Council to pursue appeal after High Court rejects legal challenge over plans to use ex-RAF bases to house asylum seekers

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge brought by two district councils and a local resident over the Government’s plans to use two former RAF bases to accommodate thousands of asylum seekers.

Braintree District Council has already confirmed that it will seek permission to appeal Mrs Justice Thornton’s ruling on the use of RAF Wethersfield in Essex. The claimant local resident, Gabriel Clarke-Holland, who lives near RAF Wethersfield, also plans to appeal.

West Lindsey District Council said it would need to consider its options moving forwards in relation to RAF Scampton.

In Clarke-Holland, West Lindsey District Council & Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anr, Mrs Justice Thornton said the challenge related to:

1. The Home Office's reliance on the Class Q permitted development right under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, allowing development on Crown land in an emergency.
2. The Home Office's reliance on an initial environmental impact screening direction from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which suggested that the use of the site in question was not likely to have significant environmental effects.
3. The discharge of the public sector equality duty by the Secretary of State and the content of an equalities impact assessment.
4. The approach taken by the Secretary of State to value for money considerations.

Mrs Justice Thornton said that for the Secretary of State to lawfully rely on the Class Q permitted development right, on the interpretation of Class Q arrived at by the Court, “she must have been able to demonstrate the existence of an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the UK by virtue of homelessness, which in the present case, relates to asylum seekers”.

The judge found the Secretary of State used the legally correct construction of emergency in the relevant emergency statement, and her reliance on Class Q was, in the Court’s view, lawful.

In relation to environmental impact assessment, Mrs Justice Thornton said the judgment by the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, that, as at March 2023, for the purposes of the environmental screening, the project was a 12-month project, could not be said to be Wednesbury irrational.

She also concluded that at the time of the screening directions, there was no obligation to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development with any other (or future) use of land at the sites for asylum accommodation.

Mrs Justice Thornton said: “The future of the sites was too inchoate. Beyond an understanding that it was likely that the sites would continue in use (if further planning permission was obtained) the discussions about the future were at such an early stage that there was no reliable information available to officials to undertake a satisfactory cumulative assessment of any potential Home Office development beyond the proposed development.”

The High Court judge also rejected the challenges in relation to equalities impact assessment and value for money considerations.

Braintree District Council said it was disappointed at the High Court’s decision. The local authority said it had requested permission from Mrs Justice Thornton to appeal her decision and was awaiting to hear more if this is granted or not.

Cllr Graham Butland, Leader of Braintree, said: “We have worked since March to make a strong case to the court that the Home Office acted unlawfully when making the decision to use RAF Wethersfield to house asylum seekers. We are of course disappointed with this outcome after months of work to present our case and evidence as we still believe it isn’t an appropriate site for a development of this scale given its remote location and the lack of capacity in local services.

“It was important for us to challenge this decision but we have to respect the judgment of the court and I am grateful for the support of residents, MP’s, businesses and communities throughout the process. Whilst we have initially appealed the decision, we will take some time to reflect on the decision and consider the council’s position. Meanwhile we will continue with our duty of care to support asylum seekers on site and helping to minimise impact on our local communities whilst the site is being utilised for this purpose.”

Gabriel Clarke-Holland said: “I have decided to appeal the judgment because I strongly believe that these plans are unlawful. The evidence strongly suggests that we were misled by the government, especially about how long they planned to use the site, and this is harming vulnerable asylum seekers on the site, local residents and services.”

His solicitor, Sue Willman of law firm DPG, added: “What stands out from this judgment is that the Home Secretary always planned to use the accommodation centre for at least 2-3 years whilst using her emergency powers claiming it was a 12 month development. The lack of a full planning process, upheld in this case has led to local residents feeling their views and knowledge are ignored. That is unhelpful for rule of law and democracy.”

West Lindsey District Council claimed that Mrs Justice Thornton had acknowledged there were compelling reasons to allow an appeal on all grounds.

The local authority said it would now need to consider its options moving forwards.

Leader of the Council, Cllr Trevor Young, said: “West Lindsey District Council remains firmly of the view that the site of RAF Scampton is not suitable for accommodating 2,000 single adult male asylum seekers. It was important for us to challenge the decision taken by the government in March of this year and we made a strong case to the Court.

“We understand the concerns and frustrations of our community. I am incredibly grateful for the support the Council has received from our communities, residents, MP’s, businesses, and our partners, throughout the process. We will continue to work hard to protect the £300m investment proposal that is on the table.”

Director of Planning, Regeneration and Communities at West Lindsey District Council, Sally Grindrod-Smith said: “Whilst this is not the outcome we were hoping for, we have been planning for all possible scenarios. We will continue to hold the Home Office to account, in order to protect our services, communities and the investment opportunity, which will secure the long-term sustainability of the area.”

The BBC has reported that the Home Office is expected to apply for a Special Development Order to use RAF Wethersfield and RAF Scampton as asylum centres for three years until 2027.