Crowborough Army Camp Previous Statements

15 May 2026- Letter to Alex Norris from WDC

Dear Minister Norris,

I’m writing further to my letter that was emailed to you on 30 April regarding the length of use of the temporary asylum accommodation at Crowborough Army Camp.

Given the urgency of this matter and the simplicity of my question, it is disappointing to find we are now two weeks on and I’ve yet to receive a response from you.

Throughout our communications on this matter, you have stated categorically that the MOD need the site back in line with the terms of the MOTO and therefore you would be vacating the site after no more than 12 months occupation.

Please can you now urgently respond to confirm that you will be vacating this site, as per all your previous statements, at the 12 month point and that you can reassure us and residents
that you won’t be seeking to extend your period of occupation despite the statement from your accounting officer to the contrary.
Yours sincerely
Cllr James Partridge
Deputy Leader of the Council and Portfolio Holder for
Governance, Waste and Local Economy

16 March 2026 – letter to Dame Bradley from Wealden District Council

Dear Dame Bradley,

Subject: Use of Crowborough Training Camp for asylum accommodation

Thank you for your letter of 25 March 2026, in which you seek the views of my Council about the Home Office decision to utilise the Crowborough Training Camp for asylum
accommodation.

We realise that accommodating asylum seekers is a huge problem for the government and that there is no easy solution.

We also realise that experience in other places shows that using sites for this purpose will meet strong local opposition and is, operationally, a complicated undertaking. This may explain why, in Crowborough’s case, the Home Office was so secretive. The result of this was to create uncertainty and a situation which: carries a high risk of public disorder and injury to people and property; has created distrust in local and national government; and
makes most local people very uneasy and a significant number afraid.

Some of this could have been avoided and other elements mitigated, if the Home Office had promptly provided much more information to, and engaged directly with, local agencies, politicians at every level and local people. Not doing so has made the situation much more difficult to manage for everyone, both short and long term, than it needed to be.

I attach a detailed response to your questions on behalf of the Council. However, if the government persists in using these large-scale camps despite all the evidence that these are not the right solution, then in summary, our key recommendations would be:

(a) Proactive communication is essential. The Home Office needs to develop communications and engagement plans in consultation with the local authorities and public sector agencies prior to any announcement being made; and then deliver all the actions in that plan on time and in an open and honest way;

(b) The Home Office needs to put in place proactive measures to ensure all aspects of operating a site are in place prior to any occupation of the site. This explicitly includes but is not limited to providing funding for all local authorities ahead of occupation,
work with the voluntary sector should be completed so that support is ready to go from the first arrival, all activities on the site should be in place, transport to and from the site for occupants should be agreed and active, and funding to police and other agencies should be agreed and in place prior to occupation.

(c) The Home Office should have all plans and policies agreed, in place, and practised prior to occupation of the site. Senior officers and I would be happy to attend a meeting of the committee to explore this further, should this be of use.

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

When was Wealden Council first informed that the Home Office was considering using Crowborough Training Camp for housing asylum seekers?
Wealden senior officers, and other local public sector partners including East Sussex County Council, were first told this at a confidential briefing on 10 October 2025.

Did you have any discussions with the Home Office about the potential use of the site for asylum accommodation as part of the previous Government’s large sites programme?
No. There were no discussions with Wealden about this and we were not told it was being considered.

What level of engagement and communication have you had from the Home Office and Clearsprings Ready Homes on the set up and management of Crowborough?
It is best to split this question into the various phases – pre-announcement, pre decision, the decision and the operational phase. In summary, the level of communication and engagement by the Home Office has been very low. The Home Office have refused to engage with us effectively, share documents and information or engage with our local community and residents. That vacuum in communication has undoubtedly contributed to heightened community tensions and made the entire handling of this site and situation significantly more difficult for everyone than it needed to be. If the Select Committee wishes to get a flavour of the situation, we have published all communications that we had with the Home Office on our website. The concerns we raised about the lack of information and communication and the harm this was doing to
our communities will become evident very quickly.

We would also ask that the Committee looks at the role of MPs in communication about sites and recommend that the Home Office learns from our bad experience. From the outset, the local MP has made statements to the press and local community that are
misleading and seem designed to cause anger and anxiety for political gain. Rather than working with us as the local Council, the MP has made the situation considerably worse.

In terms of the various phases, we can provide more detail as follows:

Pre-announcement
The Council (along with other local agencies) was first notified that the Home Office were considering use of the site as part of a confidential briefing on 10 October. At that briefing, the Home Office committed to the Council and other local partners that
they would develop and share a communications and engagement plan with us before they made their plans public. This did not happen. Overnight between the 27th and 28th of October, following what we were told was a leak from within the Home Office, Home Office officials briefed members of the press about their plans. They did not inform the Council (or, we understand, other
local agencies) of their change in stance.

Pre-decision
The level of engagement as part of the Home Office decision making continued to be very low. The Home Office repeatedly assured us thy would engage with the local community, be proactive with their communication and provide information to the Council and other
local partners. However, the only events Home Office officials attended in that time were ones organised by us or the MP, being remote attendance at a Scrutiny Committee meeting and at two public meetings with residents and the Town Council. These meetings and the replies from the Home Office did nothing to allay local concerns.

From early on, the Council was being wrongly blamed for being behind the plans for the camp by elements of the local community (including by the local MP). This caused division and, by extension, real danger for our staff and Councillors (across party lines). The Council was in the invidious position of being entirely cut out of the decision-making process by the Home Office, whilst, at the same time, being blamed for every decision of the Home Office. Despite privately acknowledging this tension, the Home Office did nothing to counter this narrative, allowing community anger with the Council and, in turn, community division, to increase.

Throughout its planning, the Home Office only put in writing the most basic version of its plans, namely the public facing factsheet on the ‘.Gov’ website. We could not secure a meeting with Minister Norris until 25th November. There, we raised our significant concerns about how things had been handled up until that point and what needed to change to improve things going forward. The Minister assured us that documents would be shared with us in draft form in December but it subsequently transpired that Home Office officials blocked this. Many of the decision-making documents have not been provided to the public or the Council even now. (We have still not received a copy of the evacuation plan of the site, some two months after the site opened – despite regular and repeated requests by us and other local agencies).

In November 2025, the Home Office (working with the MOD and their contractors) started works to make the camp ready for the arrival of asylum seekers. The Home Office refused to share details of these works with the Council in advance, necessitating planning enforcement investigations and further increasing community tension.

The Decision
Throughout late 2025, the Council and other local service providers had been seeking assurances from Home Office officials that local partners would be informed in a timely way of any Ministerial decision to use the site and given a time window between that decision and first asylum seekers arriving at the camp. In the run up to Christmas 2025, there were lots of rumours that the Home Office might make the decision and open the camp during the Christmas break. The Council, Police and other local agencies pushed the Home Office to be clear about its intentions. Despite the significant rise in community tension that this created, the Home Office did not provide clarity on this until 16th December, over two months since planning for the site began and over a month before the eventual opening. The Home Office repeatedly assured the Operational Working Group (OWG) of local partner agencies that, once the decision was made, they would be given at least seven days’ notice before asylum seekers arrived and that a communications plan would be in place to help manage that event.

