CAMPAIGNERS seeking to secure the future of Abergavenny's town centre livestock market claim that the views of local residents have been ignored by the Welsh government.

A judicial review into the repeal of the Abergavenny Improvement of 1854, brought by Jennifer Long, a founder member of KALM - Keep Abergavenny Livestock Market - heard the consequences of the market's closure could be 'extreme' for the town in terms of loss of livelihood and that although Welsh government minister Carl Sargeant had promised consultation none had been forthcoming.

The review into the repeal of the Victorian legislation also heard from counsel representing the Welsh government, who stressed that the consultation documents made it clear that it did not take a view on the future of the market, only the provisions of the act, which it said were 'obsolete, unnecessary and substantially superseded by other legislation'.

Mr John Steel QC, representing Mrs Long, however argued that the consequences of the repeal of the act, which would allow MCC to move the market to a site near Raglan and redevelop the town centre site, should have been 'fundamental' to the minister's decision making.

The review heard the Welsh government view that no other authority in Wales or beyond, was subject to a similar Act and that its repeal would simply place Monmouthshire County Council in the same situation as other local authorities.

"The Welsh ministers were entitled to take the view that it had become obsolete and impeded the council's ability to decide where in its area to hold a market," said Mr Clive Lewis QC.

The court also heard from Monmouthshire County Council, whose representative said that ministers had 'acted lawfully' and taken a 'rational decision' in allowing the council to decide the future of the market and reiterated the view that Monmouthshire was the only local authority in Wales to have such a 'restrictive statutory regime' imposed upon it.

This week also saw the continuation of a second judicial review, also brought by Mrs Long, into whether MCC was right to grant planning permission.

The campaign group KALM argued that environmental risks, the economic impact and the loss of historic buildings were not taken into account when the planning decision was taken while a representative of the potential developers, supermarket chain Morrisons, told the court that these environmental concerns had not been raised during consultation.

"Even now, there is no evidence as to there being any risk," the court heard.

The four day double hearing came to a close on Monday and Justice Mrs Nicola Davies told all parties she would not be able to return a verdict for at least two weeks.

A judicial review is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body.

It can either uphold the decision or make one of several types of order ranging from the most common quashing order, which nullifies the decision completely and sends it back to the original decision maker to be remade taking into consideration the court's findings, to a prohibiting order which acts prospectively by telling an authority not to do something in contemplation.

Judgements of a judicial review are discretionary and even if a court finds a public body has acted wrongly, it does not have to grant any remedy especially if it is felt that the applicant's conduct has been unmeritorious or unreasonable, or where the applicant has unreasonably delayed in applying for judicial review, where the applicant has not acted in good faith, or where a remedy would impede the an authority's ability to deliver fair administration, or an alternative remedy could have been pursued.