Government plan to house asylum seekers at ex-RAF airbase not an …

Emergency planning laws cannot be used to house asylum seekers at a former RAF base, Braintree District Council has argued in its battle to stop Government plans. The Court of Appeal judges have heard an appeal from the local authority in its bid to prevent the Home Office from placing up to 1,700 people at RAF Wethersfield in the district ^[1].

The district council’s injunction request to block the Home Office and Ministry of Defence’s ^[2] plans to use RAF Wethersfield as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers was rejected in April. It comes after immigration minister Robert Jenrick unveiled plans to house asylum seekers in disused military bases to accommodate their “essential living needs and nothing more” to reduce reliance on hotels.

The Court of Appeal heard on June 12 the use of the airbase did not constitute an “emergency” under Class Q permitted development rights. The council’s barrister Wayne Beglan told appeal judges on Monday the government needed planning permission because there was no “emergency” and planning permission is needed.

He said: “We do say there is a difference in quality between a situation that is urgent and one that constitutes an emergency. And if one is dealing with a provision that allows the unlimited scales of development it is all the more important that the word emergency is properly restricted in its scope.”

He added: “It is right to return back to the case that the secretary of state is not saying, even now, that there is some imminent risk of a breach of statutory duty. And that is important because that is in essence of the case that is put forward in the emergency statement as justifying emergency provision. But it is not there on closer analysis of the facts.”

The Home Office barrister Paul Brown KC said the Government could use Class Q – which is permitted development covering the changing of use and the building operations necessary to convert the building – with “no breach of planning control. He said: “It was and remains the secretary of states 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 be no breach of planning control.”

In a statement following the appeal hearing, Braintree District Council Leader Graham Butland said: “Today our appeal against the High Court’s decision regarding the interpretation of Class Q and the refusal to grant the Council an injunction to stop the Home Office’s proposals to provide accommodation for asylum seekers at Wethersfield Airfield was heard at the High Court. This challenged the Home Office’s reliance on the use of permitted development rights (Class Q) as a way of getting around the need for planning permission. We had sought to obtain an injunction to restrain them from using the site for this purpose.

“The Rt Hon Sir Keith Lindblom reserved judgement which means a decision will be given at a future date. He said he hopes to deliver a judgement in as shorter time as possible. We are pleased to have had the opportunity to put our views and the views of our local community in front of the Judge, continuing to support the community to restrain the Home Office from going ahead with these proposals.

“We believe Wethersfield Airfield is an unsuitable site for the Home Office’s plans to house 1,700 asylum seekers, given the lack of capacity in local services, its isolated location, the size of the site, and the fact that the scale of the development proposed could have an impact upon the local community.” The Court of Appeal said it will hand down a judgement at a later date.

References

^{^} district (www.essexlive.news)
^{^} Ministry of Defence’s (www.essexlive.news)
^{^} Braintree’s fight against Government’s asylum seeker plan on ex-RAF airfield starts (www.essexlive.news)