We were told clearly that asylum seekers were only to arrive at the site during day light and only with notice to the Council. All agencies (including the Home Office) recognised not only the potential for enhanced community tension and unrest around the event and the need to plan for it carefully and in a coordinated way, but also the importance of balancing the approach to tension for that one day against the concerns, fears ad trust of the community for the following months of operation.

What transpired was the complete opposite. On the 21 January 2026, the Minister telephoned the Council Leader to inform him that he had made the decision to use the camp and that first asylum seekers would be arriving at the camp within days. At 3am the next morning, just a matter of hours later, under the cover of darkness, the site was made operational and the first asylum seekers were bussed into the camp.

As we and our local public sector partners had been warning the Home Office, this worsened community tension and increased the public’s doubt about whether they can believe what we or they are told by the Home Office or, by implication, any of the local agencies.

The operational phase
In the two months since the first asylum seekers arrived at the camp, communication and engagement have been slightly better, but large and concerning gaps remain. Engagement with near neighbour residents has finally started with the first small groups of local residents visiting the site. The Parish forum promised in November met in March. We cannot see why this engagement could not have happened much sooner. It could have significantly helped to reduce community tension. One of the most difficult ongoing issues is the countering of made-up stories, false rumours and half-truths (Disinformation).

The Home Office approach has been to deal with matters with the national press while ignoring the local impact. Put simply, they may stop a story appearing in the Mail or the Guardian, but if it is still on every local social media group, local news outlet and every local conversation then, without a public statement or correction from the Home Office, it will inevitably raise tension and risk being a trigger for unrest.

There is significant local and national interest in the camp. Whilst the Council understands that the Home Office do not want to provide a running commentary on operations, there is a vacuum of information which is just being filled by Disinformation. We have asked the Home Office to consider some form of regular communication channel aimed at supporting the local community through the provision of timely, accurate information. We would encourage your committee to consider the positive impact such regular communications would have in easing community tensions. To be clear, this does not need to share any personal data, or be hugely detailed, but a broad assessment of site capacity and events. It should both give contact details of whom local people can contact should they have additional enquiries and be kept up to date. It would also provide an opportunity to counter the Disinformation that circulates so readily on social media.

The Home Office will often point to the Fact Sheet on the .Gov website. However, there have only been two versions published in approaching six months (one in October and an
update when the site opened in January). The update itself raised questions and tensions in the community – for example, the October version stated very clearly that the site would be used for up to 12 months; the January version removed this timeline – instead saying that it is a “temporary measure”. We are told that the factual position has not changed, but as no further communication has come from the Home Office, the community are left to draw their own conclusions.

Has the Home Office asked for information about the capacity of local services that might be impacted by the use of this site for asylum accommodation?
At the first meetings with the Council and other local service providers, we all made it clear that there is very limited capacity to support the proposed number of additional residents in such a short timeframe. The Home Office refused to share its internal assessment of the impact or its detailed plans to plan for alternative service provision in advance of making its decision.

As a result, working with the other local agencies (Sussex Police, NHS, East Sussex County Council and East Sussex Fire Rescue Service), we produced a Community Impact Assessment (CIA). This was written on the basis of the information shared with partners, orally at OWG meetings (orally, as, despite requests, the Home Office refused to share information in writing). The Home Office provided some feedback on early drafts of this work, but despite the assessment raising continued concerns and gaps in information, the Home Office refused to properly engage, often directing local agencies to oral discussion rather than putting anything in writing. Prior to the decision, the CIA represented the best understanding of the local partners about the Home Office plans. It represented the main source of written information, based on our shared understanding of the Home Office oral commitments.

In what turned out to be the final days before the decision to use the camp, the Home Office made clear that they did not agree with assumptions in the CIA – the basis of local service planning – but would not share in writing which parts or to what extent.

Local service providers were left uncertain about what the Home Office was planning, risking services being provided in ways that would not align with the operation of the camp.

Following the decision by the Home Office to open the camp, the local agencies agreed to stop work on the CIA. The document was intended to inform the Home Office decision making and so was redundant. As the document contains information owned by the Home Office, who claim it to be flawed, we and other agencies are not in a position to share it publicly.

Is the Council receiving adequate information about the number of people being accommodated at the site?
Unlike some of the local agencies (NHS, ESCC), our services as a Council do not rely on us knowing significant information about the residents of the site. The Home Office have provided a regular update on the number of residents at the camp, on a confidential basis. We do not need more than this, but as stated above, are keen for the Home Office to share regular, basic and high-level information with the public, to help counter Disinformation.

Has the Home Office outlined any funding it will provide to the Council, and what this funding decision was based on?
We received confirmation from the Home Office on 8 April 2026 that we would be provided funding under the Funding Instruction for Local Authorities: Asylum Grant financial year 2026/2027. However, the guidance that the HO has shared explicitly excludes large sites such as Crowborough from being eligible for this funding. WDC have sought clarification from HO officials on this and received an email on 8th April 2026 to confirm that the Crowborough site would fall within the terms of that grant system. They also confirmed that the Wethersfield site is an exception and will receive greater funding that the Crowborough site, but we have yet to receive an explanation for why that site is being treated differently. The grant system confirms that we would receive our first tranche of funding at the end of June 2026 – over five months after the camp opening.

This is a significant flaw in the operation of the grant funding system. If the Home Office is serious about the role of local authorities in helping to manage and mitigate the impacts of these large camps on the local community, then funding should be provided up front and we should have an opportunity to be proactive in spending money on activities that will help prevent issues arising, rather than being given money after the event. Like much of this whole process, it is indicative of a mindset that local authorities are a secondary afterthought and that the Home Office are really only interested in getting sites open.

We would also comment that the handling of the financial situation has been another source of community tension, often stoked by elected representatives. It has been said that this Council has received bribes from the Home Office, that we want the camp opened for the money etc. It has been alleged that the Home Office told the MP and others several months before about the funding, so for the Home Office to only confirm funding arrangements so late in the day and to lack transparency about the basis upon which the
money can be spent has once again added to local community tension.

What additional costs is the Council incurring as a result of the site, and is any funding from the Home Office sufficient to cover these?
As above, the Home Office have not provided the Council any funding to date, nor commitment (at the time of writing) to any particular amount moving forwards. The Council is not keeping a running total of the full cost impact on our services as a result of the Home Office decision, as much of this cost is officer time, as opposed to direct expenditure. However, it is fair to reflect that this issue has dominated the activities of the Council ever since the media briefing back in October. The level of public anger, the volume of enquiries, emails, local conversations, resident complaints, social media posts, emails to councillors etc. has been at a level never experienced before and which we were not geared up to manage. As an example, since October the Council has so far dealt with 64 Freedom of Information requests in relation to the site, compared to 459 for all other Council services combined during the same time. We have officers engaged in multiple meetings every week, with local agencies, the community and Home Office. The Council is keen to do more to support the community, volunteer groups and the site users. Whilst the Council remains of the view that the site is not the right solution, given it is open, we are keen to help every part of our community deal with the impacts. This requires funding from the Home Office.

