The residents’ group set up to fight the Government over using the Crowborough Army Training Camp to house asylum seekers says it will not give up its legal fight.
Crowborough Shield says it is pressing ahead with its legal challenge following the latest response and disclosures from the Home Office.
The organisation raised six key issues in its court application that required a response from the Home Secretary. There are more details of these claims below but they related to the impact on the environment, breach of the human rights, the lack of openness and transparency over the decision to use the camp, and the lack of an equality impact assessment.
Those six claims in more detail:
The Habitats Regulations – the Home Office were wrong to conclude that development at the Camp did not have an effect on an environmentally sensitive site such that planning approval was required, and the process by which the HO concluded that there would be no such effect was flawed because relevant public bodies (Natural England) had not been given accurate information about the former use of the Camp.
Environmental Impact Assessment – the process followed by the Government to decide whether the development at the Camp required an environmental impact assessment (and the decision that it did not) was flawed. The process should have been objective and transparent, but it was not – one Government Department (Housing Communities and Local Government) simply gave another department (the Home Office) approval to proceed without proper objective scrutiny.
Breach of the European Convention on Human Rights – the process of deciding to use the Camp impacted our rights and therefore should have involved a fair and public procedure equivalent to a hearing and determination by an impartial independent tribunal. This is one of the most basic rights in law. In fact, the process was secret and self-serving and was therefore unlawful .
Openness and Transparency – the undisclosed secret decision-making process was an abuse of power and the Home Secretary’s decision to rely on emergency powers was unlawful and done deliberately to avoid scrutiny.
Emergency- the decision to use the Camp rested on the Home Secretary having directed herself that a relevant emergency exists (i.e. the risk of alleged asylum seekers becoming homeless). The interpretation of the word “emergency” relied on by her is simply wrong. In any event, a change of policy to empty hotels into MOD camps cannot amount to an emergency, it is a deliberate policy decision.
Equality Impact Assessment – the Home Secretary is required by law to carry out such an assessment but has never produced one.
Shield said they had now received a response from the Government and it had “taken issue with everything that is said in our new claim.
“A great deal of technical legal argument has been made by them but, in summary, their position is that no consultation was required and that a fair and lawful process was followed throughout. They do not accept that public disclosure of what was going on was necessary at all.”
In terms of the environmental impact, the Government has revisited the habitats and environmental assessment process and claim to now have considered all the information that we said that they should have considered in the first place. It insists its decision was still correct.
Shield said, as a result of the Government’s response, even though it disagreed with the Home Secretary’s statement, it would no longer pursue ground 1 (Habitats Directive) or part of ground 2 (Environmental Impact) which was related to the same issue.
It has also indicated it we will not pursue ground 6 (Equality Impact Assessment) because of the documents that have now been provided “although it is important to note that we do not agree with most of their content”.
But Shield said, despite the Government’s response, it would still be pressing ahead with the claim about he way the Government handled the process and its lack of consultation or engagement with the people of Crowborough.
“Overall, we do not consider that anything that the Government has said in its responses are a knockout blow to our case and we are very concerned about some of the matters that have been revealed in the documents disclosed by the Government. We feel we should continue the claim to the permission stage assuming sufficient funding can be maintained.”