Crowborough Army Camp

14 November 2025 – WDC letter to Home Office

Dear Mr Larter

Crowborough Training Camp

Thank you for attending the meeting of the Council’s Scrutiny and Performance Committee on 10 November 2025 (“the Committee meeting”), along with Mr Harding, to discuss the Home Office’s proposal to use Crowborough Training Camp to accommodate asylum seekers (“the Proposal”).

You will be aware that there is considerable concern amongst residents of the Council’s area, and on the part of other bodies which may be affected, about the Proposal, and that the Council is concerned about the planning implications of the Proposal. Accordingly, in order better to understand the Proposal and the Home Office’s decision-making in relation to it, and in order to enable the Council (and other affected bodies) properly to consider what steps it may be necessary or appropriate to take, I would be very grateful if you would provide answers to the following questions.

(1) Has a decision been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal?

I understand from what Mr Harding said at the Committee meeting that the Home Office is in a “preparation phase” and that, although there is a “firm intention” to proceed with the Proposal, no decision has yet been taken whether to do so (“we cannot as yet say that we’re absolutely definitely going to use the site”, “we have not made a formal decision”). However, the factsheet published by the Home Office on the gov.uk website on 31 October 2025 might be read as implying otherwise, therefore I would be grateful for express written confirmation that my understanding is correct. We are also conscious that the Home Office team indicate that the Home Office (not the Ministry of Defence) has undertaken works at the site to install additional fencing and CCTV at the site in preparation for the proposed use.

 (2) If any decision has been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal, please confirm exactly what decision has been taken, when it was taken, by whom, and on what basis?

As explained immediately above, my understanding is that no decision whether to proceed with the Proposal has yet been taken. If that understanding is incorrect, I would be grateful for full details of any decision which has been taken.

(3) If a decision has not been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal, what matters remain outstanding, and when does the Home Office anticipate that it will take such a decision?

At the Committee meeting, Mr Harding referred to the fact that, before taking a decision whether to proceed with the Proposal, the Home Office wished properly to ascertain what is the likely impact on “local risks”, the local population, and local services, and he also referred to other work that remained outstanding before a decision could be taken (including commercial arrangements, arrangements in relation to health care, and health and safety checks). Mr Harding said that it should be possible to provide an indicative date for a decision “as our plans firm up”. It would therefore be helpful to understand exactly what matters remain to be explored (and how they will be explored) before a decision is taken, and what is the anticipated earliest date that a decision might be taken.

In this context, Mr Harding referred to a “community cohesion impact assessment”, and he was asked by one of the Council’s elected members to provide a copy of that assessment. Mr Harding responded that the Home Office would share as much information as it is able to. Insofar as I am aware, the Council has not yet received a copy of the community impact assessment, and therefore I would be grateful if you could provide a copy by return.

If no community cohesion impact assessment has been completed, we would be grateful if you could please confirm when this is expected to be finalised.

(4) Does the Home Office intend to consult with local residents and affected bodies?

At the Committee meeting, you and Mr Harding were asked whether the Home Office would consult before a decision was taken whether to proceed with the Proposal. In response, Mr Harding referred to meetings with local residents to enable them to “speak to [the Home Office] directly”. As I understand the position, therefore, the Home Office does intend to consult. Self-evidently, the best sources of information on matters such as the likely impact of the Proposal on the local population and local services are local residents, the Council and other bodies which already operate in the area, and consultation would be the best way of obtaining that information.

Further, at the site visit on 15 October 2025, reference was made by the Home Office to the development of a communications and engagement plan into which the Council could input. As far as we are aware, no plan has been forthcoming. If a plan has been developed, please provide this, or if it is in the process of being developed, we would be grateful for the opportunity to review and input on it.

(5) If the Home Office does not intend to consult, is it nevertheless willing to consider information provided by the Council and other bodies?

As I have mentioned, the best sources of information on matters such as the likely impact of the Proposal on the local population and local services include the Council and other bodies which already operate in the area. The Council is working with its local partners to compile relevant information in this respect, which it intends to submit to the Home Office by 28 November 2025. I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm that the Home Office will not proceed to take a decision whether to proceed with the Proposal until it has received and considered this information.

(6) If a decision were to be (or has been) taken to proceed with the Proposal, what advance notice does the Home Office intend to give to the Council (and other bodies) before starting to implement the decision?

If the Proposal were to be implemented, that is likely to have a significant impact on the residents of the Council’s area, the Council itself, and other bodies which may be affected. Accordingly, it is vital that there is as much advance notice as possible of the implementation of any decision to proceed with the Proposal. At the Committee meeting, you stated that the Home Office would try to be as clear as possible about the decision making process and “the likely go live time”. At the Operational Working Group meeting on 13 November 2025, your team confirmed that this would be at least ‘days’ and Sussex Police asked that this period be extended to 90 days. Accordingly, I would welcome greater clarity about what notice the Home Office intends to give should it proceed to implementation.

I understand that, in the case of the potential use of RAF Linton for the accommodation of asylum-seekers, the Home Office agreed to provide notice of any decision to move asylum[1]seekers to the site at least 14 days in advance of any asylum-seekers actually being moved to the site. I would therefore ask that at least the same period of notice will be afforded to the Council in the present case.

(7) On what basis does the Home Office consider that the Proposal would be compliant with planning control?