Do you have any specific concerns about the suitability of the site for use as asylum accommodation? If so, have you raised these with the Home Office or Clearsprings,
and how have they responded?

Yes. The Council has from the start raised concerns about the suitability of the site for asylum accommodation, both with Home Office officials and, via the Council’s leadership, direct with the Minister. In November 2025 the Council passed unanimously a motion at Full Council to oppose the site. The concerns the Council had about the suitability of the site included:

(a) An in principle objection to the use of these sites for all the reasons set out in detail by various migrant charities that large camps of this nature are not the correct solution for anyone,
(b) the sparse and poorly equipped nature of the site and its accommodation,
(c) the lack of connectivity from the site to the local town or surrounding urban areas,
(d) the lack of information from the Home Office driving local fears about safety and security of the site and the local community; and
(e) the displacement of the local Cadets from the site and the loss of their regionally essential training facilities. The Cadets have been a long serving and important part of the town, and they were treated poorly and very much as an afterthought by the Home Office. 

We also met with the Minister (albeit much later than we would have expected) to inform him directly of our concerns about the site and to invite him to a site visit with us to explore these. That offer was never taken up. We are surprised that no minister at the Home Office has taken the time to do this.

The Home Office has, for the most part, not entered into a discussion with the Council about our concerns, but has just “noted” them and made decisions which show little sign of them having been taken on board. As set out in the answers above, the Home Office simply refused to provide their assessment of the issues or impact until the site was operational.

Does the Council feel it has been sufficiently supported throughout the set-up of this site?
No. As will be clear from our answers above, the Council feels that it has been and continues to be badly let down by the Home Office and some other stakeholders. The Council was and remains opposed to the use of the site.

However, we have also had to accept that, if they follow the correct process correctly, the Home Office are empowered to make decisions about the use of the camp. Whilst we may not like it, we will still work in the interests of our community to ensure that the site has the smallest possible impact on our community and that residents of the camp are supported appropriately. Despite regular assurances around engagement and communications, the Home Office have failed us and our communities. Had the Home Office engaged with us in an open and transparent way, then, despite our objections to the use of the site, the decision and use of this site could have been managed in a way that had much less of an impact on the local community.

The Council also considers that some other stakeholders have not helped support the Council or the community during this process.

The MP for the site has repeatedly said or implied that the site is a Wealden plan and/or that we are making decisions alongside the Home Office. As you will know, this is simply incorrect. The local PCC, rather than seeking to calm community tensions, openly attended a protest march, making comments calling for the camp to be run in a way which would be unlawful.

Whilst we respect that others will hold different political views, as locally elected officials it is important that they help to calm community tensions and work with the Council, not seek to blame the Council at every turn.

Are you satisfied with the way in which the Home Office and Clearsprings have engaged with the local community about the site?
No. As explored above, the level of engagement with the local community has been very poor. The first meeting of local residents only took place after the site had been open for two months and only because the Council insisted and supported the Home Office to make the arrangements.

The Home Office made commitments (when attending a public meeting virtually in November) to set up forums for local residents, a wider group of Town and Parish Councillors and to undertake better engagement with all local politicians. The majority of this simply did not happen until long after the site opened and only when pushed by ourselves and other local agencies. Some of it has still not happened.

The Home Office have also been very slow to allow access for volunteer groups to the camp. From the very first conversations, the Home Office were clear about how important this was to the success of the camp – both for its residents and the impact on the wider community. It is built into their plans for the site (shared with WDC confidentially after the decision), but for the first two months of asylum seekers being on site, no such access was granted, meaning that services essential to the running of the site and managing the
impact on the community were simply not provided.

Did you encounter any difficulties or challenges when the site was in use as transitional accommodation for resettled Afghans? If so, has the Home Office taken action to ensure similar challenges do not arise from using this site for asylum accommodation?
No. The site was run in a very different way by the MOD, with much more access to decision making, open discussions between the MOD and partner agencies and wide and varied volunteer support. Whilst not universal, the overwhelming local view of the MOD/Afghan family use of the site was positive. There was a higher level of integration with the community and, where minor issues arose, they were dealt with openly. It certainly helped that the occupants of the site were families and so the fears and concerns of the local community were considerably less. However, the Home Office refused to acknowledge this fundamental difference. They refused to engage in a conversation about how to address the concerns of the local community about the camp being occupied entirely by adult men.

The approach of the Home Office from the start has been to close down communication, to appear distrustful of the wider public sector and to withhold information and so cause community tension and reduce integration.

Wealden District Council
16 April 2026

25 March 2026 -Letter to WDC from Home Office – Crown consent request

Dear Mr Bending

WDC’s request for Crown consent under section 296A Town and Country Planning Act 1990: Crowborough Training Camp, East Sussex (“Crowborough”)

I refer to your letter of 10 December 2025 to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence. I am replying in a delegate capacity for the Home Secretary and since your incoming letter, I have been seeking legal advice and liaising with the Ministry of Defence – I am aware they have since responded to you separately.

Since this initial letter of correspondence to the Home Office, Crowborough Training Camp is now operational as an alternative asylum accommodation site. As set out in correspondence to the local authority on 21 st January 2025, the Home Office commenced development of the premises under Class Q, Part 19 permitted development rights.

The Secretary of State continues to be fully aware of the need to ensure that there is a lawful planning basis for the use of Crowborough, and that the requirements of both the EIA and Habitats Regulations are satisfied. The Home Office is committed to working collaboratively with you and has provided all relevant information and documents for you to understand the basis of planning permission. My team has already:

• Provided a copy Of the MHCLG screening direction
• Offered and arranged a site visit for key members of your team

I am confident that the information provided to date and the Home Office’s ongoing engagement is sufficient to satisfying the public interest concerns you raise in your letter. My team remains open to discussing any further concerns with you.

The form of consent sought allows the Council to bring enforcement action against the Secretary of State. The consent sought anticipates (a) that breaches will be identified by you and (b) that that you will have to resort to enforcement action via the courts.

Where no breach has been identified and where the Home Office is constructively engaging with you, it is clearly not in the public interest to grant the consent sought and open the door to expensive legal proceedings where the taxpayer will bear the costs on both sides.

In this circumstance, the Home Office does not consider there is any good reason to depart from the starting point established by section 296A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

As indicated above, the Home Office recognises WDC’s duties and would welcome further engagement to ensure that they can be met. I am aware that representatives from WDC have visited the site already for these purposes. Therefore, having considered the proposal set out in your letter of 10 December, the Secretary of State does not consent to the local planning authority taking any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crowborough at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Larter

Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director

Home Office

03 March 2026 – Letter from Home Office regarding EIA screening direction

Dear Cllr Partridge & Cllr Millward,

Thank you for your letter of 21 January regarding the Crowborough site, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) issued Environmental Impact Assessment screening direction.

As you are aware, the Crowborough site began accommodating asylum seekers from 22 January 2026. The Crowborough site provides basic, safe accommodation for asylum seekers and is designed to be as self-sufficient as possible.

We continue to engage with the police and other key delivery partners. Local councillors are invited on-site to assess the local security requirements of the site operation; further details will be sent shortly.

