Politicians clash over Crowborough Training Camp plans

On Wednesday (October 29), three Conservative MPs — Nusrat Ghani, Mims Davies and Kieran Mullen — published an open letter calling on the leaders of Wealden District Council to answer a series of questions about plans to temporarily house up to 600 adult male asylum seekers at Crowborough Training Camp.

In the letter, the MPs say they have “zero confidence” in Liberal Democrat council leader James Partridge and Green deputy council leader Rachel Millward, accusing the councillors of "deliberately withholding information" about the plans.

Later the same day, council leaders responded with their own open letter addressed to Ms Ghani, which argued the Sussex Weald MP’s words would “inflame the situation”.

In their joint letter, the MPs said: “It has been 24 hours since the story broke and nobody at the council has had the courage to call us to explain what you have done.

“This announcement has caused a lot of concern locally, especially as the site was previously rejected outright under the previous Conservative government. This was due to its layout, the difficulty in it being adapted and the extra costs that would have been involved.

“Under your leadership of the Liberal Democrats and Green Party Coalition, the council acts swiftly to reject any planning permissions, however big or small, in the proximity of the Ashdown Forest and Crowborough, but it is prepared to greenlight the adaptation of this site to potentially host hundreds of asylum seekers. Please explain how and why?

“It is appalling that you deliberately withheld information regarding your ongoing negotiations with the Home Office. The lack of transparency and courage to share this information has led us to have zero confidence in your leadership of Wealden District Council. As elected officials, it is your duty to consult with the local communities affected.”

The joint letter goes on to set out 12 questions the MPs want the council leaders to address. These include calls for the councillors to provide an explanation of why the authority is not considering using planning powers or legal routes to challenge the use of the site.

It also asks the council leaders to confirm when the authority will hold a public meeting to discuss the plans and to give details of what costs could be incurred by the local authority as a result of the plans.

The council leaders have responded with their own joint letter, which singles out Ms Ghani for criticism.

It reads: “Dear Ms Ghani. We refer to your letter dated October 29, addressed to us both. This is our initial response. It is on our own behalf, not that of Wealden District Council.

“We are staggered by the way you are behaving.

“This country is faced with a serious problem in having to find homes for asylum seekers in a way which has the least possible adverse effect on local communities. That’s unfortunate, but it’s a fact. It requires level-headed thought and planning and then calm, measured and honest community leadership.

“You are a deputy speaker of the House of Commons and a senior MP. Like many of your other constituents, we expect you to provide that leadership. What we are actually getting from you is a series of aggressive, antagonistic, ill-informed and apparently politically motivated open letters which seem calculated to inflame the situation and make it even more difficult to get to a good solution. We think that is irresponsible.

“We understand why you are frustrated that the Home Office did not tell you what it had in mind, especially as they told us that they would. That was a bad mistake on their part.

“We are very aware that we are contributing to a tit for tat between politicians that is adding nothing to solving the problem. We ask that we all now end it and that, using your knowledge and experience of government, you help all those who are trying to deal with this situation.”

The Local Democracy Reporting Service understands the council leaders intend to respond to the questions posed by MPs later today (Thursday, October 30).

The district council’s website also contains an information page about the plans.

This webpage says Wealden District Council and other local public sector partners were notified confidentially by the Home Office on October 10 that it was considering Crowborough Training Camp for use as a site for transitional accommodation for asylum seekers from late November 2025.

These partners included Sussex Police, East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, the NHS and East Sussex County Council, the website says.

It adds that the first written confirmation, in the form of a briefing note for the council and key partners by Home Office officials, was received on Tuesday (October 28) “after the news had broken in the national media".

This website also says “the decision rests entirely with the Home Office”  and that the council has been advised “any challenge to [the site’s] use on planning grounds would not succeed".

For her part, Ms Ghani — in the preamble to a petition hosted on her own website — has stated a view that “modifying the site” would result in conflict with Wealden District Council’s planning policies, including those related to impact on the High Weald National Landscape.

Elsewhere in the country, councils have pursued the use of planning powers and legal cases to challenge asylum housing.

In a high profile case earlier this year, Epping Forest Council obtained a High Court injunction, which would have required the Bell Hotel in Epping to cease its use as asylum housing. This injunction was later overturned by the Court of Appeal, with the case expected to go in front of the Supreme Court in the near future.

Epping Forest Council’s case is based on the premise that the use of the hotel constituted a breach of planning rules.

Specifically, the council has argued the housing of asylum seekers at the site constituted a “material change of use” from a hotel to hostel, which have distinct “use classes” under planning rules.

According to media reports, other councils are considering legal challenges on similar grounds.

Notably, the High Court has previously considered — on a case-by-case basis — similar challenges from other local authorities on similar grounds. It has both turned down and upheld injunctions in these cases.