At the Committee meeting, you and Mr Harding were asked about the basis on which the Proposal would be compliant with planning control, but you were unable to provide a substantive answer. Accordingly, I would be grateful for an explanation as to the basis on which the Home Office considers that the Proposal would be compliant with planning control?

It would be helpful to have a response to each of the questions above as soon as possible, and in any event within seven days.

In the interests of transparency, and of keeping the public informed, I shall arrange for a copy of this letter to be published on the Council’s website.

Yours sincerely

Trevor Scott Chief Executive

14 November 2025 – WDC letter to Nusrat Ghani MP

Dear Ms Ghani MP, Dr Mullan MP and Ms Davies MP

We write in reference to your letter dated 13 November 2025.

Firstly we would start by rejecting your statements that the alleged views of former Ministers, Home Office Officials, failed legal challenges from other Councils in any way affect the legal powers of either the Council or the Home Office. We understand that this is a complex area of law and that there is much misinformation in the public domain, but you will appreciate that we can only work on the particular facts in this case and within the law of the land. As you know, we are seeking legal advice from two KCs – specialising in public administration and planning law – on potential challenges of the proposals, however we are sure that you will agree that this should be done for the right reasons with a prospect of success, not running to the court without grounds and wasting public money. We would remind you that if you feel there are current grounds for legal challenge, you have as many rights as the Council in this regard.

As our local MPs we would have thought it far more constructive if you decided to work with us as your local Council in challenging the approach of the Home Office. We would encourage you to stop making unfounded statements that only spread mis-information. If we work together in a responsible and reasoned way, it will give us all the best chance of success rather than wasting considerable time and effort responding to your questions, particularly when they are based on a false narrative.

Whilst we also reject the premise that we must respond to every one of your questions in the way that you wish, we are equally keen to work with you and any other partners locally that wish to see the Home Office change their mind and not utilise the site as planned. In this spirit, please see following answers –

1. No.

2. Not applicable, given 1.

3. Not applicable, given 1.

4. Not applicable, given 1.

5. We have asked this question or a variant of it of the Home Office on multiple occasions but are yet to receive a reply.

6. See 5.

7. We do not have a planning application and so cannot consult with any group in that way. Notwithstanding this, outside the planning system we have held public meetings and sought to give all sectors of our community an opportunity to raise their concerns with the Home Office. In addition, as you know, the Council has a very strong track record of protecting the Forest in our decision making and this would be a key consideration, should a planning application be made to the Council.

8. Not a question, however as 1. No such notice has been received by the Council.

9. Not applicable.

10.Not applicable at this stage as no such application has been received by the Council. Outside the planning system we have held public meetings and sought to give all sectors of our community an opportunity to raise their concerns with the Home Office.

11. Yes. The guidance you refer forms part of the National Planning Proactive Guidance (NPPG) and if very familiar to our expert planning teams.

12. At the current time we are doing daily not weekly updates for the public. We will keep this under review as the Home Office progress with their planning.

13. This is not, as has been suggested, a decision by this Council. As such, Wealden do not have a duty to coordinate partners in the way that you suggest. However as a Council we have engaged with our local public sector partners and will continue to do so. On the topic of funding, if, despite our concerns, the site proceeds we believe it correct that all local partners are compensated by the Home Office for the cost of their decision. For the avoidance of doubt, no funding has yet been offered to Wealden by the Home Office – you can see the officials from the Home Office confirm this during the meeting of our Scrutiny & Performance Committee on Monday 10th November 2025.

14. As above, we are not aware that the Home Office has yet made an application.

15.No. See 14.

16. Yes. See 14.

17.No, we have not been consulted. You will understand that we cannot pre-determine our response to an application/consultation from government that we have not yet received, to do so would risk the Councils ability to object. That said, as we have set out above and in many public statements, we are not supportive of the Home Office proposals.

18.We have not been contacted by the Planning Inspectorate, or notified of any such application.

19. See 18.

20. As no works have commenced nor applications made, we have no lawful powers to request the documents you mention. We have however asked the Home Office to confirm their approach to this. Again, at the Scrutiny and Performance committee, you can see Home Office officials confirming that they have not yet finalised their approach to obtaining planning permission. We are pushing them to clarify their position at pace and ahead of them undertaking any works at the site.

21. See 18.

22. See 18.

23. See 18.

24. See 20.

Moving forward, we are keen to prioritise working with our partners and engaging with our community, to ensure that the Home Office reconsider their plans, not exchanging long letters with you.

Yours sincerely

Cllr James Partridge
Leader of the Council and Governance, Waste and Local Economy Portfolio Holder

Cllr Rachel Millward
Deputy Leader of the Council and Culture, Community and Communications Portfolio Holder

Copied to:
Crowborough Town Mayor Natalie Whittle
Cllr Ian Tysh
Cllr Alison Arthur
Cllr Jane Clark
Cllr Martyn Everitt
Cllr Andrew Wilson
Cllr Gareth Owen-Williams

Andrew Larter

 Asylum Accommodation  Delivery Director

Home Office

2 Marsham Street

London SW1P 4DF

By email

14 November 2025

Dear Mr Larter

Crowborough Training Camp

Thank you for attending the meeting of the Council’s Scrutiny and Performance Committee on 10 November 2025 (“the Committee meeting”), along with Mr Harding, to discuss the Home Office’s proposal to use Crowborough Training Camp to accommodate asylum seekers (“the Proposal”).