I recognise the strength of feeling in the wider community and we will continue to engage with the local community through updated factsheets and closed events for the residents living nearest to the site. We will also continue to assess opportunities for the Home Office to attend appropriate public meetings. The Home Office continues to brief a wide range of stakeholders, including voluntary sector and faith groups, to help provide public reassurance and counter mis/dis-information.

The MHCLG screening decision sets out how the requirements relating to the environment for using Class Q have been satisfied. This decision should provide you, the local authority, with the necessary basis to discharge its obligations. Disclosure of further documents relevant to legal proceedings has been handled separately. However, if you believe there are specific concerns regarding the robustness of the screening, please set these out formally so we can refer them back to MHCLG where appropriate.

We can confirm that conversations have taken place with Crawley Town Council, and shuttlebuses are in place offering regular transport off the site away from the local town of Crowborough. Asylum seekers at the site are not detained; however, in addition to shuttlebuses, the site is self-contained as essential services are provided on site to reduce the impact on local services through reducing the need for asylum seekers to leave the site.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) continues to support local Cadet Forces in identifying and securing alternative training locations. The Army Cadets, No 8 Crowborough Detachment, are now parading twice a week at a community site in Crowborough. The other Cadet Forces are assessing alternative locations. We fully recognise the value cadets bring to the local community and the importance of ensuring these activities continue with minimal disruption.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Norris MP
Minister for Border Security & Asylum

Following the court’s decision last week to reject a Judicial Review of the Government’s decision to house asylum seekers at Crowborough Army Camp, Wealden District Council has received ongoing legal advice from its King’s Counsel team and in line with that has decided that it will not be pursuing or supporting any further legal action.

Wealden District Council has been advised that to pursue a new Judicial Review against the Home Office is unlikely to achieve anything of practical value and that a claim could potentially be counterproductive. The council’s view is it would be morally wrong to stay silent about this legal advice, because to do so would raise false hope and would likely be a waste of taxpayer’s money.

The council has always been strongly opposed to the use of the site for this purpose and participated in the recent court hearing as an interested party, providing supporting evidence to ensure that the Court was fully informed of local impacts and procedural history. Crowborough Shield’s claim was rejected because the judge deemed them to have jumped the gun by starting the claim before the Home Office had made a decision.

In its advice, Wealden District Council’s King’s Counsel team advised that whilst there are ‘arguable errors of law in relation to the Habitats Regulations and the EIA Regulations and the recreational pressure on the Ashdown Forest, these are easily corrected by government’. As the premature claim gave government notice of these errors, we now expect them to be corrected before any new claim could reach the court. Even if the court upheld a judicial review on those grounds, the likely impact would be to allow the government to re-take its decision and potentially start the 12-month clock again; meaning the camp would be open for even longer.

Crucially, the King’s Counsel team have not identified any legal argument that would stop the Secretary of State from using the Camp for asylum accommodation in principle.

The King’s Counsel team have also advised that there is no legally arguable basis on which the council could challenge the government’s decision to not allow the council to take planning enforcement action.

They advise there is little or no prospect of Wealden successfully arguing that there is no emergency, to justify the use of emergency planning powers by the Home Office, this having been accepted by the High Court in previous cases.

Finally, if Wealden District Council was to bring the claim, it would not benefit from the Aarhus costs cap which limits claimants’ exposure to the Government’s legal costs (and would be available to Crowborough Shield) because the caps do not apply when the claimant is a public body. To risk public money on paying the Government’s uncapped legal costs when advised that a claim is likely to fail would be irresponsible and morally wrong.

The council will continue to work with the Home Office and other partners to minimise any further impacts on the community.

Leader of the council, Councillor James Partridge, said, “Whilst this comes as a major disappointment to us all, it would be wrong of the council to remain silent about its legal advice. We all wanted to stop the Home Office as this camp is good for no-one. The Home Office has failed Crowborough. But to keep fighting a legal challenge that is doomed to fail helps nobody. Throwing good money after bad is simply wrong. We must all now turn our attention to making sure that everyone feels safe and secure. We will continue to press the Home Office to do their job properly and to engage better with us all”

We are disappointed by today’s decision to refuse consent for a Judicial Review of the Government’s decision to house asylum seekers at Crowborough Army Camp on the grounds that it was premature.

The council strongly opposed the use of the site for this purpose and argued that the Government was wrong to grant themselves planning permission, has failed to be transparent in its decision-making and reached a decision without proper engagement and consideration of local community and environmental impacts.

The council participated in the hearing as an interested party, providing relevant supporting evidence and ensuring that the Court was fully informed of local impacts and procedural history. 

We will now be taking urgent legal advice to consider the issues raised in the judgement.

27 February 2026 – Letter response from WDC to Nusrat Ghani MP

Dear Ms Ghani

Crowborough Training Camp (CTC)

I write with reference to your letter dated 26 February 2026. As you might expect, as an officer of the Council, I will refrain from making or commenting on any political statements and keep my answers to your direct questions:-

Monitoring of the EIA screening decision agreed by MHCLG – In my last letter I confirmed that we do not have a formal role in monitoring the compliance with the EIA – this is because MHCLG did not require an EIA, but screened out the need for one. However, as you know, we are active participants in the Multi Agency Forum (MAF), holding the Home Office to account for their commitments, both in their planning documentation and more broadly. Indeed, we have raised a number of concerns in these documents with the Court as part of our legal case.

Cadet Training Facilities as a ‘Community Asset’ – Yes, the Council absolutely recognises the importance of the cadet facilities. Indeed this was specifically highlighted by the Council back in November, when the Council passed a motion to oppose the plans. Since then, through various means, the Council has been pushing the Home Office and MOD to protect the use. For the avoidance of doubt, the facilities are not registered with the Council as an ‘Asset of Community Value’ (ACV), which as you might know is a process which governs the sale of the asset (not we understand a risk in this case). However, if the Council had a planning application, then very clearly the impact on the cadets and their facilities would be a material consideration. I know that you will understand that we cannot make statements that would be seen to pre-determine any such application.

Concerns related to use longer than 12 months – The Home Office and MOD have
consistently told the Council and other stakeholders that the use is temporary and only for 12 months. You can hear this in answers to questions at our Scrutiny and Performance

Committee on 10 November and of course at other public meetings in late 2025. If the Home Office wishes to use the site for longer than 12 months, then in order to comply with planning law they would either need to make a planning application to Wealden or pursue a Special Development Order (SDO) from MHCLG. In other cases where the use has extended beyond 12 months, the Home Office have utilised the SDO route. As you note, if you have concerns that the Home Office may extend the period, those concerns should be directed to the Home Office.

I trust that you will find these answers helpful.
Yours sincerely
Chris Bending
Director of Place
cc Ms Mims Davies MP, Dr Kieran Mullan MP, Cllr James Partridge, Cllr Rachel Millward,
Cllr Ian Tysh

26 February 2026 – Nusrat Ghani MP letter to WDC

Dear Mr Bending,
Crowborough Training Camp (CTC)

Thank you for your letter of 24 February 2026, it was refreshing to receive such a prompt response to my correspondence from Wealden District Council (WDC) which is appreciated.

