The Home Office has moved asylum seekers into an Essex military base despite being embroiled in an ongoing legal challenge over using the site to house 1,700 people.
The first migrants arrived at RAF Wethersfield hours before a hearing began at the High Court on Wednesday morning, in spite of warnings from the local council that the site was not safe.
A hearing was told that far-right protesters had already gathered at its entrance, and local residents feared more demonstrations and rising tensions in the rural community.
Suella Braverman has used a rare “emergency” declaration to bypass normal planning permission for the military base, as well as RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire and a former prison in Sussex.
The three affected councils, and a man who lives opposite RAF Wethersfield, have mounted a joint legal challenge that could make or break the policy, which is core to Rishi Sunak’s vow to move migrants out of hotels.
Former home secretary Priti Patel is among those opposing the plans, writing on Twitter: “I and my constituents remain of the view that Wethersfield is an unsuitable site. Our local services are stretched and the scale of the development will have a significant impact upon the local community.”
A barrister representing the resident told the High Court the government had acted unlawfully and did not have permission to house asylum seekers at Wethersfield.
“This morning, the first number of asylum seekers have been moved onto the site, so it carries a particular pertinence,” Alex Goodman KC said.
“The asylum seekers have been moved on today, the use is in progress. The question is whether that is a deemed grant of planning permission.”
Mr Goodman said the planning bypass applied covered an “emergency” development for 12 months, but Home Office documents indicated that Wethersfield could be used for much longer.
The barrister said the site could be occupied for up to five years or “as long as it remains expedient to do so”, amid rocketing Channel crossings, a record asylum backlog and the suspension of unlawful plans to deport small boat migrants to Rwanda.
The High Court heard that the government had carried out a series of statutory assessments, including on the environmental impact of housing 1,700 asylum seekers at Wethersfield, wrongly based on an assumption it would only be used for a year, and unlawfully failed to consult with local authorities.
In a letter to immigration minister Robert Jenrick Monday, the leader of Braintree District Council said no asylum seekers should be moved to the site unless the Home Office addresses “urgent matters”.
“The council has been clear of its grounds for its legal challenges, and are continuing with the current judicial review proceedings,” Graham Butland wrote.
“There continues to be a significant number of issues that need to be addressed by the secretary of state before the site can be operational and the council are still of the opinion that the site is not suitable. Council officers have been raising these issues with Home Office staff many, many times.”
All three councils are also arguing that it is unlawful for the Home Office to bypass normal planning permission because the current use of hotels for asylum seekers is not an emergency.
Lawyers representing Ms Braverman told a previous hearing over an attempted injunction brought by Braintree District Council that the shortage of accommodation created a risk of homelessness.
But this week, a parliamentary committee was told that the Home Office was holding 5,000 empty hotel beds for asylum seekers as a “buffer” for expected high crossings.
A senior official told the Public Accounts Committee it has “ringfenced hotels” in order to avoid overcrowding at an initial detention centre for small boat migrants, and made no mention of supply issues.
Mr Goodman did not dispute that there was pressure on resources, and that hotels were costing £6m a day, but said the Home Office had “made do” in the four months since Ms Braverman declared an emergency
“Will there now be homeless asylum seekers? In my submission clearly not,” he told the court. “It does not fall within the definition of emergencies.”
The hearing, before Mrs Justice Thornton DBE, continues and will conclude on Thursday.
