West Lindsey District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary Of State For Defence & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1400 (Admin)
Gabriel Clarke-Holland, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
6 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3140 (Admin)
High Court
The government used old RAF bases to house asylum seekers quickly, using a special planning rule for emergencies. Lawyers challenged this, arguing the government didn't follow proper rules about environmental checks, fairness, and spending. The judge decided the government was right, because of the urgent need to solve the asylum housing crisis. The judge said there wasn't enough reason to believe the government did anything seriously wrong.
Key Facts
- •The claimants sought judicial review of the government's decision to house asylum seekers at decommissioned RAF Wethersfield and Scampton sites.
- •The decision relied on Class Q permitted development rights, citing an 'emergency' due to the strain on the asylum system.
- •Challenges included the interpretation of 'emergency' under Class Q, the EIA screening directions' validity, compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty, and value-for-money considerations.
- •Three claims were brought: one by a local resident, and one each by the local planning authorities for Wethersfield and Scampton.
- •The Home Office faced significant pressure due to unprecedented numbers of asylum seekers and the unsustainable use of hotels.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of 'emergency' under Class Q permitted development rights.
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, Schedule 2, Part 19, Class Q
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening; Determining the scope of a 'project' and cumulative impacts.
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017
Public Sector Equality Duty; Need for consultation and proportionality of assessment.
Equality Act 2010, section 149
Value for money considerations in public decision-making; The 'Tameside' duty of inquiry.
Case law on judicial review and public law principles.
Outcomes
Claims for judicial review dismissed.
The court found the Secretary of State's reliance on Class Q permitted development rights lawful, given the interpretation of 'emergency' and the circumstances of the asylum system.
Challenge to EIA screening directions rejected.
The court found that the screening direction correctly focused on the 12-month project under Class Q, and that considering cumulative effects of future, uncertain development was not required at that stage.
Challenge to Public Sector Equality Duty compliance rejected.
The court considered the Secretary of State's approach to consultation and the contents of the Equalities Impact Assessments reasonable, given the urgency and the department's prior experience.
Challenge on value for money rejected.
The court found that the value-for-money consideration, while relevant, was not so obviously material as to render the decision irrational.
Similar Cases
Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor
[2023] EWCA Civ 727
Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Office & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1076 (KB)
ZR v London Borough of Haringey & Anor
[2024] EWHC 1476 (Admin)
SB & Anor, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Newham & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2701 (Admin)