You state WDC don’t have a formal role in monitoring compliance with the EIA issued by the Secretary of State. Yet with WDC being the local planning authority and its wider role as a representative body, it would surely make sense to undertake monitoring to check if the assessments of potential impact made in the Secretary of State’s EIA were accurate when compared to the actual impact?

Effective monitoring would not only support any future assessment of a Planning Application made by the Home Office to WDC for permission to use CTC as Asylum Accommodation or a legal challenge if the Government decided to use an alternative process to seek planning permission? I would also have thought WDC would at least have a stance on whether the Cadet Training Facilities at CTC were a “community asset” in terms of planning policy?

On the “initial” period listed in the letter, I note your comments. Yet advice from those familiar with this area of the Home Office’s work, suggests the works\services being put in place make it highly unlikely the Home Office will move out after only 12 months of usage and vacate the site entirely before 23 January 2027. The phased build-up of operations also indicates this.

I would also note other sites initially used\approved for 12 months under the Q Regulations are still occupied some years later. The exception to this was a site used in Pembrokeshire, Wales. I will therefore be raising queries with the Home Office as we cannot just accept the idea the usage will only be for 12 months when compared to experience elsewhere and the wording of the letter from the Ministry of Defence.

Finally, I would again highlight how regular and structured engagement on this issue between WDC and local MPs would be in the interests of all, especially the residents of Crowborough.

Yours sincerely,

Nusrat Ghani MP

In line with the Council’s strong objection to the Home Office decision to use Crowborough Army Camp to house asylum seekers, we appeared as an interested party in the High Court today. We made arguments to support the challenge that the court should allow a full hearing into the claim to overturn that decision. We highlighted the practical and legal problems with the decision made by the Home Office. 

The court adjourned its decision to take time to consider the detailed legal arguments and is now expected to deliver its decision on Friday 27 February 2026. We will update everybody when we know more. 

24 February 2026 – Letter from Chris Bending to Nus Ghani MP

Dear Ms Ghani

Crowborough Training Camp

Secretary of State Screening Direction – Written Statement

I write with reference to your letter dated 20 February 2026.It is important to be clear that whist Wealden District Council is the Local Planning Authority for the area, our powers in relation to the use of Crowborough Camp as accommodation for Asylum Seekers is severely curtailed. There are two main reasons for this –

1. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, has issued planning consent for the works and use, under Class Q, emergency powers. In this context, the Home Office do not need to apply to Wealden as they already have planning consent.
2. The camp is what is known as Crown Land, whereby the Council can only take enforcement action against the Home Office/MOD with their written consent as landowner. Given our concerns about the camp, we wrote to the Home Office/MOD to seek this consent. This consent was denied. We cannot therefore take formal enforcement action or have a formal role in monitoring compliance with the EIA.

So, the two main powers granted to any Local Planning Authority – the power to grant/refuse a planning application and the power to take formal enforcement action – have both been taken away by Government in this case.

As you know, Wealden, has consistently raised concerns with the Home Office about its plans, including raising some of the points in your letter as part of ongoing legal proceedings to be heard this week. Whilst we may not have powers to take enforcement action, our legal case sets out clear deficiencies in the decision making by the Home Office.

Finally, I think it is important to correct a misunderstanding in the premise of your point 1. The reference to 18 months in the letter from the MOD dated 3 February is not as might first appear. The Government are not signalling their intention to use the site for 18 months, but summarising our request to the Home Office/MOD (see letter dated 10 December) to be granted planning enforcement powers at the site for a period of 18 months.

For the avoidance of doubt, we chose this timeline in case there was any delay by HO/MOD in decanting and reinstating the site following the 12 months permitted by class Q. In any event, as you will note from the end of the 3 February letter, permission to our request was denied.

I hope that this helps to clarify the position.

Yours sincerely

Chris Bending,

Director of Place

24 February 2026 – Letter from Nus Ghani MP to Chris Bending

Dear Mr Bending,

Crowborough Training Camp

Secretary of State Screening Direction – Written Statement

I write having received from the ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government a copy of the Secretary of State’s full (written) statement of reasons as required by 5(5)(a) of the 2017 EIA Regulations.

The statement includes the Secretary of State’s conclusions on likeliness of significant environmental effects.

Having considered the statements made within it, I wanted to raise both inconsistencies and mistakes within the document which I believe present grounds for challenge by the LPA. I list them below and would be interested to hear what assessment WDC has made of them and what legal challenge is being raised in response to the attempt to use these as the basis for permission for the development of asylum accommodation by the Home Office.

1. Inconsistency in period of temporary use

On the first page of the statement it states:

“As sought by the Home Office (HO): the proposal is for temporary (up to 12 months) accommodation for up to 540 asylum seekers.”

Yet this period conflicts with the response sent to WDC by the Ministry of defence (MOD) on 03 February 2026. You will recall the letter was sent by the MOD in direct response to a letter sent by WDC to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence in relation to Planning Enforcement Action.

In their letter on 03 February 2026DIO Secretariat (DIO) stated clearly (in the first paragraph):

“…limited to the proposed asylum accommodation project, for an initial period of 18 months.”

This time difference is crucial. As you will know under Class Q of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2025, Crown bodies can carry out certain development for a period not exceeding 12 months.

Whilst the written statement references and is based on this period, it is clear from the DIO letter, sent in response to WDC considering enforcement action that the initial period the Home Office intends to use the site for is longer than stated. The initial period is actually 18 months.

What steps will WDC take to challenge this inconsistency and the inaccurate information in the written statement?

What assessment has WDC made of the prospects for action against the Home Office for intending a period of use which is beyond the stated 12 months in the written statement of reasons?

2. “No identified community assets”

On page 9 of the written statement it declares, in the assessment of the Secretary of State, there are:

“No identified community assets”.

This comment flies in the face of Crowborough Training Camp being one of the biggest facilities for cadets in the South East, a vital community asset for thousands of young people. If cadet groups training facilities are not a ‘community asset’, what is?

The written statement indicates that:

“The community will be able to ask questions directly or during meetings and any issues raised will be appropriately addressed. With this mitigation, there is no foreseeable significant effect on community relations.”

The suggested mitigation is simply not credible and flies in the face of the actual usage of Crowborough Training Camp before it was taken over by the Home Office. A point the MOD has accepted in providing an alternative after my intervention and lobbying on behalf of cadet units.

What steps is WDC as the LPA taking to challenge the factually inaccurate claim in the Written Statement and make clear the Crowborough Training Camp was a community asset given it use by thousands of cadets?

What steps will WDC take to ensure the community asset of the Crowborough Training Camp as a cadet training facility is recognised in planning terms?

3. Comments on possible riots

On page 8 of the written statement, the document states the following about the use of Crowborough Training Camp as asylum accommodation:

“The proposal may give rise to anxiety amongst local residents which may be adversely affected by protestors / demonstrators or riots.”

It is simply wrong to state a riot ‘may’ give rise to anxiety, it would inevitably cause great fear and distress. Later in the document (page 10) the Secretary of State refers to regular engagement with Sussex Police, yet does not set out clearly what resources would be provided to mitigate the risks outlined.

