A landmark high court hearing in London on Wednesday saw dozens of Hindus from Peterborough travel to the capital, with an overflow room set up to accommodate the crowd. The case involves a judicial review brought by a Hindu temple in Peterborough, challenging the city council's decision to sell the site the temple occupies to a local mosque.
Background of the Lease
In 1986, Peterborough City Council granted Bharat Hindu Samaj (BHS) a 25-year lease for unit 6 of the New England Complex on Rock Road. Since around 2017, the council had been negotiating with BHS to transfer the site, allowing continued use as a Hindu temple with community services such as school groups, vegetarian lunch clubs, language activities, and cultural events.
Bids and Council Decision
On April 6, 2025, BHS offered £1.3 million (minus £504,000 in social value of its services, as calculated by the council) to purchase the site it had rented for 40 years. On May 23, 2025, the United Kingdom Islamic Mission (UKIM), which operates a mosque in Peterborough and is an interested party in the case, submitted an offer of approximately £1.3-1.4 million, also offering to beat any existing cash offer by up to 5%. UKIM provided the council with a proposal to redevelop the entire site into a new building called 'The Khadijah Centre,' specifying that only Muslim religious facilities would be included and that the existing Hindu temple would not remain, the court was told.
On September 9, 2025, the council decided to invite bids with an October 13, 2025 deadline. On February 10, 2026, the council cabinet announced it would sell the site to UKIM.
Legal Arguments
In Wednesday's hearing, Toby Fisher, representing BHS, argued that the council's decision was not 'lawful' and should be quashed. He stated: 'We are not arguing that a lawful process would have resulted in the BHS getting it, but as a 40-year sitting tenant and one of the bidders representing more than 14,000 Hindus in the East of England, the claimant was denied a lawful process and lawful decision, so we seek as a remedy a quashing order. We say it was obvious and should have been made clear to the cabinet that the very likely result of the Feb decision was that the claimant would be required to vacate the property with no adequate alternative premises available, and that would therefore impact those with protected characteristic of Hindu religion and their ability to practise their religion.'
Fisher contended that council officers knew the successful bidder could obtain vacant possession and planned to redevelop the premises, but did not inform the cabinet members who made the decision.
The hearing continues, with the Hindu community awaiting the outcome of this significant legal challenge.
