Three Monmouthshire residents have submitted a formal complaint to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, alleging maladministration, bias, and breach of statutory duty by Monmouthshire County Council (MCC) over its decision to lease the Grade II listed Carnegie Library in Abergavenny to the Monmouthshire Muslim Community Association (MMCA) for use as a mosque.
Residents Dr Louise Brown, Rachel Buckler and Simon Howarth, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, argue that the Council’s Cabinet acted unlawfully and against the public interest when it agreed a 30‑year lease at just £6,000 per year, despite its own valuations showing the building could command £20,000–£25,000 annually, or be sold for approximately £350,000.
Their legal advisers have seen documents with higher tenders submitted to MCC, including one from a Day Nursery with Flying Start provision, at a level of £33,500. Knowing disposal of a significant public asset by the Council at a massive undervalue is a serious breach of duty under the Local Government Act 1972 and cries out for investigation.
The complaint follows the Council’s refusal to reconsider its decision after it was called in by the Place Scrutiny Committee, which raised serious concerns about the tendering process, lack of transparency and failure to obtain best consideration for a valuable public asset.
The residents, who are local councillors but acting in their capacity as residents, allege that the Council has acted in breach of section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, which requires councils to obtain the best consideration reasonably obtainable when disposing of land, unless strict statutory safeguards are met.
According to the complaint, alternative tenders offering significantly higher rents and even a freehold purchase were withheld from councillors and the public prior to the Cabinet decision. Meanwhile, the successful MMCA bid benefited from unexplained advantages within a scoring system that rewarded length, detail, and alignment with council political priorities rather than financial value.
Rachel Buckler said:
“This is not about opposing a faith community. It is about whether Monmouthshire County Council followed the law and acted fairly with public property. The evidence shows that it didn’t. Public assets appear to have been disposed of at a serious undervalue, without proper marketing, independent valuation, or transparency.”
“When residents are denied access to basic financial information, scrutiny becomes impossible. That should concern anyone who believes in good governance.
“This decision affects every council taxpayer in Monmouthshire. If valuable assets are effectively given away, the public pays the price. That is why independent scrutiny is now essential.”
The Ombudsman complaint highlights what residents describe as a pattern of pre‑existing engagement between Cabinet members and the MMCA, including meetings during Ramadan in 2023 and 2024 in which senior council figures publicly pledged to deliver a mosque for the county.
The complaint argues that these commitments predated the tender process and raise the appearance of predetermination and bias, particularly given evidence that MMCA representatives were able to visit the library months before it was marketed, allowing them to prepare a detailed business case beyond the reach of other bidders.
Simon Howarth said:
“The more documentation we examined, the clearer it became that this process was not conducted on a level playing field. One group appears to have had advance knowledge and access that others simply did not.”
“That raises serious questions about when the real decision was made, and whether the tender process was ever genuinely open.”
The complaint also raises concerns about the complete absence of consultation with residents most affected by the proposed change of use, particularly elderly women living in the adjacent Rachel Herbert almshouses, which were founded in the nineteenth century to provide quiet accommodation for vulnerable residents.
Under Welsh planning law, no planning permission or public consultation is required for a change of use from library to place of worship. However, the complainants argue that this made it more, not less, essential for the Council to consult residents whose lives would be directly affected by daily religious activities, increased footfall, noise, lighting, and smells from regular communal meals.
Dr Louise Brown said:
“These are elderly residents living just metres from the building. Many are frail and depend on peace, routine and privacy. Yet they were never consulted, never warned, and never given the chance to express their concerns.”
“That is not community cohesion. It is a top‑down imposition which fails to treat vulnerable residents with dignity or care.”
One almshouse resident has now formally instructed solicitors to express her concerns to the Ombudsman, fearing disturbance and loss of privacy. She has asked that her identity remain confidential due to fear of being publicly portrayed as opposing the mosque.
The residents are asking the Ombudsman to investigate alleged bias, maladministration, lack of transparency, and breach of statutory duty, and to examine the conduct of both officers and Cabinet members involved in the decision.
They warn that if councils are permitted to dispose of valuable public property at deep undervalues, without proper process or accountability, local taxpayers ultimately bear the cost through higher council tax or reduced services.