You will be aware that there is considerable concern amongst residents of the Council’s area, and on the part of other bodies which may be affected, about the Proposal, and that the Council is concerned about the planning implications of the Proposal. Accordingly, in order better to understand the Proposal and the Home Office’s decision-making in relation to it, and in order to enable the Council (and other affected bodies) properly to consider what steps it may be necessary or appropriate to take, I would be very grateful if you would provide answers to the following questions.

(1) Has a decision been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal?

I understand from what Mr Harding said at the Committee meeting that the Home Office is in a “preparation phase” and that, although there is a “firm intention” to proceed with the Proposal, no decision has yet been taken whether to do so (“we cannot as yet say that we’re absolutely definitely going to use the site”, “we have not made a formal decision”). However, the factsheet published by the Home Office on the gov.uk website on 31 October 2025 might be read as implying otherwise, therefore I would be grateful for express written confirmation that my understanding is correct. We are also conscious that the Home Office team indicate that the Home Office (not the Ministry of Defence) has undertaken works at the site to install additional fencing and CCTV at the site in preparation for the proposed use.

 (2) If any decision has been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal, please confirm exactly what decision has been taken, when it was taken, by whom, and on what basis?

As explained immediately above, my understanding is that no decision whether to proceed with the Proposal has yet been taken. If that understanding is incorrect, I would be grateful for full details of any decision which has been taken.

(3) If a decision has not been taken whether to proceed with the Proposal, what matters remain outstanding, and when does the Home Office anticipate that it will take such a decision?

At the Committee meeting, Mr Harding referred to the fact that, before taking a decision whether to proceed with the Proposal, the Home Office wished properly to ascertain what is the likely impact on “local risks”, the local population, and local services, and he also referred to other work that remained outstanding before a decision could be taken (including commercial arrangements, arrangements in relation to health care, and health and safety checks). Mr Harding said that it should be possible to provide an indicative date for a decision “as our plans firm up”. It would therefore be helpful to understand exactly what matters remain to be explored (and how they will be explored) before a decision is taken, and what is the anticipated earliest date that a decision might be taken.

In this context, Mr Harding referred to a “community cohesion impact assessment”, and he was asked by one of the Council’s elected members to provide a copy of that assessment. Mr Harding responded that the Home Office would share as much information as it is able to. Insofar as I am aware, the Council has not yet received a copy of the community impact assessment, and therefore I would be grateful if you could provide a copy by return.

If no community cohesion impact assessment has been completed, we would be grateful if you could please confirm when this is expected to be finalised.

(4) Does the Home Office intend to consult with local residents and affected bodies?

At the Committee meeting, you and Mr Harding were asked whether the Home Office would consult before a decision was taken whether to proceed with the Proposal. In response, Mr Harding referred to meetings with local residents to enable them to “speak to [the Home Office] directly”. As I understand the position, therefore, the Home Office does intend to consult. Self-evidently, the best sources of information on matters such as the likely impact of the Proposal on the local population and local services are local residents, the Council and other bodies which already operate in the area, and consultation would be the best way of obtaining that information.

Further, at the site visit on 15 October 2025, reference was made by the Home Office to the development of a communications and engagement plan into which the Council could input. As far as we are aware, no plan has been forthcoming. If a plan has been developed, please provide this, or if it is in the process of being developed, we would be grateful for the opportunity to review and input on it.

(5) If the Home Office does not intend to consult, is it nevertheless willing to consider information provided by the Council and other bodies?

As I have mentioned, the best sources of information on matters such as the likely impact of the Proposal on the local population and local services include the Council and other bodies which already operate in the area. The Council is working with its local partners to compile relevant information in this respect, which it intends to submit to the Home Office by 28 November 2025. I would therefore be grateful if you could confirm that the Home Office will not proceed to take a decision whether to proceed with the Proposal until it has received and considered this information.

(6) If a decision were to be (or has been) taken to proceed with the Proposal, what advance notice does the Home Office intend to give to the Council (and other bodies) before starting to implement the decision?

If the Proposal were to be implemented, that is likely to have a significant impact on the residents of the Council’s area, the Council itself, and other bodies which may be affected. Accordingly, it is vital that there is as much advance notice as possible of the implementation of any decision to proceed with the Proposal. At the Committee meeting, you stated that the Home Office would try to be as clear as possible about the decision making process and “the likely go live time”. At the Operational Working Group meeting on 13 November 2025, your team confirmed that this would be at least ‘days’ and Sussex Police asked that this period be extended to 90 days. Accordingly, I would welcome greater clarity about what notice the Home Office intends to give should it proceed to implementation.

I understand that, in the case of the potential use of RAF Linton for the accommodation of asylum-seekers, the Home Office agreed to provide notice of any decision to move asylum[1]seekers to the site at least 14 days in advance of any asylum-seekers actually being moved to the site. I would therefore ask that at least the same period of notice will be afforded to the Council in the present case.

(7) On what basis does the Home Office consider that the Proposal would be compliant with planning control?

At the Committee meeting, you and Mr Harding were asked about the basis on which the Proposal would be compliant with planning control, but you were unable to provide a substantive answer. Accordingly, I would be grateful for an explanation as to the basis on which the Home Office considers that the Proposal would be compliant with planning control?

It would be helpful to have a response to each of the questions above as soon as possible, and in any event within seven days.

