Council bosses have called on the high court to quash government plans to use the land of two former RAF bases to house asylum seekers.
Lawyers representing West Lindsey district council in Lincolnshire argue that plans to use the disused RAF Scampton, where the “dambusters” were based during the second world war, are unlawful.
Braintree district council in Essex is making a similar claim in relation to plans for land where RAF Wethersfield was situated, along with a local resident.
Mrs Justice Thornton is overseeing a hearing, due to last two days, at the high court in London. The Home Office is fighting the claims.
The Home Office hopes to ultimately move up to 1,700 asylum seekers to Wethersfield and about 2,000 to RAF Scampton. West Lindsey district council said the Home Office had continued building works on the site in preparation for the arrival of up to 2,000 asylum seekers in defiance of a “stop” notice issued by the council.
Richard Wald KC, representing West Lindsey district council, told the judge, in a written case outline, that council bosses wanted a judicial review of the decision to use land at RAF Scampton for the “accommodation of asylum seekers”. He argued that the decision was unlawful and said it should be quashed.
Originally, the Home Office said it planned to use the two sites for only 12 months, so could rely on a planning clause known as class Q, which does not require officials to seek planning permission.
But just a few days before Tuesday’s hearing, the Home Office wrote to both councils and to the former home secretary Priti Patel, who is MP for Witham in the Braintree area, to inform them that the Home Office now planned to use the site for approximately three years. The news was greeted with dismay by residents in the two areas and by the lawyers representing the two councils in court on Tuesday.
A planning term known as a screening direction was obtained for the two sites, based on environmental impact assessments of use for 12 months only.
Following the news that the government now wants to use both sites for longer than they originally stated, Alex Goodman KC, representing Wethersfield resident Gabriel Clarke-Holland, told the court: “As of today the development is in breach of planning control.”
He argued that the screening direction is valid for 12 months, not for the number of years the Home Office has belatedly said it wanted to use both mass accommodation sites.
Lawyers representing councils have made complaints about ministers’ use of planning rules. They have also raised concerns about migrants being housed for longer than the initially envisaged 12 months.
Ministers from the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are fighting the claims. They say the “emergency” argument is “misplaced”. They say another judge has already made a ruling on the issue – and no evidence is being put forward to show that ruling is wrong.
Paul Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the court there was no error of law in the government’s actions.
In written arguments provided to the court by lawyers for the home secretary, the legal challenges from the two councils were described as “hopeless” and stated that the approach of the two councils was “overly forensic” because “there is almost nowhere in the country where a large cohort of single, male asylum seekers could be introduced without it leading to community tensions”.
The hearing continues.
