Surplus land — Negotiations to sell to muslim community — Council concerned to restrict use — Decision to offer long lease — Decision to offer land by auction — Applications to review decisions dismissed
The applicants are trustees of the Islamic Association of North London, a charitable body which had for some years been seeking to acquire from the respondent council a property known as Oakleigh Road South Store, London N11. In October 1989 the council decided that instead of disposing of the freehold to the association they would grant a long lease because by this means they could more easily enforce covenants to restrict the use of the property for religious rather than for community purposes. In October 1990, and following counsel’s advice, the council decided that instead of continuing their negotiations with the association they would auction the property.
The applicants applied to review both decisions contending, inter alia, there had been a legitimate expectation to purchase the property; that section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976 applied; that under Art 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Art 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the council had no power to interfere with an individual’s freedom of worship.
Held The applications were dismissed.
The council’s statutory powers of disposal under section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 have to be exercised in good faith, fairly, reasonably and for proper purposes having properly considered all the issues involved.
There could not have been a legitimate expectation because all negotiations were “subject to contract”. So long as the council acted reasonably in granting a leasehold as opposed to the freehold or not granting any interest at all, the judgment of Browne-Wilkinson LJ (as he then was) in Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] AC 1054 in relation to Arts 9 and 18 does not avail the applicants.
The council were entitled to reasonably consider that, having regard to their duty to those who lived in the locality, it was preferable to offer the association a leasehold rather than the freehold. It would have been reasonable to impose restrictions of religious use on the property. There was nothing to suggest that the council did not have proper regard to their duties under section 71 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
John Reginald MacDonald and Miss Ross Crail (instructed by Denton Hall Burgin & Warrens) appeared for the applicants; and Jeremy Sullivan QC and Jonathan McManus (instructed by the solicitor to Barnet London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
