0
Mr Justice Waksman (Waksman J) has today handed down judgment in Braintree District Council v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) Secretary of State for Defence, an application by Braintree DC for an injunction under s.187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to prevent the use of RAF Wethersfield for asylum seekers.
The Home Secretary made an application to strike out the claim in reliance on section 296A Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Waksman J allowed the application, holding that an application for an injunction under s.187B constituted a “step taken for the purposes of enforcement” within the meaning of section 296A for which the consent of the “appropriate authority” (here, the Ministry of Defence as landowner) was required. That consent had not been obtained and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
In an obiter passage, Waksman J went on to consider whether the permitted development rights under Schedule 2, Part 19, Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) applied to the proposed development. Class Q allows the Crown to undertake development for (inter alia) reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of, or taking other action in connection with, an “emergency”. The permitted development rights apply for a maximum period of 12 months. The Home Secretary sought to rely on those rights based on a pressing need to accommodate record numbers of destitute asylum seekers, as the Home Secretary is statutorily obliged to do, in circumstances where reliance on hotels as contingency accommodation has proven unsustainable. In the absence of further accommodation, the Home Secretary argued that asylum seekers would face the risk of homelessness.
In his obiter observations, Waksman J indicated that he considered the requirements of Class Q were met, and that he would have found to that effect had he had the jurisdiction to do so. He considered the definition of “emergency” in Class Q to be comprehensive, encompassing an ongoing situation which may occur within more than one place in the UK, and that the definition would be satisfied on the basis of the evidence provided by the Home Secretary. He further considered that the proposed development would mitigate the effects of the emergency.
Following his judgment, Waksman J granted Braintree District Council’s application for permission to appeal the decision. The appeal will be heard by the Court of Appeal in due course.
Paul Brown KC, Nick Grant and Rebecca Sage appeared on behalf of the Home Secretary, instructed by the Government Legal Department.
