Peterborough City Council has defended its decision to sell a complex containing the region’s only Hindu temple to a Muslim organisation, telling the High Court that the transaction was lawful despite its impact on worshippers.
The council’s barrister, Catherine Rowlands, said on Monday that the loss of the only Hindu temple within a 35-mile radius did not, by itself, make the proposed sale of the New England Complex to the United Kingdom Islamic Mission illegal. UKIM intends to redevelop the property as Masjid Khadijah, incorporating a mosque and Islamic centre.
Bharat Hindu Samaj, which has occupied part of the council-owned complex since 1986, is seeking a judicial review of the decision. It wants the court to quash the sale, arguing that councillors failed to consider relevant information, mishandled the bidding process and did not properly assess the effect on Peterborough’s Hindu community.
Rowlands told Mr Justice Morris that public authorities must consider protected characteristics, including religious belief, when making decisions. However, she argued that those characteristics did not determine the outcome or prevent the council from accepting a competing commercial offer.
The council maintains that it fulfilled its public sector equality duty and considered the importance of the temple before approving the disposal. Its legal team said Bharat Hindu Samaj would retain its tenancy rights until redevelopment began, after which the organisation could face eviction.
The authority also said it wanted the Hindu community to remain in Peterborough and had offered alternative premises. Members of the temple community attending the London hearing reacted sceptically to that assertion, while representatives argued that no suitable replacement had been secured.
The dispute centres on a multi-unit property on Rock Road where Bharat Hindu Samaj operates its temple and community centre. The organisation serves worshippers from Peterborough and surrounding areas across Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Leicestershire.
Bharat Hindu Samaj had been discussing the possible acquisition of all or part of the complex with the council for several years. Those negotiations began formally in 2017, although the temple says efforts to secure ownership stretch back further.
The council later invited best and final offers after receiving interest from UKIM. The Islamic organisation pledged to exceed any existing cash offer by up to 5 per cent and made clear that its proposed religious facilities would serve the Muslim community.
UKIM offered £1.4 million for the property and provided evidence showing access to £5.4 million in cash. Bharat Hindu Samaj submitted a £900,000 cash bid and assigned an additional £504,000 in social value to its religious, cultural and community work.
The council’s cabinet initially recommended the UKIM bid in December 2025. Its scrutiny committee then required the cabinet to reconsider the matter after finding that members had not been given sufficient information to reach a properly informed decision.
Cabinet members approved the sale again on February 10, prompting Bharat Hindu Samaj to pursue legal action. A judge subsequently imposed a temporary injunction preventing completion of the transaction while the challenge was examined.
Toby Fisher, representing the temple, has argued that the second decision remained defective. He said council officers had produced flawed reasoning that cabinet members followed without independently assessing the competing bids and their wider consequences.
The temple’s case does not challenge UKIM’s right to submit an offer or establish additional facilities. Its lawyers contend that the authority departed from years of negotiations without adequately addressing the change, the temple’s dependence on the site or the absence of another Hindu place of worship nearby.
Peterborough has dozens of churches and several mosques, while Bharat Hindu Samaj describes its centre as the principal Hindu place of worship in eastern England. Its legal team argues that closure would disrupt religious observance, festivals, education programmes and community support services.
The council rejects allegations that officers improperly controlled the outcome. It says councillors retained responsibility for the final decision, considered the relevant legal duties and followed a transparent competitive process designed to secure appropriate value for a publicly owned asset.
Financial pressure forms a central part of the council’s defence. Rowlands told the court that the authority needed the money and was entitled to weigh the stronger cash offer against the community benefits presented by the temple.
Questions also arose over the timing of UKIM’s redevelopment. The organisation has referred to a fundraising target extending to 2035, raising uncertainty about when Bharat Hindu Samaj might have to leave. The council argued that funding could be secured earlier and that it could not assume redevelopment would be delayed until that date.
