Judicial review begins over plans to house asylum seekers at RAF Scampton and Wethersfield

Wethersfield/RAF Scampton
Thousands of asylum seekers could moved onto the former RAF Wethersfield and RAF Scampton airfields. Credit: PA

Council bosses have urged a High Court judge to quash Government plans to house asylum seekers at a famous former RAF base.

Lawyers representing West Lindsey District Council in Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, say the Home Office decision to repurpose RAF Scampton airfield – home to the Dambusters squadron during the Second World War – is unlawful.

Braintree District Council in Essex is making a similar challenge over plans for land which once formed part of RAF Wethersfield in the county.

A local resident, Gabriel Clarke-Holland, is also challenging plans for Wethersfield.

Mrs Justice Thornton is overseeing a hearing, due to last two days, at the High Court in London.

Ministers are fighting the claims.

Richard Wald KC, representing West Lindsey District Council, told the judge, in a written case outline, that council bosses want a judicial review of the decision to use land at RAF Scampton for the "accommodation of asylum seekers".

He argued that the decision is "unlawful" and "should be quashed".

Mr Wald said that, since the closure of RAF Scampton as an operational airbase was announced in 2018, the council has put together an "ambitious £300 million redevelopment plan".

"(The council) has, to date, invested over £370,000 in these once-in-a-generation redevelopment proposals as well as a vast amount of time and effort," he said.

"Those investments and the opportunities offered by the redevelopment scheme proposed at RAF Scampton would be lost in the event that the site is used for the accommodation of asylum seekers."

Lawyers representing councils have made complaints about ministers' use of planning rules.

They say ministers cannot rely on "permitted development rights" because there is no "emergency".

Lawyers have also raised concerns about migrants being housed for longer than an initially envisaged 12 months.

Home Office ministers and Levelling up, Housing and Communities ministers are fighting the claims.

They say the "emergency" argument” is "misplaced" and another judge has already made a ruling on the issue – and no evidence is being put forward to show that ruling is wrong.