Residents and protesters distraught after High Court rules in favour of Home Office’s asylum centre plans at RAF Scampton, with West Lindsey District Council planning an appeal
The High Court has issued its ruling on the Home Office’s asylum centre plans for RAF Scampton, with residents describing it as “a disaster”.
RAF Scampton residents, campaigners and protesters have voiced their disappointment following the news that West Lindsey District Council was unsuccessful in its legal case against the Home Office’s asylum centre plans.
After two days of legal proceedings at London’s Royal Courts of Justice on October 31 and November 1, and over a month of anticipation, Mrs Justice Thornton, on Wednesday dismissed the claims that housing up to 2,000 asylum seekers at the former RAF Scampton airbase is unlawful.
More stories like this delivered straight to your inbox every morning - sign up to The Briefing here
However, the local authority is intending to appeal this decision, and in the meantime, the legal Stop Notices continue to be in effect.
The court also rejected similar claims by Braintree District Council and Wethersfield resident Gabriel Clarke-Holland, who contended that the government’s plans to house up to 1,700 asylum seekers at MDP Wethersfield were also unlawful.
Following the announcement, protesters from RAF Scampton’s Actual Action Group (AAG) have maintained their presence outside of Gate 8, encouraged by supportive honks from passing vehicles.
Rebecca [pictured] referred to the recent developments as “a bit of a blow,” questioning: “How can you do this to a community? It’s awful.”
She added: “We have been doing this for months and one of the main reasons behind it was to help the vulnerable people in this community with their wellbeing because they were so worried. To now know that it’s actually happening is terrifying.”
Carol Farmer, 72, stood alongside Rebecca, waving a Dambusters flag at passing vehicles. “I feel very disappointed and betrayed,” she said.
“To me, this site is holy. There is a lot of history and heritage here and I think it’s an absolute disgrace.”
Rachael Green, while expressing feelings of disappointment, admitted she wasn’t shocked by the outcome.
Despite the setback, she remains committed to the protest, stating: “I have been coming here since April and I’m going to keep coming. What’s going on is wrong and if good people don’t stand up, nothing will get done.”
Also showing his support after hearing the news was Steve Harris, 35, who had anticipated the council’s defeat.
“We’re going to stay put and see what comes of it all,” he commented. “It’s just a disaster, we have a school 25 yards from the camp.”
Sarah Carter, leader of the Save Our Scampton campaign group, while disappointed, emphasised that the fight is far from over.
“We’re not sitting back and letting the home office get away with this,” she remarked. “If anything, we’re gonna fight harder now.”
She outlined plans for the new year, which include lobbying MPs about the decision and taking their petition, which has already garnered over 76,000 signatures, directly to the Home Office.
Scampton Councillor Roger Patterson (Conservative) also shared his disappointment, yet mirrored Mrs Carter’s sentiments, referring to the situation as a “small setback.”
He commented: “I’m disappointed but I’m still hopeful. The council said that they don’t agree with it and plan to challenge all three judgements. I’m still confident that we can win.
“They haven’t proven an emergency, to me, it’s absolute nonsense.”
At the main gate of the former airbase, a separate camp has also been set up and is being maintained by various right-wing groups.
David Sunderland, 64, commented: “With this happening, we don’t know what’s going on, or when they might move onto the site.
“What we’re going to do is to keep on doing what we’re doing until we get an effective result.”
West Lindsey District Council leader, Trevor Young (Lib Dem), said: “WLDC remains firmly of the view that the site of RAF Scampton is not suitable for accommodating 2,000 single adult male asylum seekers.
“It was important for us to challenge the decision taken by the government in March of this year and we made a strong case to the court.
“We understand the concerns and frustrations of our community. I am incredibly grateful for the support the council has received from our communities, residents, MPs, businesses, and our partners, throughout the process.
“We will continue to work hard to protect the £300 million investment proposal that is on the table.”
Director of planning, regeneration and communities at West Lindsey District Council, Sally Grindrod-Smith said: “Whilst this is not the outcome we were hoping for, we have been planning for all possible scenarios.
“We will continue to hold the Home Office to account, in order to protect our services, communities and the investment opportunity, which will secure the long-term sustainability of the area.”
