Braintree Council in High Court to block Wethersfield asylum centre

Braintree Council is bringing legal action over the Government’s proposed use of Wethersfield Airfield in Essex to house up to 1,700 asylum seekers for up to 180 days each.

Today, Wednesday, April 19, 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 the Home Office’s 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 which would be used by the Government is designed to address emergencies.

Braintree Council is opposing the Home Office’s argument the need to accommodate more asylum seekers is an “emergency” under planning law (Image: N/A)

“It is, at its core, something which happens on a sudden and unexpected basis and has to be catered for,” Mr Beglan said.

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 intended to use “overrides the normal processes of consultation”.

The Government’s proposed use of Wethersfield Airfield in Essex is to house up to 1,700 asylum seekers for up to 180 days each (Image: PA)

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 it is an analysis which has at its centre cost considerations.”

“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, as of last month, it was estimated 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.

“Significantly, the number needing support is predicted to grow still further: Home Office operational plans are based on scenarios of up to 56,000 small boat arrivals in 2023. That would take the supported population to between 120,000 and 140,000,” the barrister said.

Paul Brown KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions, as of last month, it was estimated 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 (Image: PA)

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.”

The barrister denied there would be a breach of planning control, telling the court there is an “overwhelming argument it is authorised” under the provision.

He continued in written submissions: “The proposed development is development by or on behalf of the Crown, on Crown land which falls squarely within Class Q.”

An aerial view of RAF Wethersfield in Essex (Image: PA)

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 “the reasons why there is an emergency” have been explained to the council.

He continued: “The current circumstances constitute an ’emergency’ within the Class Q definition.

“At the very least, the unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers which the Secretary of State is legally obliged to support, combined with the absence of suitable accommodation as an ‘event or situation’ which ‘may cause’ the homelessness of large numbers of asylum seekers, which can in turn lead to ‘human illness or injury’ and, sadly, ‘loss of human life’.

“Given the number of asylum seekers concerned, and the vulnerability of that cohort, the scale of damage is potentially significant, i.e. the situation ‘threatens serious damage’ to human welfare.”

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”.

The case has adjourned a one-day hearing and said a decision could be reached on Friday.

Mr Justice Waksman said he would give his decision “as soon as possible”, adding: “This is a matter that needs to be resolved quickly.”