High Court rejects application by council for injunction to prevent Home Office from moving asylum seekers to Essex airfield
A High Court judge has rejected Braintree District Council's application for an injunction that would have blocked the Home Office from accommodating asylum seekers on Wethersfield Airfield in Essex.
The judge, Mr Justice Waksman, is reported to have found that the court did not have the jurisdiction to rule on the issue.
Braintree challenged the Home Office's reliance on permitted development rights (Class Q) to avoid the need for planning permission at an injunction hearing on Wednesday (19 April).
But in a ruling handed down today (21 April), Mr Justice Waksman found that the court did not have the power to grant the council's application for an injunction and therefore ruled in favour of the Government, according to a report from The Independent.
The paper also said that while he did not have to formally rule on whether the current situation with asylum accommodation counted as an “emergency” to bypass planning laws, Mr Justice Waksman concluded that: “There is a qualifying emergency here.”
Mr Justice Waksman granted the council leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal due to the "very important" points of law raised by the case.
Braintree launched its legal challenge over the plans to move up to 1,700 people onto the disused base last month, arguing that the Home Office should not be able to use Class Q to avoid making a planning application.
Class Q can be found in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, and says the Government is permitted to develop Crown land for the purposes of:
- preventing an emergency;
- reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency; or
- taking other action in connection with an emergency.
In a statement Braintree said: “We are disappointed that the High Court did not grant us with an injunction to restrain the Home Office from their proposals and have determined that the Home Office is permitted to rely upon the provisions set out within class Q.
“We remain of the view that Wethersfield Airfield is an unsuitable site, given the lack of capacity in local services, its isolated location, the size of the site, and the fact that the scale of the development proposed could have a significant impact upon the local community, and want to thank all those who have worked with us, including local residents, community groups, parish councils and MPs, up until this point.”
The council added: “We are grateful to the Judge for granting the council’s application for an appeal and we will now be reflecting on any next steps.
“If plans do go ahead, we will continue to work closely with our partners to press the Home Office to share more detailed information about their plans with the local community and identify any actions required so that we can support any asylum seekers accommodated as well as minimising any impacts on our local communities.”
Responding to the judgment, a spokesperson for the Home Office said: "We welcome the judgment which was in the Home Office's favour.
“Delivering accommodation on surplus military sites will provide cheaper and more suitable accommodation for those arriving in small boats whilst helping to reduce the use of costly hotels.
It added: “Not only are accommodation sites more affordable for taxpayers, but they are also more manageable and orderly for communities, thanks to healthcare and catering facilities on site, 24/7 security and the purpose built basic, safe and secure accommodation they provide.”
Two other disused military sites have been selected by the Home Office to accommodate asylum seekers, RAF Scampton and Northeye Prison.
West Lindsey District Council is currently seeking a judicial review over the Home Office's plans for RAF Scampton.
Adam Carey
