Court of Appeal dismisses Braintree airfield asylum appeal, refuses to consider Class Q argument

The Court of Appeal has dismissed Braintree District Council's appeal of the High Court's decision not to grant an injunction blocking the Home Office's plans to use a disused airfield to accommodate asylum seekers.

West Lindsey District Council, Rother District Council, and a local Braintree resident were all granted permission to intervene in the appeal of a ruling by Mr Justice Waksman, which concluded that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the claim.

Braintree's appeal of this decision centred around the Home Office's use of Class Q, part 19, Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, which allows the Government to develop Crown land in the event of an emergency.

But in the Court of Appeal, Sir Keith Lindblom refused to consider whether the proposed development falls within Class Q. That issue will now be considered in judicial review proceedings.

In a statement on the decision, a Braintree District Council spokesperson said: "We are particularly disappointed on the Court of Appeal's refusal to provide a definitive answer on the interpretation of the wording contained within Class Q, despite being invited by all the parties to do so, and Mr Justice Waksman's recognition that the interpretation of this point was one of national importance."

Three separate judicial review applications have been brought by West Lindsey District Council, Rother District Council and local Wethersfield resident Gabriel Clarke-Holland against the Home Office's plans for Wethersfield Airfield and RAF Scampton.

All three claims will be heard together in a permission hearing next month.

"If permission is granted, the case will then go to a final hearing which would give an opportunity for us to further seek clarification on the interpretation of Class Q in the judicial review," Braintree noted.

"We continue to stand behind the community on the fact that the site is unsuitable for these plans and we are doing all we can through legal routes to prevent it from going ahead. This is all whilst we are continuing to work with our partners to mobilise should the plans progress, to support asylum seekers accommodated and ensure minimal impact on all those involved."

It added: "There are still many pressing issues that we feel need addressing from the Home Office around transport and vehicle movement, impact on road infrastructure, security and safety, and lack of operational plans for the site with clear timescales and funding. There is frustration with the lack of information and unanswered questions and rightly so, and we are working hard behind the scenes to press the Home Office for more information and for them to actively engage with the local community.

"We have been and will continue to raise the concerns and feedback coming from residents, local businesses, parish councils and community groups with the Home Office to ensure local voices and concerns are heard."

Paul Brown KC and Nick Grant of Landmark Chambers appeared for the Secretary of State. Isabella Buono, also of Landmark Chambers, is instructed with them for the judicial review claims.

Alex Goodman KC and Charles Bishop, both of Landmark Chambers, provided the written submissions of Clarke-Holland, instructed by Deighton Pierce Glynn. They are also instructed in his forthcoming judicial review.

Adam Carey