'No secrecy' over Crowborough asylum camp decision, court told

The High Court heard that the Home Office did not act covertly in its plan to use a former military training facility in East Sussex, known as the Crowborough Training Camp, as accommodation for asylum seekers. The government had engaged with relevant stakeholders both prior to and following the decision. This assurance was provided amidst legal action initiated by Crowborough Shield, a local community interest company, which challenges the government’s use of the site to house up to 540 men. The group contends that the Home Office failed to exercise transparency in its decision-making process.

During court proceedings, James Strachan KC, representing the Home Office, explained that the Secretary of State consulted with the police, health services, and local councils and created a forum to address community concerns after finalizing the decision. The hearing further examined the home secretary’s invocation of emergency powers under planning regulations to justify the use of Crowborough as asylum housing. Alex Goodman KC, advocating for Crowborough Shield, argued that the Home Office incorrectly categorized the requirement to accommodate asylum seekers as an “emergency,” which permitted automatic site development approval.

In response, Strachan clarified that an emergency is defined as an event or situation that poses serious threats to human welfare, such as homelessness or injury. He emphasized that the home secretary was fulfilling a statutory obligation to provide housing for asylum seekers who might otherwise become destitute. However, Goodman questioned whether the situation genuinely met the threshold of an emergency capable of causing homelessness.

The government’s intentions to repurpose the Crowborough site were made public in October of the previous year and confirmed in January, prompting protests from local residents. Crowborough Shield launched its legal challenge in December, although it had been dismissed earlier due to the timing, as the government had not yet confirmed its plans. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Mould, acknowledged that the decision could potentially be challenged on principle and announced he would deliver his ruling after further consideration. The Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are contesting the legal challenge

Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More