Asylum seekers moved to RAF base despite Home Office court battle over site

Migrants transported to RAF Wethersfield as Suella Braverman’s lawyers defend use of the site in High Court challenge

The local council argues that the use of RAF Wethersfield in Essex is unlawful (Joe Giddens/PA) (PA Wire)

The Home Office has moved asylum seekers into an Essex military base despite being embroiled in an ongoing legal challenge over using the site to house 1,700 people.

The first 46 migrants arrived at RAF Wethersfield hours before a hearing began at the High Court on Wednesday morning, in spite of warnings from the local council that the site was not safe.

A hearing was told that far-right protesters had already gathered at its entrance, and local residents feared more demonstrations and rising tensions in the rural community.

Suella Braverman has used a rare “emergency” declaration to bypass normal planning permission for the military base, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire and a former prison in Sussex.

The three affected councils, and a man who lives opposite RAF Wethersfield, have mounted a joint legal challenge that could make or break the policy, which is core to Rishi Sunak’s vow to move migrants out of hotels.

Former home secretary Priti Patel is among those opposing the plans, writing on Twitter: “I and my constituents remain of the view that Wethersfield is an unsuitable site. Our local services are stretched and the scale of the development will have a significant impact upon the local community.”

A barrister representing the resident told the High Court the government had acted unlawfully and did not have permission to house asylum seekers at Wethersfield.

“This morning, the first number of asylum seekers have been moved onto the site, so it carries a particular pertinence,” Alex Goodman KC said.

“The asylum seekers have been moved on today, the use is in progress. The question is whether that is a deemed grant of planning permission.”

Mr Goodman said the planning bypass applied covered an “emergency” development for 12 months, but Home Office documents indicated that Wethersfield could be used for much longer.

The barrister said the site could be occupied for up to five years or “as long as it remains expedient to do so”, amid rocketing Channel crossings, a record asylum backlog and the suspension of unlawful plans to deport small boat migrants to Rwanda.

The High Court heard that the government had carried out a series of statutory assessments, including on the environmental impact of housing 1,700 asylum seekers at Wethersfield, wrongly based on an assumption it would only be used for a year, and unlawfully failed to consult with local authorities.

In a letter to immigration minister Robert Jenrick Monday, the leader of Braintree District Council said no asylum seekers should be moved to the site unless the Home Office addresses “urgent matters”.

“The council has been clear of its grounds for its legal challenges, and are continuing with the current judicial review proceedings,” Graham Butland wrote.

“There continues to be a significant number of issues that need to be addressed by the secretary of state before the site can be operational and the council are still of the opinion that the site is not suitable.”

All three councils are also arguing that it is unlawful for the Home Office to bypass normal planning permission because the current use of hotels for asylum seekers is not an emergency.

Lawyers representing Ms Braverman told a previous hearing over an attempted injunction brought by Braintree District Council that the shortage of accommodation created a risk of homelessness.

But this week, a parliamentary committee was told that the Home Office was holding 5,000 empty hotel beds for asylum seekers as a “buffer” for expected high crossings.

The Home Office claims Wethersfield will house 1,700 asylum seekers by autumn (AFP via Getty Images)

Mr Goodman did not dispute that there was pressure on resources, and that hotels were costing £6m a day, but said the Home Office had “made do” in the four months since Ms Braverman declared an emergency

“Will there now be homeless asylum seekers? In my submission clearly not,” he told the court. “It does not fall within the definition of emergencies.”

West Lindsey District Council, which covers the RAF Scampton site in Lincolnshire, said it had been planning to buy it for a redevelopment programme that would create tourist attractions alongside an operational airfield.

Barrister Richard Wald KC said the Home Office’s grab would be fatal to its plans, and that the department’s own calculations showed Scampton would have to be used for two to three years to be value for public money.

He told the court that govenrment submissions to the High Court on the asylum accommodation “emergency” was contradicted by a parliamentary statement by immigration minister Robert Jenrick, which said military sites would be used to reduce the use of hotels, save money and deter small boats.

A barrister representing the home secretary refuted the arguments, saying many of the legal grounds advanced were “not arguable” and that the government had acted lawfully.

Later on Wednesday, the Home Office said the number of asylum seekers housed at Wethersfield would increase to 1,700 by the autumn in a “carefully structured plan”, and that Scampton would accommodate the first of 2,000 asylum seekers this summer.

In a press release that made no motion of the ongoing legal action, or of any “emergency”, the department said the military bases would provide “a more orderly, cost effective and sustainable system for accommodating asylum seekers” and “help reduce the incentives for people to travel through safe countries”.

It said it would pay each council £3,500 per occupied bedspace and give the NHS additional funding, which is separate to huge contracts for private contractors revealed by The Independent.

Mr Jenrick was quoted as saying: “We have committed substantial financial support to local councils and we remain committed to working with key stakeholders to ensure these sites have as little impact as possible for communities.”

The High Court hearing, before Mrs Justice Thornton DBE, will conclude on Thursday.