 In the interests of transparency, and of keeping the public informed, I shall arrange for a copy of this letter to be published on the Council’s website.

Yours sincerely

Trevor Scott Chief Executive

13 November 2025 – Nusrat Ghani MP letter to WDC

Dear Cllr Rachel Millward and Cllr James Partridge – Wealden District Council Leadership team,

In your letter dated 5th November 2025, in response to the one sent by me on behalf of myself, Mims Davies MP and Dr Kieran Mullen MP, you fail to respond to each of our points. Can you please respond to each and every point raised and get back to us.

In the letter dated 5th November, you suggest your inaction is because:
The land on which the Crowborough Training Camp is situated is Crown Land
The Home Office has used certain exceptions, which you do not specify. You, as the Local Planning authority, have no role to play in any necessary planning permission so you have in effect no power to object to the use of the Camp for occupation by 600 single male Asylum seekers. That as you know, or should know, is not in fact the case:

A – As I evidenced at the public meeting on Monday 10th November with examples of other Councils taking action.

B – With the Home Office officials stating at the meeting that the Planning Authority can take Legal Action ’before, during and after,`asylum seekers arrive.

C – With the previous Home Office Minister confirming the site was previously rejected and examples he gave of legal challenge options.

This letter requires a point by point response. If you do not know the answer, respond as such. If you haven’t yet asked the Home Office, respond as such. If you haven’t asked your legal team, respond as such.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 does apply to Crown Land and in general applications for planning permission for development of such land should be made to the Local Planning Authority by the ”Appropriate Authority“. Crown Land means land in which there is a Crown Interest or Duchy Interest. Crown Interest is defined in Section 293 of the Act in three ways of which the second applies here. That is an ”interest belonging to a government department or held in trust for His Majesty for the purposes of a government department.“

Section 293(2)(d) in the case of land owned by a Government Department as meaning that government department. This means that unless the ownership of the Camp has been transferred to the Home Office, the Appropriate Authority to make any necessary application for planning permission is the Ministry of Defence.

There is no doubt that pursuant to Section 55 of the Act which sets out the meaning of development and new development and that the change of use proposed for the Camp is a material change of use in the use of the buildings and other land comprised in the Camp and so requires planning permission.

The application by the Appropriate Authority should be made to the Local Planning Authority i.e. Wealden District Council unless one of the exceptions comprised in the Act apply. Those exceptions are set out in Section 293B of the Act which provides that where the appropriate authority intends to make an application, and the authority considers that the development to which the application relates is of national importance, and, that it is necessary that the development is carried out as a matter of urgency, the appropriate authority may make the application to the Secretary of State under this Section.

It is difficult to see why an application in this case would be of national importance or why it is necessary for the development to be carried out as a matter of urgency, but even if such an application has been made to the Secretary of State, there are statutory procedures to be followed before the application can be determined. The Secretary of State must decide that the Application is both of national importance and that it is necessary for the development to be carried out as a matter of urgency. If the Secretary of State does so determine she must notify the appropriate authority under sub section 5 of his decision that she will determine the application (not that she has determined the application) and must under sub section 7, send a copy of the notice given under sub section 5 to the local planning authority, to whom the application would otherwise have been given.

It follows that if the appropriate authority i.e. prima facie the Ministry of Defence has made an application under section 293B and the Secretary of State has agreed to determine the application then Wealden District Council will have been notified of that pursuant to sub section 7.

1 – Have you received any such notice?

2 – If so, when was it received?

3 – Did Wealden District Council make any representations in relation to it?

4 – If so, when and what representations were made? Pursuant to sub section 9 the Secretary of State may make provision for notice to be given of the application, as to the form and content of such notice and requiring the application to be publicised in such manner as the order may specify.

5 – Are you aware of any such provisions being made?

6 – And what representations did you make that the application should be publicised bearing in mind the fact that there would be many well justified local objections on safety, absence of adequate local infrastructure and general opposition to a development on the edge of the Ashdown Forest, an area comprised within the National landscape, a specially protected area, an area of Special Scientific Interest, and a special conservation area held by the Conservators subject to the provisions of the Ashdown Forest Act 1974 used by many for recreational purposes and where any commercial or other development is severely circumscribed because of the impact on the habitat and where there is an effective ban on any development within 400 meters of the Forest. The camp is within that distance.

7 – Have you met with, consulted or received objections or support from the Ashdown Forest Conservators? Under sub section 13 the Secretary of State may give directions to a local planning authority to do things in relation to an application made under section 293B that could otherwise have been made to that authority.

8 – These directions will typically include the erection of planning notices on the
boundaries of the site for a period of 21 days to allow for objections.

9 – It is not the case that objections are precluded or restricted in such an application. Have any such directions been made?

10 – What steps have you taken to ensure that objections are invited. The Government has produced guidance in relation to Crown Development and urgent Crown Development which was last updated on 12 May 2025.

11 – I am sure that you have seen and studied such guidance – can you confirm that? This makes it plain that the Camp is operational Crown Land owned, prima facie by the Ministry as set out above it is only if Section 293B of the Act is being used by the Appropriate Authority that the application for planning permission does not proceed to the local planning authority and strict requirements must be fulfilled if that is to be the case. The guidance states that the Secretary of State will only in general consider a development to be of National Importance if, in their
opinion, the development would:
(a) Involve the interests of national security or of foreign governments
(b) Contribute towards the provision of national public services or infrastructure, such as new prisons, defence or border infrastructure
(c) Support a response to international, national or regional civil emergencies;
(d) Or otherwise have significant economic or environmental effects and strong public interest at a regional or national level

It is difficult to see why any of these would apply. Clearly neither (a) nor (c) do.

