District rules out further legal action after refusal of permission for challenge to housing of asylum seekers at army camp

A group of local residents operating as ‘Crowborough Shield’ had applied for permission on a number of grounds.

They argued that the Government had acted unlawfully “by advancing the project without planning permission, community consultation, or due consideration of the site’s proximity to the Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation”.

However, Mr Justice Mould concluded that the group had “jumped the gun”, starting the claim before a final decision had been made. Accordingly, the claim was premature.

The Crowborough Shield group said after the ruling that “it is very clear that the feeling in Crowborough is we want to resubmit our case”.

Wealden District Council, which is opposed to the use of the site to house asylum seekers, participated in the hearing as an interested party and provided supporting evidence.

However, following receipt of advice from King’s Counsel, it has now ruled out further legal action.

Wealden said it had been “advised that to pursue a new judicial review against the Home Office is unlikely to achieve anything of practical value and that a claim could potentially be counterproductive.

“The council’s view is it would be morally wrong to stay silent about this legal advice, because to do so would raise false hope and would likely be a waste of taxpayer’s money.”

The local authority quoted the advice it received from its King’s Counsel team that whilst there were “arguable errors of law in relation to the Habitats Regulations and the EIA Regulations and the recreational pressure on the Ashdown Forest, these are easily corrected by government”.

Wealden said: “As the premature claim gave government notice of these errors, we now expect them to be corrected before any new claim could reach the court. Even if the court upheld a judicial review on those grounds, the likely impact would be to allow the government to re-take its decision and potentially start the 12-month clock again; meaning the camp would be open for even longer.”

The council added that, “crucially”, its legal team had not identified any legal argument that would stop the Secretary of State from using the camp for asylum accommodation in principle.

The King’s Counsel team had also advised that there is no legally arguable basis on which the council could challenge the Government’s decision to not allow the council to take planning enforcement action.

“They advise there is little or no prospect of Wealden successfully arguing that there is no emergency, to justify the use of emergency planning powers by the Home Office, this having been accepted by the High Court in previous cases,” the council said.

The local authority additionally noted that, if it were to bring a claim, it would not benefit from the Aarhus costs cap which limits claimants’ exposure to the Government’s legal costs (and would be available to Crowborough Shield) because the caps do not apply when the claimant is a public body.

“To risk public money on paying the Government’s uncapped legal costs when advised that a claim is likely to fail would be irresponsible and morally wrong,” it said.

Cllr James Partridge, Leader of Wealden District Council, said: “Whilst this comes as a major disappointment to us all, it would be wrong of the council to remain silent about its legal advice. We all wanted to stop the Home Office as this camp is good for no-one. The Home Office has failed Crowborough.

“But to keep fighting a legal challenge that is doomed to fail helps nobody. Throwing good money after bad is simply wrong. We must all now turn our attention to making sure that everyone feels safe and secure. We will continue to press the Home Office to do their job properly and to engage better with us all.”