Given the emphasis in paragraph 96 of the National Planning Policy Framework of creating safe communities how can the comments in the Written Statement be compatible, in planning terms, with drawing a conclusion there will not be significant impacts on Crowborough from this development?

4. Monitoring of stated impacts

Throughout the Written Statement the Secretary fo State makes various assertations, including:

• The “worst case scenario” on vehicular movements is 342.
• The positioning of new flood lights will not affect the dark skies of the High Weald National Landscape
• Noise from new diesel generators will be mitigated

How does WDC as the LPA intend to monitor the compliance with and accuracy of these statements?

I look forward to your early response,

Yours sincerely,

Nusrat Ghani MP

6 February 2026 letter from Home Office to WDC EIA screening response

Dear Chris,

Thank you for your correspondence of 22 January 2026 about Crowborough Training Camp and the Secretary of State EIA screening direction dated 12 January 2026.

I note that you have requested the following information from the Home Office:
1. A list of each element of work identified in the written statement.
2. Confirmation of the actual start date and completion date (or current status whereongoing or installed but not operational).
3. Any works that are outstanding. I set out my response to those points below:

1. Activities undertaken, with start and completion dates

a. Additional temporary internal fencing (2m in height) with privacy
screening to outside perimeter and to secure out of scope buildings on
site – Start w/c 24/11/2025 and complete 28/11/2025.

b. 10 mobile flood lights to supplement the existing lighting. Mobile units will
be installed at all designated locations to illuminate walkways or high
footfall areas. Lighting will be placed/operated to only illuminate areas
within the operational area at Crowborough Training Camp. – Installed
22/01/2026.

c. 11 CCTV cameras to provide security. – Start w/c 24/11/2025 and
complete 28/11/2025.

d. Installation of 5 mobile generators (installed, but not operational). – Main
generator installed 14/01/2026 and modular ablution generators installed
28/01/2026.

e. Installation of modular ablution blocks. – One installed 22/01/2026 and
remaining units installed 26/01/2026 – 28/01/2026. Additional Modular
ablutions to be delivered and installed February 2026.

f. Additional kitchen facilities will be needed to increase capacity, and this
will be provided via a PLK mobile unit. – Not installed, planned installation
February 2026.

g. Some buildings may require varying degrees of refurbishment to bring up
to standard (underway). Minor renovations in accommodation blocks
including but not limited to boxing in electrical cables, replacing lights,
painting etc w/c 24/11/2025 – 06/02/2026 (complete).
2. Outstanding works:
a. A PLK is expected to be installed February 2026.
b. Modular ablutions are expected to be installed 28/01/2026.
c. Minor internal refurbishments are expected to be complete 06/02/2026.

I do not agree that the Home Office are already 3 months into the 12-month period referred to in the screening material, since we do not consider that all the works listed are subject to the 12-month period conferred by Class Q.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Larter
Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director

03 February 2026 – Response to Enforcement Letter

Dear Chris Bending,

Thank you for your letter dated 10 December, sent to both the Rt Hon John Healey Secretary of State for Defence, and the Rt Hon Shabana Mahmood Home Secretary. We note you have asked for Crown consent under section 296A Town County Planning Act for Wealden District Council to take steps for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crowborough Training Camp (“the Property”), limited to the proposed asylum accommodation project, for an initial period of eighteen months.

Your correspondence has been passed to the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO), the MOD organisation with responsibility for the Defence Estate. In accordance with standard procedures, I am responding to this matter on behalf of the MOD. Any response from Home Office (HO) Colleagues will be sent to you separately.

The Property has been transferred to the HO for the purposes of Asylum and any plans to accommodate asylum seekers at the Property is the decision of the HO, who occupy the Property pursuant to a Memorandum of Terms of Occupation (MOTO) which the Secretary of State for Defence has entered into with the HO. The terms of the MOTO require HO to obtain the necessary planning consent required for its intended use.

There has been no change from the position as set out in our response to the initial Planning Contravention Notice letter dated 11 December 2025 and our response to the subsequent request for follow up information dated 19 December 2025. MOD considers it has complied with planning requirements in relation to the CCTV and temporary fencing to which you have referred to and which were carried out prior to the HO signing the MOTO.

Additionally MOD does not consider there is any good reason to depart from the starting point established by section 296A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (namely that enforcement action may not be taken against it without Crown consent) and does not give its consent to enforcement action of that referred to in your correspondence or any other kind.

Yours sincerely,
DIO Secretariat

03 February 2026 – Letter from Home Office to Wealden District Council

Dear Cllr Partridge,

Thank you for your further letter of 24 December about asylum accommodation at
Crowborough Training Camp.

I acknowledge that you have reiterated your concerns in relation to documentation available about the Crowborough site.

As outlined to you in my correspondence of 23 December 2025, Home Office officials have completed a review of material relating to Crowborough Training Camp and provided your team with a schedule, including the status of each document and the reasons for any limitations on disclosure.

In line with our engagement plan, Home Office officials will continue to ensure officials at Wealden District Council are kept involved and updated on plans and have the opportunity to provide feedback and raise any concerns.

I appreciate that this may not meet all expectations, but my officials remain available to clarify any points in the schedule and to support your team in understanding the material provided.

Yours sincerely,

Alex Norris

MP Minister for Border Security & Asylum

22 January 2026 – Letter from Home Office confirming use of camp for asylum seeker accommodation

Dear Councillor Partridge, Councillor Millward and Mr Scott,

Further to my letter of 21st January 2026, I am writing to provide an update on the establishment of the Crowborough Training Camp as an alternative asylum accommodation site. I can confirm that the facility is now operational and that the first cohort of asylum seekers has been successfully inducted.

As set out previously, our operational approach is to increase occupancy in a phased and controlled manner. This will allow sufficient time for the site’s day-to-day processes to bed in and for all delivery partners to reach full operational readiness.

We remain committed to working closely with all local partners to ensure the site operates effectively and with minimal impact on the local community. My team and I will continue to provide regular updates and maintain open lines of communication as the programme progresses. As part of this, we would be happy to facilitate a visit to the site as requested in your recent correspondence.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Larter
Director Asylum Accommodation 

22 January 2026 – Letter to Home Office requesting tenancy timeline

Dear Mr Hale and Mr Larter, 

Crowborough Training Camp, TN6 1UB
Secretary of State EIA screening direction dated 12 January 2026

I write following the Secretary of State’s screening direction and the accompanying written statement dated 12 January 2026 and the decision of Home Office on 21 January to occupy the site, which occurred on 22 January 2026.

The Council has reviewed those documents in its capacity as local planning authority. As you will know, the written statement describes the project that has been screened as temporary (up to 12 months) accommodation for up to 540 asylum seekers together with the installation of associated site infrastructure.

Under the section addressing the characteristics of the development, a number of works within that project are described as completed, underway, or installed but not operational, including internal fencing with privacy screening, CCTV, generators and refurbishment works.

The Council considers that a clear timing consequence flows directly from that description. The Council understands that, works began for elements of the screened project in the first week of November.

