Government ‘ignored social implications of housing migrants in army barracks’

A campaign group claims the government ignored the social implications of housing more than 500 asylum seekers in an army barracks near their town.

Crowborough Shield, based in East Sussex, claim ‘political choices’ were made in ‘the corridors of Whitehall’ above the ‘risks’ to the locals.

The group, has taken the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (SSHCLG) to court over the decision to house 540 asylum seekers at Crowborough Training Camp, a former army training base used by cadets.

Twenty seven men were moved into the camp on 22 January this year sparking outrage among locals.

The site is now understood to be at full capacity and will house asylum seekers until 2030, with thousands of men expected to be housed there for around 80 day periods.

An earlier legal challenge was dismissed in February because it had been filed before the Home Office had officially decided to use the barracks, but Mr Justice Mould invited the group to reapply.

Alex Goodman KC, representing the residents, told the High Court today (tues) it was clear before the asylum seekers were moved in that this decision would have ‘a number of social implications’.

He said: ‘The Equality Impact Assessments and screening direction for an Environmental Impact Assessment identified a particular risk of protests and indeed riots.

‘It also acknowledged that this form of accommodation works out as potentially double the cost of hotel accommodation, likely to rise in view of other legal challenges.’

The group has applied for a judicial review of the decision, saying there should have been a public consultation on the decision because of the impact on residents.

The SSHCLG was not able to assess the impact ‘in an objective manner’ as the government’s pledge to stop housing asylum seekers in hotels meant they were under pressure to approve the plans, the court heard.

Mr Goodman said there was a ‘highly political’ context for the decision to house migrants in Crowborough.

He said: ‘Political choices were made that the costs both to the local people in terms of impact to the community and to the public finances…were justified because the imperative was to get asylum seekers out of hotels.’

He said group is concerned with ‘whether it was lawful for those decision to be taken in the corridors of Whitehall without public notification’.

Mr Goodman suggested the decision in this case will have ‘wider significance in further testing the way in which these decisions for barracks as accommodation are being taken.’

The case is before Mr Justice Mould, who previously ruled against Epping Council in November 2025, blocking their attempt to stop asylum seekers being housed at the Bell Hotel.

Local authortiy Wealden Council also strongly opposes the Home Office’s plans to house asylum seekers at the barracks and is an interested party in the proceedings.

James Strachan, KC, representing the Home Office, said in his skeleton argument that Crowborough Shield had not proved their ‘victim status’ and called their challenge ‘legally incoherent’.

He argued: ‘There is no requirement for any public consultation in respect of screening decisions.’

He also pointed to ‘severe strain’ on the asylum system, with around 112,000 people currently being housed at the state’s expense.

Representing the SSHCLG, Jenny Wigley KC said in her skeleton argument that the screening process the department carried out ‘gives rise to no public rights participation’.

She also dismissed the group’s assertation that the assessment had not been carried out in ‘an objective manner’, saying the review was carried out ‘with full separation from Home Office officials’.

She said: ‘At no time did any person involved in promoting or assisting the promotion of the proposed development give any instructions to, or put any pressure on, any person acting or assisting in relation to the screening direction (or attempt to do so).’

If the group is successful, the Home office and the SSHCLG will have to review the decision to house migrants at the barracks.

The hearing continues.
ends