Below is the outcome in full. For the reasons given in the judgment, the claims for judicial review are dismissed (§120).
Reliance on Class Q permitted development right
Whilst the Claimants’ submissions were cogently expressed they are, in the Court’s view, defeated by the ordinary meaning of the words used in Part Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015.
The definition of ‘emergency’ in Part Q.2(1) of the Order is intended to be comprehensive, so far as it relates to the application of Class Q. The term must therefore be understood in itsstipulated sense and the Court must take care not to apply a judicial paraphrase or other gloss on a statutory definition (§59).
On the interpretation of Class Q arrived at by the Court, for the Secretary of State to lawfully rely on the Class Q permitted development right, she must have been able to demonstrate the existence of an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the UK by virtue of homelessness, which in the present case, relates to asylum seekers (§64). The Secretary of State used the legally correct construction of emergency in the emergency statement (§66). The Secretary of State’s reliance on Class Q was, in the Court’s view, lawful (§68).
Environmental Impact Assessment screening direction
The decision on the development to be screened for its environmental impacts is a matter of fact specific, judgment for the primary decision maker(s), subject to judicial review on the usual public law grounds (R (Ashchurch RPC) v Tewkesbury BC [2023] PTSR 1377) (§95).
The judgment by the Home Office and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities that, as of March 2023, the project was a 12 month project was lawful (§102). For similar evidential reasons, at the time of the Screening Directions, there was no obligation to consider the cumulative effects of the proposed development with any other (or future) use of land at the sites for asylum accommodation (§103).
On the facts of the present case, the Class Q permitted development route was seen as a ‘stand-alone’ or discrete solution to the urgent difficulties faced by the Home Office in light of the Secretary of State’s statutory duty to accommodate asylum seekers. It was being pursued by the Home Office independently of any prospect of the development continuing beyond 12 months, albeit it was considered likely that longer use of the sites would be required (§96). No decision about the duration of use of the sites had been made by late March 2023. The precise location, nature, type, and scale of any potential future use had not been discussed (§98). Decisions about the future of the sites depended in material part on the outcome of policy efforts to reduce the numbers of asylum seekers requiring accommodation (§92). Where a development is justified on its own merits and would be pursued independently of another development this may indicate that it constitutes a single individual project that is not an integral part of a more substantial scheme (R (Wingfield) v Canterbury County Council [2020] JPL 154) (§96).
Beyond an understanding that it was likely that the sites would continue in use (if further planning permission was obtained) the discussions about the future were at such an early stage that there was no reliable information available to officials to undertake a satisfactory cumulative assessment of any potential Home Office development beyond the proposed development. The future of the sites was too inchoate (R (Littlewood) v Bassetlaw DC [2009] Env. L.R. 21 at §413- 415 and R (Substation Action Ltd v Secretary of State [2023] PTSR 975 at §198) (§102).
Equalities Impact Assessment
11. It was not irrational for the Secretary of State to rely on her department’s understanding as to the risk of community tensions gained from the department’s previous experience of housing asylum seekers in other parts of the country (§111). The significance of the risk was acknowledged internally. The Secretary of State did not defer discharge of her duty, only the practical details of implementation of the response to the risk identified, which her department had previous experience of managing (§112). The Equality Impact Assessment proceeded on the basis that the sites would be used for as long as was expedient, which is consistent with the lack of certainty about future plans for the sites beyond the 12 month period afforded by the Class Q permitted development right (§114).
Value for Money
12. Given the context of the decision making, value for money was not so obviously material that it was irrational for the Secretary of State to rely on the submission that her permanent secretary was content with the value for money analysis without inquiring into the details of the underlying analysis. Other obvious motivating factors for the decision making included the Secretary of State’s statutory responsibility to accommodate asylum seekers and the difficulties with current arrangements with hotels, which extended beyond costs, to legal action by local authorities to prevent their use. Accounting Officers are personally responsible to Parliament for the stewardship of its resources, not to the Secretary of State. There is no evidence before the Court that the Secretary of State was operating under a mistaken understanding that value for money was satisfied however long the sites were used for (§119).