So the Council, acting as local planning authority, can accurately record and monitor the position, please kindly provide within 7 (seven) working days a single consolidated schedule that:

1. Lists each element of work identified in the written statement.
2. Confirms the actual start date and completion date (or current status where ongoing or installed but not operational).
3. Any works that are outstanding.

It follows that the Home Office would already be approximately 3 months into the 12 month period referred to in the screening material, and the end of any 12 month reliance would fall to be measured from that earlier commencement.

This letter is sent without prejudice to the Council’s wider position on the lawfulness of the use and associated development at the site.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending
Director of Place

The Home Office is trying to avoid applying for planning permission to change the use of Crowborough Army Camp site by relying on what are known as on Permitted Development Rights, class Q.

These development rights require the Home Office to have a direction from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), in consultation with Natural England that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not needed.

The direction has now been completed but highlights a range of issues and inconsistencies with what the Home Office has told Wealden District Council and others previously. The EIA screening confirms that the Home Office said it would consult with the council and the police and not just “engage”.

Councillor James Partridge, leader of the council said, “Whilst Wealden welcomes the Home Office’s stated intention to consult on its plans, we are concerned that there are inconsistencies in the detail of the assessment and we are writing to the Home Office Minster about them.

“Planning law exists to protect people and places. It says that changes to the use of land and buildings must be properly assessed for their impact on landscapes, noise, safety, traffic and the environment, and that communities should have a voice in decisions that affect them. No organisation, however large, can bypass proper scrutiny when communities are affected and we will continue to push for the Home Office to comply with the law on this.”

21 January 2026 – Written statement Crowborough Army Camp

21 January 2026 – MHCLG conclusion that no EIA assessment necessary

Dear William

Request for a Screening Direction Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Proposal for temporary accommodation for up to 540 asylum applicants with the installation of associated infrastructure at Crowborough Training Camp, Crowborough, T6N 1UB. 

I refer to your request dated 18 December, made under 5(6) of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/571) (“the 2017 Regulations”) for the Secretary of State’s screening direction on the matter of whether or not the development proposed is ‘EIA development’ within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations.

The above development falls within the description at 10 (b) Urban Development Project of Schedule 2 to the 2017 Regulations and is located in a sensitive area, namely the High Weald National Landscape. Therefore, the Secretary of State considers the proposals to be ‘Schedule 2 development’ within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations.

However, in the opinion of the Secretary of State and having taken into account the selection criteria in Schedule 3 to the 2017 Regulations, the proposal is not likely to have significant effects on the environment, see the attached written statement which gives the reasons for direction as required by 5(5) of the EIA Regulations.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 5(3) of the 2017 Regulations the Secretary of State hereby directs that the proposed development is not ‘EIA development’ within the meaning of the 2017 Regulations. Permitted development rights under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (SI 596) as amended are therefore unaffected.

You will bear in mind that the Secretary of State’s opinion on the likelihood of the
development having significant environmental effects is reached only for the purposes of this direction. I will be sending a copy of this letter and written statement to Wealden District Council.

Yours sincerely,
Planning Casework Unit

This decision was made by officials on behalf of the Secretary of State, and signed on his behalf

19 Jan 2026 response letter from Home Office to WDC – Request for information under Housing Act 2004

Dear Mr Bending,

RE: Crowborough Training Camp, East Sussex (“Crowborough”). WDC’s request for information under Section 235 Housing Act 2004: Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licensing, Section 61(1) I refer to your letter to me dated 16 December 2025, sent on behalf of Wealden District Council (WDC).

The Home Office has considered whether HMO licensing would be required in respect of plans for Crowborough. The Home Office has concluded that as it forms part of the Crown, the HMO Licensing Regime under the Housing Act 2004 would not apply to it in these circumstances. Nevertheless, the Home Office would ensure that the applicable statutory conditions applicable to HMOs are met in its use of Crowborough and offer to share any relevant safety assessments with WDC.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Larter
Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director
Home Office

Wealden District Council’s council leaders report feeling dismayed and let down by the government following their meeting with Home Office Minister Alex Norris yesterday. 

Councillor James Partridge and Councillor Rachel Millward met with the Minister to request an update on the government decision making about Crowborough Army Camp and to urge the Minister to rule out using it as a temporary site for asylum seekers. They impressed upon the Minister that this issue was already having a serious impact on the local community.

Despite saying that detailed planning for legal and safe use of the site continues, all the Minister would disclose is that a decision has not yet been made. He rowed back on a previous promise to send the council all the documents that they had. Citing ‘legal advice’, the Minister now said the government are limited in what they can disclose to the council and cannot do better than they currently are.

Responding to this, the council said it remains strongly opposed to the use of this site and the leaders of the council stressed this to the Minister.

After the meeting, the leaders said, “The lack of communication and information from the Home Office is driving real fears for residents and people want answers. Residents need to know how the site would be managed safely. They no longer have confidence in general assurances that their safety and security are a priority. The lack of engagement with the council and local people is not good enough, but it doesn’t look like the Minister is listening. We are dismayed at the way the government is treating Crowborough and our residents and the apparent total lack of concern being shown for us.”

8 January 2026 – letter from Wealden District Council to Secretary of State

Dear Secretary of State

Crowborough Army Training Camp, Crowborough, TN6 1UB
Request for copies of the EIA screening request and all supporting material

I write on behalf of Wealden District Council in its capacity as the local planning authority for the area in which the Crowborough Training Camp is situated and as an Interested Party in claim AC 2025 LON 004456.

On 15 December 2025 the Council wrote to the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence as part of investigating allegations of possible breaches of planning control. In those we requested confirmation of any EIA screening direction or any screening request, and seeking copies of the direction or request and the material that supported it. The responses received to date have not provided the requested material and have continued to state that no decision has been made on the proposed use of the site.

We have now seen the Second Defendant’s Summary Grounds of Defence dated 31 December 2025 which state that, on 18 December 2025, the Secretary of State for the Home Department sent the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government a formal request to make a screening direction under regulation 5(6)(b)of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, updated on 22 December 2025. The Summary Grounds further record that the request seeks a determination as to whether the use of the Crowborough Training Camp for asylum accommodation, specifically to accommodate up to 540 people for a period of up to one year together with the installation of associated site infrastructure, would be EIA development, and that you aim to issue the screening direction within 21 days if possible.

In those circumstances, and given the stated timescale, the Council requests as a matter of urgency copies of the following information and documents:

1. The screening request submitted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 18 December 2025 and the updated version submitted on 22 December 2025.

2. All supporting information that accompanied either version of the request, including any project description, site plans, drawings, schedules of works, specifications, operational details, and any environmental information relied upon.

3. Any correspondence between departments concerning the screening request,
including any requests for clarification or further information and any responses, and any record of what information has been treated as before the decision maker.

4. Any consultee responses received to date, and any list of consultees approached or proposed to be approached in connection with the screening direction.
The purpose of this request is straightforward. The Council needs to review the material that is before you so officers can consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to submit representations to you on the screening request before a screening direction is issued, or whether to await the screening direction and then consider next steps. Given the nature of the site and the sensitivity of the surrounding environment, having timely sight of the request and supporting material is important to ensure the Council can discharge its planning and environmental responsibilities properly.