The guidance suggests that there should be pre-application engagement with the local planning authority and with statutory and non-statutory consultees local communities and other government departments and agencies whose interests may be affected by the proposal. It is clear that local communities were not consulted and that local members of parliament were not either consulted or in fact kept informed. Other Councils in similar situations have held weekly
public meetings with stakeholders.

12 – Please share Wealden District Councils weekly engagement plan. It is unclear what level of support Wealden District Council has from any of the delivery partners to ensure that this project is safe, legal and compliant. As the lead partner who will directly receive funding for each asylum seeker housed in Crowborough, no doubt the Council has had several meetings to consult and assess how money will be allocated.

13 – Please share evidence by date when Wealden District Council has secured meetings and support from stakeholders for policing, health, fire and security. The guidance also sets out that once the application is complete the Crown Casework Team will send a notice to the relevant Members of Parliament. I have not received any such notice so that either means that there has been a breach of the guidance or the application is not yet complete.

14 – Do you know whether the application is complete as your public statements seem to suggest that it is and that as a consequence Wealden District Council as local planning authority is powerless? Section 293C provides that before any application under section 293B is determined the local planning authority must be consulted.

15 – Have you been consulted? If not, that suggests that the Secretary of State has not yet determined that the application should proceed under section 293B or that there has in fact been a breach of planning law. Do you know which? The guidance also provides that when the application is complete Wealden as local planning authority will be notified and will be required to place a site notice on or near the application site for 21 days. No such notice has been erected. This would suggest that you have not received any notice from the Planning Inspectorate. As local planning authority it is your responsibility to publish the application on the planning register. Nothing has been published thus far.

16 – Does that mean that you have not received any such notice? The planning inspectorate is also obliged as soon as reasonably practicable after notifying the appropriate authority that the application has been accepted the planning inspectorate publicise the application on the website and must consult the local planning authority.

17 – Have you been consulted and can you confirm that you will oppose the
application? It is clear from the guidance that the local planning authority is involved throughout the process and will be asked to provide relevant documents and information so that local planning considerations are considered appropriately by the planning inspectorate. This will include information on whether Community Infrastructure Levy is liable for the proposed development, relevant site history and planning policies.

18 – What has Wealden District Council shared to date?

19 – The local planning authority will also be required to assist with the hosting of hearings or inquiries. When will you be hosting these? Biodiversity net gain policies do apply to Crown Land Applications as do the Environmental Impact assessment Regulations 2017 in most cases.

20 – Please share what assessments you have sought and received?
The accelerated procedure for applications only applies where there is an urgent need for the Crown to undertake nationally important development.

21 – Have you received any notice that the Crown is intending to or has invoked this expedited procedure? It is clear that even where this expedited route is proposed or subsequently approved the Secretary of State will consult the local planning authority.

22 – If you have received notice this procedure is to be used, to what extent have you been consulted and what has been your response? It is also clear that Natural England, the Environment agency and various other NGOs will be consulted.

23 – Do you know the extent to which any of these bodies have been consulted? It would also seem likely that because of the location of the site the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations would apply to this application.

24 – Have you made any representations in this regard? All of these questions will help in collating evidence to legally fight the Home Office. You will no doubt want to help in that fight and therefore we need responses to the 24 questions raised by Monday 17th November. As the Home Office have made it clear, they are working at pace so we don’t have time to lose.

Kind regards,
Nusrat Ghani MP – Sussex Weald
Mims Davies MP – East Grinstead and Uckfield
Dr Kieren Mullen MP – Bexhill and Battle

Copied to:
Crowborough Town Mayor, Natalie Whittle
Cllr Ian Tysh
Cllr Alison Arthur
Cllr Jane Clark
Cllr Martyn Everitt
Cllr Andrew Wilson
Cllr Gareth Owen-Williams

The public meeting hosted by Crowborough Town Council and Wealden District Council, was a chance for residents to ask questions. Home Office representatives were in attendance about the proposed use of the Army Camp as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Some viewers may find the language during the public meeting to be offensive or inappropriate. The council does not endorse or condone any such language or conduct; the link is provided solely for transparency and public information.

Link to the meeting

We have been asked a lot about whether we are taking legal action against the decision by the Home Office to use Crowborough Army Camp to accommodate asylum seekers, so to be clear:

We have already written to the Home Office Minister to strongly object to these plans. 

We engaged the services of a leading King’s Counsel (a barrister) at the end of October to advise the council on all legal options available to us to challenge the decisions of the Home Office. This was communicated to Nus Ghani MP in our letter to her on 4th November. We are working at pace to hold the Home Office to account for and on behalf of, our residents. 

A Scrutiny and Performance meeting was held at the council today which welcomed the Home Office, Wealden councillors and Sussex Police. The meeting was put in place to give councillors and other services the chance to have questions answered by the Home Office surrounding the planned use of the army camp for asylum accommodation.

Watch the Scrutiny & Performance Committee meeting here.

The council still believe it is the wrong solution to use Crowborough Army Camp to house asylum seekers and are continuing to fight it.  The Home Office has apologised for its poor communication. 

