Council's appeal heard over plans to use RAF site to house asylum seekers
A council is challenging a High Court ruling over government plans to use a redundant RAF airfield in Essex to house asylum seekers under emergency powers.
Braintree District Council has brought legal action against the Home Office over the proposed use of RAF Wethersfield to accommodate up to 1,700 male asylum seekers for up to 180 days each.
The Ministry of Defence (MOD)-owned land was one of the sites identified when Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick unveiled plans in March to house asylum seekers in disused military bases to reduce reliance on hotels.
The local authority's lawyers asked a judge to grant an injunction preventing the use of the 6.5-hectare site, arguing proposals would breach planning control.
But, in a ruling in April, a High Court judge concluded the court did not have the legal power to grant the council's application and struck out the bid, ruling in favour of the Home Office.
Mr Justice Waksman said in his ruling that the Home Office estimated there were 109,000 asylum seekers – the highest level on record – in need of accommodation and support as of the end of March, including 48,000 being housed in hotels, at a total cost of £6.2 million a day.
The court heard in April that Home Office operational plans are based on scenarios of up to 56,000 small boat arrivals in 2023, which would take the number of people needing accommodation and support to between 120,000 and 140,000.
Braintree District Council is now challenging the ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, arguing the current site does not have planning permission for the proposed accommodation use.
At a hearing on Monday, council lawyers argued the judge was wrong to conclude the development was permitted by emergency planning laws, referred to as "Class Q", and wrong to find the court did not have the legal power to grant the injunction.
In written arguments, Wayne Beglan, for the council, said the Court of Appeal's decision on the challenge will have "significant implications" for local authorities.
The court heard there are at least three other similar legal actions relating to the use of former military bases to house asylum seekers, with a further two potential cases in the offing.
The Home Office is contesting the appeal and argues it should be dismissed.
Paul Brown KC, for the Home Office, said that it is "important to have a very clear steer" on the legal issues from the appeal court given the other similar cases.
The barrister argued that the current situation amounted to an "emergency" as it risked people being left homeless and destitute, and the Government would be in breach of its duties to asylum seekers.
He told the court: "It was and remains the (Home Office's) case that there is no basis for an injunction in this case, because the proposed use of RAF Wethersfield is authorised by Class Q and therefore there would have been no breach of planning control."
Sir Keith Lindblom, Lord Justice Dingemans and Lady Justice Whipple will give their decision at a later date.
Join Our Newsletter
