Judicial review of Home Office RAF Scampton asylum seeker plan dismissed by High Court

A High Court judge has ruled that a Home Office plan to house up to 2,000 asylum seekers at a former RAF base is lawful.

Mrs Justice Thornton dismissed the claims made against it following a two-day judicial review over 31 October and 1 November at the High Court in London.

The legal challenge to the government's plans was brought by West Lindsey District Council (WLDC), which owns the site of former RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire and is strongly opposed to them.

The base was once the home of the famous Dambusters 617 Squadron during the Second World War and later the Red Arrows aerobatics team.

Braintree District Council in Essex also made a similar challenge over land which once formed part of RAF Wethersfield in the county.

A local resident to Wethersfield, Gabriel Clarke-Holland, also made a challenge which the judge dismissed as well.

WLDC previously said the Scampton site was unsuitable for the purpose of accommodating asylum seekers, and jeopardised the a £300 million redevelopment plan which it had been working on since the base closure was announced in 2018.

Lawyers for both councils argued that the Home Office was misusing emergency powers to develop the site without planning permission. They said the powers were not applicable because a "genuine emergency" had "not been proven".

WLDC said it was "clear from the scale of works" on the site that the development was "not limited to a temporary period of 12 months" which is the maximum time the planning rules permit.

The Home Office disputed the claims, saying there were "misapprehensions which underpin them" and that there was no "genuinely arguable" point.

In her judgement, Justice Thornton said that the Home Secretary at the time, Suella Braverman, was successful in demonstrating the "existence of an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare in the UK, by virtue of homelessness" - a condition of the emergency planning rules - which, in this case, the judge said "relates to asylum seekers".

Regarding the argument around the 12-month time-limit on development, Justice Thornton said: "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."

The Home Office will now be allowed to continue its development of both sites in question.

In a statement, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We welcome the judgment which was in the Home Office's favour.

“Using surplus military sites provides more orderly accommodation for those arriving in small boats while reducing the use of hotels, as we continue to deliver our plan to stop the boats.

“We are working with councils and key partners to manage the impact of using these sites, including liaising with local police to make sure appropriate arrangements are in place.”

Both councils will now have seven days to appeal the judgement. Should they do so, and permission is granted, their cases will be heard by three senior judges at the Court of Appeal in London.

Responding to the ruling, WLDC said in a statement it would "consider its options moving forwards".

Cllr Trevor Young, the leader of the council, said it remains "firmly" of the view that the site 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," he said.

“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 £300million investment proposal that is on the table.”

Director of Planning, Regeneration and Communities, 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.”

Sir Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP for Gainsborough, earlier took to social media to express his disappointment at the judgement.

Hamish Falconer, the Labour party candidate for Lincoln at the next general election, echoed his disappointment at the decision.

Posting on X, he said "We are all disappointed in this decision but an incoming Labour government would be committed to closing this down ASAP and preserving the private investment."

"The government may have won this case, but all they've now got is the right to use the site until the spring.

"If they want to use it any longer than that they need a whole new process which we will fight at every step," he said.

"Labour is clear: we oppose the Home Office proposal in its entirety and we intend to go back to the investment plan which promised to bring more than double the total ever amount of levelling up funding to Lincolnshire.

"I'll keep fighting for it."

Elsewhere, Peter Hewitt, the chairman of Scampton Holdings, which is heading the £300 million regeneration plan for the site, said he was "naturally" disappointed at the outcome.

However, he suggested the Home Office may now be more open to discussions with Scampton Holdings, saying there may have been a "natural reluctance" to engage.

"Hopefully, this will mean we'll start to have some sensible conversations," he said.

"The most important thing for us is to get this development going to give some certainty to Lincolnshire and to Scampton residents in particular as to what is going to happen."

Following the announcement, protesters from RAF Scampton’s Actual Action Group (AAG) have maintained their presence outside Gate 8.

One woman, Rebecca, said to know the plans would now be happening was "terrifying.”

Carol Farmer, stood alongside Rebecca, said she felt "very disappointed and betrayed".

“To me, this site is holy," she said. "There is a lot of history and heritage here and I think it’s an absolute disgrace.”

Another protestor, Rachael Green, admitted she wasn’t shocked by the outcome but was disappointed.

Sarah Carter, leader of the Save Our Scampton campaign group, said the fight is far from over.

“We’re not sitting back and letting the Home Office get away with this,” she said. “If anything, we’re going to fight harder now.”

Want a quick and expert briefing on the biggest news stories? Listen to our latest podcasts to find out What You Need To Know...