Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Complaint outcomes : : Other categories : : Other categories archive 2006-07 : : Ribble Valley Borough Council (04C15217)

Quality and efficiency

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Downloads

Site tools

Files with this symbol pdf icon are in .pdf format. To view these files you will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader software. It can be downloaded below free of charge. Click To Download

adobe acrobat reader

Ribble Valley Borough Council (04C15217)

Land                                               Maladministration causing injustice

21 November 2006

‘Mr Mohammed’ (not his real name for legal reasons) wanted to buy a portion of a Council-owned site for a mosque. This met with considerable opposition from neighbouring residents in an area where the British National Party was active. The Committee deferred a decision until it had received a report on the impact of the proposal on the ‘social wellbeing’ of the neighbouring residents. After considering a second report, the Committee decided to use the entire site for elderly people’s accommodation even though the District Valuer advised that they would get more for the land if it were sold for a combination of mosque, business and housing.

Mr Mohammed complained that the Council had never previously talked of an urgent need for elderly people’s accommodation and decided on the alternative use despite the further information supporting the case for a mosque. The development that has now taken place on the land includes only three bungalows among five family houses and 14 apartments.

The lack of clarity and transparency in dealing with the sale of the land had given Mr Mohammed grounds to believe that the Council had not dealt with him fairly, said the Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman finds maladministration by the Council in:

  • its ‘asset management‘ of the site;
  • not dealing with the sale in accordance with recognised good practice; and
  • reaching a decision that was not supported or justified by the information before the Committee.

Although she is critical of the process, the Ombudsman does not find that the decision was ‘unreasonable’ in the public and administrative law meaning of the term. The Council was entitled to consider the proposed use and to take into account issues such as traffic and other impacts on neighbouring residents, even though such matters would also be considered as planning authority.

She recommends the Council to pay Mr Mohammed £250 in recognition of his time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The Council has since assisted Mr Mohammed in trying to find another site for use as a mosque.

Date Published: 29/01/09