Two councils opposing plans to house asylum seekers on disused airfields have been given the green light to bring a High Court challenge against the Home Office.
Braintree District Council and a nearby resident are bringing legal action to challenge the use of Wethersfield Airfield in Essex to house up to 1,700 men while West Lindsey District Council is challenging similar plans for RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire.
During a two-day hearing in London this week, the councils and Gabriel Clarke-Holland made a bid to bring a full legal challenge in their claims against the department.
In a ruling on Friday, Mrs Justice Thornton ruled in their favour, granting permission to both councils and Mr Clarke-Holland.
We are grateful to have had another opportunity to put our views and the views of our local community across to the High Court at this initial stage— Graham Butland, Braintree District Council
She said: “The decision to accommodate asylum seekers on the sites may give rise to strong local opinion,” adding that there may also be wider discussions about the welfare of the asylum seekers.
“Those are not, however, matters for the court,” the judge continued.
Mrs Justice Thornton said that two out of the 15 grounds could go ahead to a further hearing, including on the use of “emergency” planning powers.
“Both of these grounds were advanced by all three claimants,” the judge continued.
The decision comes after the first 46 asylum seekers arrived at Wethersfield Airfield, around eight miles from Braintree, on Wednesday.
Alex Goodman KC, for Mr Clarke-Holland – who lives approximately 80ft from a gate on to the airfield – said members of the right-wing group Britain First were protesting near his home on the morning of the arrivals.
Following the ruling, Graham Butland, leader of Braintree District Council, said: “We are grateful to have had another opportunity to put our views and the views of our local community across to the High Court at this initial stage, as we still believe Wethersfield Airfield is not a suitable site for these plans.”
He continued: “We’ll continue to work closely with the Home Office and multi-agency partners to ensure there is minimal impact on all those involved residents that live nearby and local services, as well as raising our concerns with the Home Office so it can put in place mitigating action, whilst supporting asylum seekers coming to our district.
“We will also continue to push for regular, open and transparent engagement with the wider community, which to date we feel has been lacking and creating frustrations quite rightly for our residents and businesses who have been left with a void of information.”
Leader of West Lindsey District Council Trevor Young said: “I welcome today’s judgment, which I hope the community will take as a positive in that it clearly shows we have a case.
“However, as we have seen at other large sites across the country and in particular at Wethersfield, the Home Office is continuing to press ahead with its plans to use larger sites for asylum accommodation.
“Therefore, our challenge is to continue to balance our legal process with our duty of care as a local authority, to hold the Home Office to account on their proposals, as we have been doing since March.”
During the two-day hearing, lawyers for Braintree District Council told the court that the Home Office failed to take several issues into account, including access to healthcare at Wethersfield Airfield and “serious issues” with the “ageing” wastewater provision on site.
However, Home Office lawyers said the three linked claims should not be allowed to have a full hearing.
Paul Brown KC, for the department, said in written submissions: “There is significant overlap in the grounds in all three claims and the misapprehensions which underpin them.
“None of the three claims raises any genuinely arguable point.”
The High Court previously heard the planning law which would allow the airfields to be used covers the change of use of some Government land to prevent or mitigate an emergency which “threatens serious damage to human welfare”.
The two councils and Mr Clarke-Holland have challenged the use of these planning powers, while the Home Office has said their use is justified.
Both councils previously lost bids for injunctions preventing the use of the large sites by the Home Office.
