Centre have been at the centre of a number of legal challenges for almost a decade.

A 2017 council decision was not acted upon following a protocol letter. A second closure decision was challenged in 2019, resulting in a quashing order from Swift J in R (Williams) v Caerphilly County Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1618 (Admin).

In the same judgment, Swift J dismissed a challenge to the adoption of the council's Sport and Active Recreation Strategy, which set out plans to reduce the number of leisure centres in the borough.

There was then an appeal against Swift J's order in respect of the Strategy, which was upheld in the Court of Appeal judgment of Males LJ, with whom Flaux and Haddon-Cave LLJ agreed.

A third decision was quashed by consent on the ground that there had been a failure to follow the council's constitution in respect of a call-in of the decision.

Mr Justice Kimblin heard the most recent challenge in a rolled-up hearing in June. The challenge concerned Caerphilly’s decision in March 2025 again to close the centre.

At the June hearing, the claimant said he regularly used both the leisure centre and the 3G pitch, as did many of his friends.

The closure of the facilities was “extremely frustrating” for him because he could walk to the gym or play football, but now has to drive 2-3 miles to the nearest alternative, according to the judgment.

Summarising his position, the High Court judgment said: "He agrees that [two other nearby 3G pitches] are within reasonable distance, but they are not available for members of the public to book on an ad hoc basis. They are block-booked months in advance by local teams.

"The 3G pitch is the only standard sized 3G pitch in the County Borough which is available for community use. Local teams will have no home ground on which to play."

He also questioned the council's estimated £736k needed for maintenance works to the centre, and claimed that an inflationary adjustment would yield a figure of about £608k instead.

He went on to argue the decision was unlawful on four grounds – the first of which claimed that Caerphilly unreasonably failed to take into account the cost of demolishing the leisure centre, which it had previously identified as a material consideration.

In its 2019 Report to the Scrutiny Committee, the one-off cost of demolition of the leisure centre was estimated to be £225k. However, the claimant submitted that the information on which the decision was made and reported to the Scrutiny Committee and the Cabinet was “one-sided”, reporting the savings but saying little about the costs of closure.

Ground 2 meanwhile argued that the council's Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) was inadequate, and claimed that its approach breached the PSED set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

This ground focused on the location and characteristics of the alternative provision, and highlighted consultation responses showing that around 77% of users drove to the original centre, while the remainder walked.

The claimant's criticism of the IIA was that the mitigation was not sufficient to address the following identified effects:

1. For the 23% who walk to existing provision, how will they be able to access the alternatives which the council point to?
2. The 3G pitch at the Centre for Vulnerable Learners is unsuitable for competition, so how do children and adults reach a suitable alternative to that which has been lost?
3. How is the absence of a fitness suite or dance hall at the Centre for Vulnerable Learners mitigated?

The third ground contended that the council's decision breached section 28(2) of the Children Act 2004, which imposes an obligation on local authorities in Wales to "make arrangements for ensuring that (a) their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children; and (b) any services provided by another person pursuant to arrangements made by the person or body in the discharge of their functions are provided having regard to that need".

The claimant argued that this provision was relevant because:

1. In addressing the PSED, there was no appreciation of the impact of the welfare duty on the nature of the exercise;
2. The interests of the children who were negatively impacted by the increased travel distance, time and cost to access alternative provision were not treated as a primary consideration – their interests were treated similarly to the interests of all other users of the leisure centre and associated 3G pitch.

The final ground concerned the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which requires public bodies to take reasonable steps to meet their well-being objectives, including those relating to environmental sustainability.

The claimant argued that the council had failed to consider the impact of increased car journeys resulting from the closure of the leisure centre, contrary to its well-being duty and its own decarbonisation strategy.

He also contended that the council had failed to gather and consider sufficient information about public transport routes to alternative facilities, and that it was irrational to conclude that the Centre for Vulnerable Learners could mitigate the inevitable increase in car travel.

Kimblin J ultimately dismissed the claim, however, concluding: "The narrative in this case is in four chapters, commencing in 2017. The second chapter in the story was published in 2019, with a contribution from the Court of Appeal in 2020. The 2024 chapter set the scene for this addition to the narrative. By this stage there was a new, open and operating set of facilities opposite the leisure centre.

"The factual basis for the four grounds is the differences between facilities and their locations. This Court's jurisdiction is limited to review of the lawfulness of the council's assessment of those issues, in the context of all of the issues which it had to consider. This court cannot and will not revisit the merits of the detail or the outcome.

"I have reached the firm conclusion that the council's decision was lawful and therefore the application for judicial review fails and the claim will be dismissed."

Adam Carey