MPs and council leaders have clashed over plans to house asylum-seekers at an army training camp in Sussex.
It follows news that the government may temporarily house up to 600 men at Crowborough Training Camp as it tries to end the use of hotels to house asylum-seekers.
Three Conservative MPS – Nusrat Ghani, Mims Davies and Kieran Mullen – published an open letter yesterday (Wednesday 29 October).
They called on the leaders of Wealden District Council to answer a series of questions about the plans.
The MPs said that they have “zero confidence” in Liberal Democrat council leader James Partridge and Green deputy council leader Rachel Millward, accusing the councillors of “deliberately withholding information” about the plans.
Later yesterday, council leaders responded with their own open letter addressed to Ms Ghani, saying that the Sussex Weald MP’s words would “inflame the situation”.
The MPs wrote: “It has been 24 hours since the story broke and nobody at the council has had the courage to call us to explain what you have done.
“This announcement has caused a lot of concern locally, especially as the site was previously rejected outright under the previous Conservative government.
“This was due to its layout, the difficulty in it being adapted and the extra costs that would have been involved.
“Under your leadership of the Liberal Democrats and Green Party coalition, the council acts swiftly to reject any planning permissions, however big or small, in the proximity of the Ashdown Forest and Crowborough.
“But it is prepared to greenlight the adaptation of this site to potentially host hundreds of asylum-seekers. Please explain how and why?
“It is appalling that you deliberately withheld information regarding your ongoing negotiations with the Home Office.
“The lack of transparency and courage to share this information has led us to have zero confidence in your leadership of Wealden District Council.
“As elected officials, it is your duty to consult with the local communities affected.”
The joint letter goes on to set out 12 questions that the MPs want the council leaders to address.
These include calls for the councillors to provide an explanation of why the authority is not considering using planning powers or legal routes to challenge the use of the site.
The MPs also ask when the council plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the proposal and to explain what costs could be incurred by the council as a result of the proposal.
The council leaders have responded with a joint letter in their own names rather than onm behalf of the council and they single out Ms Ghani for criticism.
The reply said: “We are staggered by the way you are behaving. This country is faced with a serious problem in having to find homes for asylum-seekers in a way which has the least possible adverse effect on local communities.
“That’s unfortunate but it’s a fact. It requires level-headed thought and planning and then calm, measured and honest community leadership.
“You are a deputy speaker of the House of Commons and a senior MP. Like many of your other constituents, we expect you to provide that leadership.
“What we are actually getting from you is a series of aggressive, antagonistic, ill-informed and apparently politically motivated open letters which seem calculated to inflame the situation and make it even more difficult to get to a good solution. We think that is irresponsible.
“We understand why you are frustrated that the Home Office did not tell you what it had in mind, especially as they told us that they would. That was a bad mistake on their part.
“We are very aware that we are contributing to a tit for tat between politicians that is adding nothing to solving the problem.
“We ask that we all now end it and that, using your knowledge and experience of government, you help all those who are trying to deal with this situation.”
It is understood that the council leaders intend to respond to the questions posed by MPs later today (Thursday 30 October).
The council’s website also includes an information page about the plans. It said that the council and other local public sector partners were notified confidentially by the Home Office on Friday 10 October.
They were told then that ministers were considering the camp for use as a site for transitional accommodation for asylum-seekers from late next month.
These partners included Sussex Police, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, the NHS and East Sussex County Council, the website said.
It added that the first written confirmation – a briefing note for the council and key partners by Home Office officials – was received on Tuesday (28 October) “after the news had broken in the national media”.
This website also said: “The decision rests entirely with the Home Office.”
And it added that the council had been advised that “any challenge to (the site’s) use on planning grounds would not succeed”.
For her part, Ms Ghani – in the preamble to a petition hosted on her own website – said that “modifying the site” would result in conflict with council planning policies including those related to the High Weald National Landscape.
Elsewhere in the country, councils have pursued the use of planning powers and legal cases to challenge asylum housing.
In a high-profile case this year, Epping Forest Council obtained a High Court injunction, which would have required the Bell Hotel in Epping to cease its use as asylum housing.
This injunction was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, with the case expected to go in front of the Supreme Court in the near future.
Epping Forest Council’s case is based on the premise that the use of the hotel constituted a breach of planning rules.
Specifically, the council argued that the housing of asylum-seekers at the site constituted a “material change of use” from a hotel to hostel. They have distinct “use classes” under planning rules.
According to media reports, other councils are considering legal challenges on similar grounds.
Notably, the High Court has previously considered – on a case-by-case basis – similar challenges from other councils on similar grounds. Judges have turned down some cases and upheld others.
