Council says need to house asylum seekers is not an ’emergency’ as it battles to stop Home Office plan to house up to 1,700 on old airfield
- Braintree District Council has asked for an injunction to prevent use of the site
- Read more: Asylum seekers say it’s ‘like living in jail’ in hotels
A council is opposing the Home Office by saying the need to accommodate more asylum seekers is not an ’emergency’ under planning law, the High Court has heard.
Braintree District Council is bringing legal action against the Government’s proposed use of Wethersfield Airfield in Essex to house up to 1,700 asylum seekers for up to 180 days each.
On Wednesday, lawyers for the local authority asked for an injunction preventing the use of the site to house asylum seekers.
The Home Office and Ministry of Defence (MoD) are opposing the injunction, with lawyers asking for the case to be thrown out.
Wayne Beglan, for the council, told the High Court in London the plans would be a breach of planning control and the provision that would be used by the Government is designed to address emergencies.
Protesters against the former air base being used as an asylum centre hold up signs at the main gate
An aerial view of RAF Wethersfield in Essex, which is expected to house people arriving in the UK after making Channel crossings
‘It is, at its core, something that happens on a sudden and unexpected basis and has to be catered for,’ Mr Beglan said.
The MoD-owned land was one of the sites identified when immigration minister Robert Jenrick unveiled plans last month to house asylum seekers in disused military bases to reduce reliance on hotels.
Mr Jenrick previously said the sites are ‘undoubtedly in the national interest’ and said only ‘single adult males’ will be put into the barracks, as he seeks to reduce a hotel bill he put at £2.3 billion a year.
The court was told the planning provision – known as Class Q – covers the change of use of some government land by the Crown to prevent or mitigate an emergency which ‘threatens serious damage to human welfare’.
Mr Beglan said in written submissions: ‘It does not encompass a nationwide lack of provision of housing, of whatever description.
‘Mere pressure on resources is not an emergency. These are policy issues which are addressed, from time to time, by evolving policy decisions.
‘They are not emergencies sufficient to justify circumventing the normal planning controls.’
He added the provision the Government intend to use ‘overrides the normal processes of consultation’.
A large banner saying Stop The Asylum Centre is displayed in fields near the former air base
The barrister later referenced the use of Napier Barracks near Folkestone in Kent, which was loaned to the Home Office in 2020, later arguing the Home Office’s duties to accommodate larger numbers of asylum seekers are not new.
Mr Beglan told the court: ‘These matters have been under active policy consideration by central government.
‘It is not indicative of an emergency and neither is the fact that it is an analysis that has at its centre cost considerations.’
READ MORE: Family of asylum seekers missing from hotel in Stockport told other migrants they ‘did not like it’
‘The acknowledged issue of need for medium to long-term asylum provision is not an emergency as defined,’ he added in written submissions.
Paul Brown KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that, as of last month, it was estimated that the department was accommodating over 109,000 asylum seekers, 48,000 of them in hotels, at a total cost of over £6.2 million per day.
Mr Brown said a number of factors had contributed to issues around accommodating asylum seekers, including the impact of the Covid pandemic, the Afghanistan relocation scheme and war in Ukraine.
‘All of those pressures have built to what is a record number of asylum seekers at the moment, significantly higher than there has been,’ he told the court.
‘It’s a situation which, if it’s not dealt with, if there’s not a response to it, threatens homelessness.’
Mr Brown also argued whether- something is an emergency ‘is solely a matter for the government department’ exercising the development right.
The barrister later said ‘there can be no sensible dispute’ the plans involved actions related to an emergency and that ‘the reasons why there is an emergency’ have been explained to the council.
Mr Brown later said it was not sustainable for the Home Office to continue using hotels to accommodate asylum seekers ‘not only because of the cost but also because the supply of accommodation is precarious and has led to strained relations with local authorities’.
Mr Justice Waksman said he would give his decision ‘as soon as possible’, adding: ‘This is a matter that needs to be resolved quickly.’
Source: Read Full Article
