The Home Office has defended its decision to house asylum seekers at the former RAF Scampton
It's day two of the Judicial Review
The Home Office has defended its decision to house asylum seekers at RAF Scampton in High Court, citing an urgent need due to the influx of small boats with migrants arriving in the UK.
Government appeared before Mrs Justice Thornton on Wednesday at London’s Royal Courts of Justice, countering allegations that the plans to house up to 2,000 migrants at the historic former base of the Dambusters were unlawful.
In addition, they addressed similar claims from Braintree District Council and Wethersfield resident Gabriel Clarke-Holland, who also argue that the government’s proposal to place up to 1,700 asylum seekers at MDP Wethersfield also breaches legal norms.
During the proceedings, Paul Brown KC, representing the Secretary of the State, asserted that the significant arrival of small boats on British shores constituted a clear emergency and that the government was completely within its rights to invoke Class Q emergency planning powers, allowing them to bypass standard planning procedures for up to one year. These powers are set to expire in April 2024.
Brown highlighted that, by the end of December 2022, a record 105,522 asylum seekers were being accommodated in the UK and receiving financial assistance. This number is an increase of 25,000 from the previous year, marking the highest figure ever recorded.
By the end of March, the Home Office was responsible for sheltering 48,000 individuals in roughly 380 hotels across the country, incurring daily costs of £6.2 million.
The court was told hotels cost the taxpayers an average of £151 per person per night to house asylum seekers, compared with an estimated cost of £141 per night at Scampton and £122 at Wethersfield.
Meanwhile, WLDC argued it has to date invested over £370,000 in the Scampton redevelopment proposals, “as well as a vast amount of time and effort.”
Concurrently, small boats keep arriving, with Home Office statistics indicating no decline in this trend. Projections suggested an additional 56,000 individuals might reach the UK by year’s end.
“Nobody has a crystal ball,” Brown KC commented, underscoring the unpredictability and urgency of the situation.
On the first day of the hearing (Tuesday), the three claimants also challenged the adequacy of the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). They argued that it was only evaluated as a “temporary” project expected to last one year under Class Q provisions.
However, they pointed out inconsistencies in various documents and letters suggesting that the Home Office intended to use the site for a minimum of two years, and possibly up to five years.
Addressing this, Brown KC, maintained that at the time of the initial screening on March 24, the project was indeed intended to last only one year. He emphasised that the future of the project was “yet to be determined,” given the fluctuating nature of the situation.
Recent revelations emerged from a letter sent to Gainsborough MP Sir Edward Leigh on October 27, which disclosed further details about the Home Secretary’s approach. This communication outlined plans to utilise Class Q Permitted Development Rights for setting up the camp at RAF Scampton, followed by an intention to apply for a Special Development Order (SDO).
The SDO would seek additional planning permission, potentially allowing the housing of asylum seekers at the base for three more years.
“As of March 28, no final decision had been made as to the future of the site,” stated Brown KC. He added: “It’s only been in the last week or so that any such decision regarding an SDO has been made.”