High Court reserves judgment on judicial review over airfield asylum accommodation
The High Court has reserved judgment in the judicial review challenge of the Home Office's use of permitted development rights to accommodate asylum seekers on Wethersfield airfield and RAF Scampton.
Braintree District Council brought its case to the High Court over Wethersfield alongside another legal challenge by a local resident. West Lindsey District Council's case concern RAF Scampton – another disused airfield the Home Office is using as asylum seeker accommodation.
If fully realised, the Government plans could see up to 2,000 people moved onto the Scampton site and up to 1,700 people onto Wethersfield airfield.
The Home Office avoided having to obtain planning permission to use the sites via Class Q, part 19, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, which allows the Government to develop Crown land in the event of an emergency.
Mrs Justice Thornton considered arguments from both parties at the two day hearing, which ended yesterday (1 November).
Thornton J gave permission for the claims to be head on three grounds, including whether the development falls within the scope of Class Q, Schedule 2, Part 19 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 and whether the Home Secretary breached the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out in s.149 Equality Act 2010.
The third ground concerned the Environmental Impact Assessment and whether:
- the Screening Direction failed to determine lawfully whether the Wethersfield development is EIA development within the EIA Regulations, or;
- whether the Home Secretary wrongly took into account the fact that the SSLUHC had issued a Screening Direction that the development would not be EIA development when that direction was predicated on 12 months’ use.
Cllr Graham Butland, Leader of Braintree District Council, said: “From the moment the decision to use RAF Wethersfield as an asylum accommodation centre was made, the council have been clear that this is not a suitable site for this purpose and the Home Office has failed to secure appropriate planning permission or adequately assess the impact of their proposals.
“The judicial review provided us with an opportunity to challenge these points and present this to the court, with the hope of a successful outcome, as it’s important to us to not only represent the views and concerns of the local community but to hold the government to account when we believe breaches of regulations have taken place.”
Sally Grindrod-Smith, Director of Planning, Regeneration and Communities at West Lindsey District Council, said: “As we await the outcome of the judgment, we will continue to hold the Home Office to account and seek to use any powers we have as the Local Planning Authority to do so. We have heard no evidence during the course of these proceedings which changes our position.
"Together with our partners across the public sector in Lincolnshire we will continue to seek assurance from the Home Office that the site will be safe, legal and compliant."
Braintree also sought an injunction to restrain the Home Office, which was refused in April 2023 by the High Court. The council later appealed the decision in June at the Court of Appeal, but this was also unsuccessful.
Fresh litigation was lodged against the Home Office last month over Wethersfield by a refugee charity that claims the conditions on the remote base amount to “detention” and that the asylum seekers accommodated there have been segregated from the British population.
Commenting on the charity’s judicial review threat, a Home Office spokesperson said: “Despite the number of people arriving in the UK reaching record levels, we continue to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute to meet our legal obligation.
“Accommodation offered to asylum seekers, on a no choice basis, meets our legal and contractual requirements and they are free to come and go.”
Adam Carey