Following our Scrutiny meeting this morning with the Home Office, the Leader of the Council, Councillor James Partridge, Deputy Leader of the Council Councillor Rachel Millward and Lead Councillor for Planning and Environment Councillor Ian Tysh will be in attendance at this evening’s meeting hosted by Nus Ghani MP regarding the Crowborough Army Camp. 

Tickets have now all gone for the meeting this Thursday (13 November), hosted at Crowborough Community Centre at 7.30pm but you can still participate in the meeting online. The link to the meeting for online watchers will be available on Thursday 13 November and we will put on this webpage and our socials. 

Tickets are now available for the public meeting at Crowborough Community Centre. This is for Crowborough residents only and tickets are on a first come, first serve basis. The meeting will also be available to watch and participate in online. The link will be made available the day of the meeting. 

The Home Office and Crowborough Town Council will be in attendance, to answer questions. Nus Ghani MP has also been invited to this meeting. 

Due to high demand, tickets have now all gone.  

Wealden District Council and Crowborough Town Council are inviting Crowborough residents to a public meeting to hear from the Home Office on the proposed use of the Crowborough Army Camp site for asylum accommodation.

The town council has been gathering questions and concerns raised by residents and will be sharing these with the Home Office ahead of the meeting to ensure key issues are addressed.

The meeting will take place on Thursday 13 November at 7.30pm at Crowborough Community Centre, with the option to attend in person or to watch online via live stream.

Wealden District Council and Crowborough Town Council will host the session, and representatives from the Home Office will be in attendance. The meeting will include an update from the Home Office, responses to the main questions submitted so far, and time for further questions on new or emerging matters.

To ensure the meeting runs safely and smoothly, in-person attendance will be managed through a free ticket system. As seating is limited and demand is expected to be high, residents are encouraged to join online where possible.

Details on how to book tickets and how to access the live stream will be
released shortly.

More information can be found on the Wealden District Council website or on the government’s website.

The leader of the council met with the Home Office yesterday to push them to provide more answers.

In the meantime, a Scrutiny & Performance Committee meeting will be held in the Hailsham Civic Centre, where the topic of the Crowborough Army Camp will be discussed. It will be held on Monday 10 November 2025 at 10am.

This meeting will be live cast and available to watch online.

Members of the public will not have the opportunity to speak in this meeting, however they are welcome to watch in-person or online.

04 November 2025 – Letter to Nusrat Ghani MP

Ms Nusrat Ghani MP
MP for Sussex Weald and Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
By email: nusrat.ghani.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Ms Nusrat Ghani MP
CC: Ms Mims Davies MP, Dr Kieran Mullan MP

We acknowledge your letter of the 29th October 2025. Unfortunately, it is full of
misinformation and misleading assertions.

Wealden District Council has not agreed anything with the Home Office. In fact, we were not even told the decision before the public announcement. This is a decision of the Home Office made by the relevant Minister without consultation with this, or any other, council. Your repeated claim that Wealden District Council have been in secret negotiations with the Home Office, and that we have it exclusively within our power to stop the use of the camp is both deeply misleading and profoundly unhelpful for our communities. At a time when
tensions run high across the nation on the subject of immigration, the complete failure of the Home Office to communicate their plans with the public has led to much public anxiety about being kept in the dark and not properly considered. Your fabricated blame of Wealden District Council has merely escalated community tensions and led to personal attack.

As you will be aware, the County Council were in the same confidential briefing as our senior offices on October 10th, and the Home Office informed our officers that Sussex Police and East Sussex Fire and Rescue Service would also be brought into confidence.

As you are also aware, this council wrote to the Home Office with a detailed list of concerns, including an emphasis on the need for thorough communication and community engagement, questions about resourcing public services at a time when they are already under strain, and concerns for the occupation and well-being of asylum seekers given their lack of right to work. We did not receive a response to this letter, but civil servants did indicate to our officers that a full communications plan and community engagement programme would be conducted before the decision was made. We are appalled that our communities have been so badly let down already. When the news broke, you immediately anointed Wealden District Council as the lead agency. You also spoke with absolute certainty that the site is not credible.

We ask that you share with us the evidence that you have for this, and the previous assessments that led to the successful use of the site for 250 Afghan refugees from December 2023 to November 2024.

You have repeatedly asserted to the public that we have planning powers to stop this project. But you are aware the Crowborough Training Camp is Crown land and the Home Office have availed themselves of the exemption this affords to not submit a planning application. Despite your public assertion to the contrary, it is not possible to issue a stop notice when planning law has not been breached.

It is worth noting that whilst we share community services with the County Council, none of our other statutory services will be directly required. The County Council however will be involved with regards to adult social care and public health; this page highlights the support they give to migrants: Migrants, asylum seekers and refugees | East Sussex County Council

We believe that the Police have already applied for more funding to resource consequent local need but do not have any further information on concessions. The District Council will not have any responsibility with regard to adapting or managing the site.

Now that the record is set straight, we ask that you consider working constructively with this council, the County Council, the Police and Fire Services – to share information, to assess the suitability of the home offices proposal and to consider options and next steps. We firmly believe that when challenges arise, we should work cross-party for the good of our communities. In the absence of any such action from the Home Office, we have already invited the County Council, Police and Fire Services to a meeting, as well as requesting that the Home Office attend a public meeting. We are also seeking legal advice as to whether there are any avenues to challenge the decision of the Home Office.

