Council resolves to oppose Crowborough asylum camp plans

On Wednesday (November 19), Wealden District Council unanimously backed a motion, which saw members commit to support the authority’s executive in opposing the Home Office’s plans to house around 540 adult male asylum seekers at Crowborough Army Camp.

Introducing the motion,  council leader James Partridge argued the town’s public services were “barely coping with its existing population".

He said: “There has therefore been a strong reaction against the proposals for many people who live in Crowborough. They are justifiably very worried about what would happen if 540 single men arrive to stay in the town with very little to do all day and in accommodation that is not suitable.

“The risks are obvious and the information about mitigation so far provided by the Home Office has not allayed people’s fears.

“Because not everyone shares the extreme views that some are expressing, the failure of the Home Office to keep its word about engaging with everyone involved and the consequent information vacuum have caused so much damage to community relations that it is unlikely that the Home Office can implement the proposal safely.”

Cllr Partridge went on to highlight how refugee charities consider “that this type of camp is bad for its inhabitants” and said it could result in cases of depression, self-harm and suicide.

He added:  “The Home Office’s proposals are not in the interest of the people of Crowborough or of asylum seekers and they should be opposed.”

The motion itself contained two clauses. It committed the council to support its executive in “exercising the powers available to the council to oppose the Home Office plan … provided that this is done lawfully and with due and full regard to the potential cost and risk to the council of any action which might be taken".

A demonstration was held in Crowborough to protest plans for migrants to be housed in a (Image: Eddie Mitchell)

It also committed the council to support its executive in “calling on the active participation and collaboration of partner organisations to join Wealden District Council in opposing the plans".

While this motion was unanimously agreed, several opposition councillors had argued it was not “strong enough”.

These councillors included Independent Group leader David White, who argued that the council should call on the government to look at restricting the movement of anyone housed at the camp.

Cllr White said: “The problem as I see it is that the use of the camp is something that possibly we are not going to be in a position, legally, to defeat.

“Therefore one has to look in terms of how we mitigate that effect upon the residents of Crowborough and the legitimate concerns they will have.”

He added: “You’ve got 600 — or 540, however many it is — young men, with very little to occupy their time, who are going to be allowed to roam freely across the countryside — on the buses, in the towns, in the schools; in the leisure centres even, if they can afford it — and that worries me.

“Because frankly the perception of seeing a large group of young male adults of foreign origin coming towards you on a lane or on a road or on a bus or in a leisure centre is likely to bring concerns and fears in the minds of residents.

“I think what we’ve got to do to get across to the Home Office that somehow or another they have to install a system or regime in which they monitor the way in which these people are allowed on a site, if they are allowed on a site.”

These comments saw criticism from Crowborough councillor Gareth Owen-Willaims, who said: “Our job as councillors is not to scare people, it’s to help people and try and represent people and try and fight the battles for them.

“I really think that is unnecessary language.”

Independent councillor Andrew Wilson took issue with this criticism.

He said: “Cllr Owen-Williams made reference to ‘inflammatory language’. I would just like to read him some news headlines in respect of other places in this country where large numbers of asylum seekers have been housed.”

Cllr Wilson then went on to list headlines from several news reports which identified asylum seekers as being either convicted of having or are alleged to have committed rape.

He added: “Now, I am not suggesting that every single one of the people who comes off the boat in Dover or is picked up by the RNLI or Border Force is a criminal; far from it.

“But the fact is that we know very little about these people and I share Cllr White’s view that they should not be permitted to just wander around.”

During the meeting, Cllr Wilson also tabled an amendment seeking to add two additional clauses to the motion.

The first clause would have additionally required the council to call on the government to ensure anyone housed within the camp was “subject to mandatory identity checks, continuous monitoring and strict movement controls, with immediate transfer to secure accommodation for any individual who does not comply". It would have also called on the government to remove “any person who is found to have entered the United Kingdom illegally once initial processing is complete".

A further part of the amendment called on the council to state a view that the council’s executive had “weakened the district’s ability to respond and contributed to unnecessary community anxiety”, as a result of “inaction”.

Cllr Wilson went on to criticise the council’s leadership, saying it had offered “open-armed acceptance” when first informed of the Home Office proposals in October.

This view was shared by Conservative group leader Ann Newton, who said the leadership had been “asleep on the job” and should apologise to Crowborough residents. She said the second clause should be included to reflect this view.

Both arguments saw criticism from other members of the council, however.

Cabinet member Paul Coleshill argued the first clause was “magical thinking” as it “asserts we can change the world by merely wishing it so". He also argued the second clause was “performative”.

Cllr Partridge also declined to accept the amendment, arguing the second clause was divisive. He did, however, commit to raising questions around restricting the movement of asylum seekers with the Home Office.

Cllr Partridge said: “I am very happy to add that to the list of things we will ask for. I think it will be hugely difficult, but let’s ask for it. The rest of this amendment is about dividing us and that has been going on from the start and it’s really dangerous for lots of reasons.

“It is actually weakening our response. So I ask, with all respect, that this amendment is turned down and that we get on with what really matters.

“I am sick of having to deal with people taking pot shots, when they should be pointing the artillery in the other direction.”

The amendment was voted down and did not become part of the agreed motion.