𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

The first migrants arriving at an Army training camp should prompt council chiefs to take legal action, campaigners have declared.

The Home Office on Thursday morning confirmed 27 asylum seekers, all of whom arrived by small boat, were taken into Crowborough Training Camp in the early hours of Thursday morning.

More than 500 migrants will eventually be held on the site. The Home Office insists “robust safety and public‑protection safeguards are in place”, with 24/7 security.

The coach, with a police escort, was driven onto the camp in persistent rain just before 3.30am today.

Sources said they will only be housed there for up to three months while their asylum claims are processed. But campaigners want Wealdon District Council to seek an injunction to order the site to be closed. Campaigner Kim Bailey, a Crowborough resident, said Home Office claims that housing asylum seekers does not lead to crime spikes were a “lie”.

Ms Bailey, who chairs the Crowborough Shield residents organisation, said in a statement to the press: “We will be considering with our legal team the possibility of obtaining an injunction to prevent occupation (or further occupation) of the site and in any event will be continuing our judicial review which the Home Secretary has shamefully failed to properly participate in.”

She added: “The hopelessly inadequate, dishonest and biased Screening Direction that has had to be issued to support the Home Secretary’s decision, clearly supports our case that this entire scheme is unlawful. We intend to continue to pursue the Home Secretary to judgment.”

Sussex Weald MP Nusrat Ghani said: “This is a non-sensical decision from the Home Office. The Crowborough Training Camp was previously rejected and uniquely is the most active training facility in the South East, not only for the Army and Royal Air Force Cadets, but also for our police and fire services.

“They have all been kicked out. The community have pleaded with them [the council] to take legal action on the grounds of planning, environmental concerns and health and safety.

“They are yet to evidence what action they will be taking. Now that the Home Office has occupied the site, it is for Wealdon District Council to step up and take legal action.”

The Crowborough site was used to accommodate Afghan families evacuated during the withdrawal from Kabul in 2021 while they were resettled elsewhere. But campaigners are effectively arguing that Wealdon District Council should copy Epping Forest District Council’s bid to close The Bell Hotel.

The High Court rejected Epping Forest District Council’s argument that housing up to 138 asylum seekers in the three-star venue breached planning laws. A council chief said the decision means “the Home Secretary can now ignore planning law, the concerns of local councils and their residents”, adding that they were “outgunned by bigger and more powerful interests”.

And Judge Mr Justice Gould seemingly dismissed the link between small boat arrivals and an increase in crime.

Epping Forest District Council secured a temporary injunction at the end of August, arguing that escalating community tensions were harming the area and stressed using the hotel to house asylum seekers was a breach of planning laws.

But the Home Office argued that the need to meet the human rights of asylum seekers by housing them in hotels outweighed the safety concerns of local families.

And lawyers acting for the department warned that the injunction could fuel more protests, paving the way for every council to potentially challenge asylum hotels.

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary at the time, challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal which ruled in favour of the Home Office. It quashed the injunction, allowing the migrants to remain in The Bell in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s ruling.

And the High Court ruled in the Home Office’s favour, dealing a devastating blow to the community.

In an 87-page judgment, Mr Justice Mould said: “I have reached the clear conclusion that this is not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction.

“I give due respect to the claimant’s judgment that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises which requires planning permission.

“Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control.

“The breach is far from being flagrant.”

He appeared to dismiss fears of crime increases in areas where asylum seekers are housed.

And the High Court judge said the Home Office had sufficiently demonstrated that it still needs hotels to house migrants.