We invite you to attend a meeting with us at your earliest convenience to begin this new way of working together. Our communities deserve the best of us.

Cllr James Partridge

Leader of the council and Governance, Waste and Economy Portfolio Holder 

Cllr Rachel Millward

Deputy leader of the council and Local Culture, Community and Communications Portfolio Holder

31 October 2025 – Alex Norris MP

Alex Norris MP
Minister of State (Home Office)
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
By email:alex.norris.mp@parliament.uk

Dear Alex
Re: Use of Crowborough Army Training Centre (Crowborough Camp) as alternative asylum accommodation. 

We are writing to state our strong objection to the decision you have taken to use
Crowborough Army Camp as a temporary location for 600 asylum seekers, because the dire mismanagement of the situation is already causing major problems, and because we simply do not have information to reassure us that the wellbeing and safety of both asylum seekers and local communities will be properly safeguarded.

As you know, our council was not told that you had made this decision until after the news was leaked to the press. Along with East Sussex County Council we received a strictly confidential briefing on 10th October in which our officers learned that you were considering using the Camp. We raised significant concerns about the suitability of the site, but we were told that any decision about its use was a matter for you, and you alone, as Minister.

Following that briefing we wrote to you and highlighted various concerns – quite clearly accommodating 600 men on one site with no right to work brings significant risks. We had concerns about staffing resource at the camp, about police provision and about the additional strain on already over-stretched public services. Crucially, we clarified that it would be essential for the Home Office to communicate any plans properly and meaningfully with local residents. We requested you engage with all relevant public sector partners, eg with the Town Council, relevant stakeholder groups, local MPs, the voluntary sector and the local community itself. We were assured this would happen. We were told we would be able to meet you on site so that, as local leaders, we could discuss concerns ahead of your decision.

Your team assured us that all of this would happen and that a proper plan for community engagement would be shared prior to any decision being taken by you or any announcement made. Yet you announced your decision on Monday without having met any of those commitments. This is an act of bad faith.

Since your unilateral decision was unceremoniously leaked, worried residents have inundated the council and individual councillors with letters and emails raising significant and valid points of concern. We take no account of any racist or politically motivated communications that have also been received. Local MPs are outraged that you chose not to tell them in advance, and are repeatedly sharing misinformation about our involvement. Local stakeholders are angered by the complete lack of communication or consultation.

We note your position that you can use the relevant provision in the General Permitted Development Order 2015 to circumvent the need to make a formal planning application to this council. Your commitment to public engagement is an acknowledgement that consultation was necessary in practice despite not being required in law. It is therefore regrettable – putting it mildly – that you reneged on that commitment.

We observed your request for confidentiality only to see this breached by a leak to the media which we trust is being investigated. Did it come from within the Home Office? The leak resulted in an increase in community tensions, and the spread of misinformation. This has escalated to threats to personal wellbeing of council leadership. These tensions will only continue to rise as we get nearer the proposed opening of the site.

Please do not underestimate the gravity of the situation here. The Home Office’s lack of presence locally is lamentable. Given your and your team’s total failure to keep the promises made and the now obvious consequences of that failure, it is essential that you reverse your decision.

Yours sincerely
Cllr James Partridge
Leader of the Council and Governance, Waste and Local Economy Portfolio Holder

Cllr Rachel Millward
Deputy Leader of the Council and Culture, Community and Communications Portfolio
Holder

An update on the decision by the Home Office to use the Crowborough Army Barracks to house asylum seekers.

Wealden District Council, Sussex NHS and East Sussex County Council were notified confidentially, in a Teams call,  by the Home Office on 10 October that it was considering the use of the Crowborough Training Camp as a site for transitional accommodation for asylum seekers from late November. The Home Office confirmed that they would be briefing the Police and Fire Service separately.

In our meeting with the Home Office they made it clear that the information they were sharing was to remain confidential and that we should not share further.

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 28th October after the news had broken in the national media the previous night. 

The decision to use the site was made by the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. The Home Office are the lead agency for resettlement. Wealden District Council was not involved in negotiation with the Home Office on the use of the site. The Home Office have indicated that the council has no direct role in supporting asylum seekers after their arrival.

We and our local public sector partners have been pressing the Home Office for further details on their proposals and assurances that the necessary arrangements will be put in place to ensure that their proposals have as little impact on the community, in particular on community tensions, as soon as possible.  We continue to press them on this.

28 October 2025 – Nusrat Ghani MP

Dear Ms Ghani

We are writing in response to your statement on the media reports today regarding the temporary use by the Home Office of the Crowborough Training Camp to house asylum seekers.

Wealden and other local public sector partners (including Police, Fire, NHS and County Council) were notified confidentially by the Home Office on 10 October that it was considering the use of the Crowborough Training Camp as a site for transitional accommodation for asylum seekers from late November 2025.

The first written confirmation, in the form of a briefing note for the council and key partners by Home Office officials, was received late morning today, over 12 hours after the news had broken in the national media.

The Home Office stressed the confidential nature of this information (including today’s briefing note). During these briefings, when we pressed the Home Office that you, as the local MP, should be notified we were informed that this was a matter for the Home Office.

The Home Office have indicated that they are the lead agency for resettlement and that any decisions regarding the use of the Crowborough Training Camp are made by the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office alone. The Home Office have also indicated that the council has no direct role in supporting asylum seekers after their arrival.

Notwithstanding this, the council and our local public sector partners have been pressing the Home Office for further details on their proposals and assurances that the necessary arrangements will be put in place to ensure that their proposals have as little impact on the community, in particular on community tensions, as possible. We will continue to press them on this.

We wrote to the Minister of State for Migration and Citizenship on 22 October 2025 to make it clear that local people will be rightly concerned about the effect which using Crowborough Camp as asylum accommodation will have on them on the wider area and to urge him to plan accordingly, including through proactive communication with our community. We are yet to receive a response. A copy of the letter is attached.

It was therefore disappointing that the council were not given advance notice that the news would be made public so that we could work with the Home Office and other partners to provide our residents with the information and assurances they deserve. We have also pressed the Home Office on the plans for consultation, which although mentioned in the national media, has not been discussed with us to date.

We have nevertheless today worked at pace to issue information in the form of a dedicated webpage and FAQs, which can be found at www.wealden.gov.uk/crowborough-army-camp.

We are keen to work with all partners to ensure that our community receives all the support it needs to deal with the decision of the Home Office.

Yours sincerely

Cllr James Partridge
Leader of the Council and Governance, Waste and Local Economy Portfolio Holder

Home Office notifies council of its planned temporary use of Crowborough army camp for asylum accommodation centre  

The Home Office has told Wealden District Council and other local service providers that it intends to use the Camp as a temporary asylum accommodation centre for up to 12 months from the end of November 2025. 

The Home Office indicates that they intend to accommodate up to 600 single adults.

Wealden District Council understands that the aim is to utilise the site in order to help reduce the number of asylum seekers being accommodated in hotels.

Cllr James Partridge, who is leader of Wealden District Council and lives in Crowborough, said: 

“I have written to the Secretary of State for Migration and Citizenship to make it clear that local people will be rightly concerned about the effect which using Crowborough Camp as asylum accommodation will have on them and the wider area and to urge him to plan accordingly. I believe we should work with the Home Office to ensure their plans are as effective as possible and there is as little impact on the community as possible. We will continue to discuss the situation with other local service providers and to press the Home Office to make sure that the site runs well within our local community, as it did in 2023, when we welcomed people from Afghanistan”.

22 October 2025 – Mike Tapp MP

Dear Mike Tapp MP, Minister for Migration and Citizenship

Re: Use of Crowborough Army Training Centre (Crowborough Camp) as alternative asylum accommodation

As you will know, our council was informed on Friday 10 October that the Home Office intends to use Crowborough Camp as accommodation for up to 600 asylum seekers arriving in the UK by small boat.

Some local people will be concerned about the sudden addition of up to 600 people to the population without adequate activities and facilities, for the reasons set out below. Rumours have already spread and there are signs of community tension. We are therefore writing to set out our concerns, confirm our understanding of the proposals, and to ensure that we and all local partners are fully consulted as plans emerge.

We believe clear and transparent communication with the local community is vital, led by the Home Office, but in conjunction with us. We urge you to be proactive with your communication with the local community, not least to address the myths already circulating and the resulting rise in community tension. We are keen to work with you to inform our community and ensure that  their questions are answered. Our communications team is available to work with your teams. Whilst we appreciate early sight of the plans, we urge you to move forward rapidly with public announcements, providing as much information as possible and committing to ongoing public dialogue. Local people with concerns should have no doubt where to go to ask questions and find reassurance.

There will be local concerns about the impact on public services. Our understanding is that you are working with the local NHS and transport providers to establish additional dedicated facilities for the site. While we agree that residents need services, it is essential that planners understand the scarcity of local services and the real risk of enhanced community tensions if this is not adequately and sensitively managed, as it will be seen as disadvantaging local people. We request that these services be offered in a way that benefits the local community, ideally through direct access, helping to drive integration and dampen tensions.

Wealden is a quiet, rural area with few services and very low crime levels, meaning local police services are comparatively sparse and focused through the rural crime team on issues specific to Wealden. Sussex Police must be properly funded to ensure that resources are available to protect everyone—the public, service users at the camp, and staff alike—and to provide a police presence that reassures local people.

We understand that a separate company will manage this site with on-site Home Office oversight, building on the experience of managing the two other active MOD sites nationally. We have been reassured that lessons have been learned and that the team recognizes that different challenges may arise at Crowborough, requiring ongoing dialogue with local stakeholders. We stand ready to participate in those discussions, though we would ask that the Home Office suitably compensate us for this work.

We are pleased that your team recognizes the need for service users to have a range of activities available on-site. We ask that you see this as an opportunity to leave a legacy for the MOD and Cadets who will return in twelve months—perhaps ensuring that any investment in facilities benefits both sets of users. We would like to discuss what is planned off-site, as local amenities are quite limited and may not be suitable for service users.

Crowborough is a strong community that proactively welcomed many Ukrainian and Afghan refugees in recent years. We reaffirm this council’s commitment to helping the Home Office connect with the many active community groups who would be a positive resource.

We recognise that the Home Office is not seeking our permission to use the Camp for this purpose, but we are keen to work with you to ensure your plans are as effective as possible and the impact on the community is carefully managed. We welcomed the opportunity for our officers to meet with your operational teams and hope this partnership working can continue.

Yours faithfully,

JP – Leader, Wealden District Council