If any of the requested information is considered sensitive, please let us know immediately and we will agree an appropriate handling arrangement so that the Council can review the material securely.

Given the stated aim to determine within 21 days, we would be grateful to receive the requested information as soon as possible and in any event within five working days of this letter. If that is not possible, please confirm the earliest date by which it will be provided and whether you will extend the determination timetable to allow the Council a reasonable opportunity to consider and, if necessary, make representations.
Please also confirm the name and contact details of the official leading on the screening direction, so that any representations can be directed correctly.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending
Director of Place

24 December 2025 -Letter to Alex Norris MP in response to 23 December letter

Dear Minister Norris, 

Thank you for your letter of 23 December 2025.

Your officials have not done what, at our meeting, you agreed they would do. You agreed to provide us with all documents straight away even though you recognised many of them were in draft form. The list of documents which has now been provided makes it clear that no information will be provided unless and until a formal decision is made and even then it will be less information than we requested. This change in approach is unacceptable particularly when you have not even had the courtesy to explain why you have changed your stance.

This is not a huge surprise, given the approach which your department has taken from the start. I will never understand why your department cannot deal straightforwardly and openly with the people of Crowborough or why you think it wise not to.

Your approach has led to distrust, fear, community tension and expenditure of a lot of time and money and has greatly increased the risk of harm to everyone involved, if you decide to impose your plan on Crowborough. We call on you, again, to live up to the promise made in our meeting and provide us with all documentation now and without any further delay.

Yours sincerely

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

23 December 2025 letter to WDC from Alex Norris MP

Dear Cllr Partridge & Cllr Millward,

Thank you for your further letter of 11 December about the proposed use of Crowborough Training Camp as asylum accommodation and engagement with Wealden District Council.

I can confirm that the meeting date offered remains 13 January 2026, and my office will continue to liaise with yours should an earlier slot become possible.
I recognise the commitment I gave on 25 November and the importance of transparency in this process. I understand your concern regarding the scope of documentation being shared. Officials have now completed a review of current material relating to Crowborough Training Camp and have provided your team with a schedule, including the status of each document and the reasons for any limitations on disclosure.

In line with our engagement plan, we will continue to ensure Wealden District Council are kept involved and updated on plans and have the opportunity to provide feedback and raise any concerns. I appreciate that this may not meet all expectations, but my officials remain available to clarify any points in the schedule and to support your team in understanding the material provided.
The site will not be occupied this year.

Yours sincerely,
Alex Norris MP
Minister for Border Security & Asylum 

23 December 2025 – Home Office with responses to questions

Dear Mr Bending,

I write in response to your letter of 15 December 2025 informally requesting additional information in respect of Crowborough Barracks. Before turning to the additional questions posed, I note your position that questions 11 to 13 in the PCN are not a trawl of future scenarios but go to whether any permitted development rights relied upon are available. I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) is providing a separate response which confirms that the permitted development rights relied upon are not contingent upon any intended or future use and therefore, I am advised that questions 11 to 13 do go beyond the powers in section 171(c) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

As I confirmed at the end of my response to the PCN dated 11 December 2025, I am happy to be contacted further on this matter and provide the responses below to your additional questions:

Q1. As per my response above, the activities to which the PCN relate (and as confirmed by SSD) have been carried out pursuant to permitted development rights which are not contingent any future or intended use. As confirmed in my response to the PCN on 11 December 2025, no decision has yet been made on the use of Crowborough for the housing of asylum seekers and a decision will be made in due course.

Q2. This question is not relevant to the activities alleged in the PCN and I have nothing more to add on this point.

Q3. My response to question 2 equally applies here, save to add that the Government has been transparent about the potential use of a number of military sites to house asylum seekers, one of which includes Crowborough.

Q4. The Home Office requested the works to increase security at the site for its personnel however, as previously confirmed, these works were carried out by the MoD who I understand will be responding separately.

Q5. Due to some sensitivities with disclosing site maps, we would like to suggest that council staff visit the site to verify positions and mounting heights directly. A site visit may also serve to assist with clarifying further details in relation to questions 6 and 7 also. I have asked Dave Harding (Deputy Director, Asylum Accommodation Engagement) to reach out to you separately to discuss convenient dates for a site visit in the new year.

Q.6 As previously confirmed the works were carried out by SSD who are best placed to respond to this question.

Q.7 As per response to question 6, SSD are best place to respond to this question.

Q.8 Not applicable.

Yours Sincerely,
Andrew Larter

The Home Office today has confirmed to Wealden District Council that no decision to house 540 asylum seekers at the Crowborough Army Camp will be made this year.

16 December 2025 – Letter to Home Office from WDC requesting information under Housing Act 2004

Dear Mr Larter

Request for information under Section 235 Housing Act 2004: Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) licensing, Section 61(1)

We write to request clarification that due consideration has been given to HMO licensing in respect of plans for the Crowborough Training Camp. At the time of writing, no application has been received from the Home Office. Section 254 of the Housing Act 2004 defines the meaning of “house in multiple occupation”.

Section 254(5) provides for any purposes of this Act (other than those of Part 1) a building or part of a building within subsection (1) is not a house in multiple occupation if it is listed in Schedule 14.

Under Section 61(1) of the Housing Act 2004, subject to certain exceptions, every HMO to which Part 2 of the Act applies, must be licensed. We consider that each of the buildings proposed to be occupied as accommodation at the Crowborough Training Camp requires a licence under Section 61(1).

We request your explanation as to why you consider that these buildings are not HMOs which require licensing, or whether you will be submitting an application for licences under section 61(1) of the Housing Act 2004 for the buildings proposed to be occupied by service users at Crowborough Training Camp.

Wealden District Council is keen to ensure that all requirements in respect of HMOs are met and that our powers and responsibilities are respected.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending
Director of Place

15 December 2025 – WDC letter to Home Office and MOD regarding PCN responses

Crowborough Barracks (“Property”)

Thank you for your respective letters of 11 December 2025 responding to the Planning Contravention Notice served on 21 November 2025 in respect of Crowborough Training Camp. We note your confirmation of a Memorandum of Terms of Occupation between the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Defence, and that the Marine Society and Sea Cadets are present on the site.

We also note the response from the Ministry of Defence which states that CCTV has been installed, that no freestanding columns have been erected, that some fencing is present, that no opinion has been sought from Natural England under regulation 76, and that the Home Office has not yet made a decision on the proposed use. It declines to provide camera locations on security grounds.

Your reply declines to answer our questions 11 – 13 and treats several other questions as outside section 171 C. Those questions go to present facts that bear directly on whether permitted development can lawfully be relied upon now. They are not a trawl of future scenarios.

To complete our assessment please provide the following within 7 days:

EIA gateway

1. Confirm whether the Secretary of State has issued any screening direction under the EIA Regulations that relates to a project at Crowborough Training Camp to accommodate asylum seekers. If yes, provide the direction and the material that supported it. If no direction exists, confirm that no request has been made and explain the basis on which screening is said not to be required, with specific reference to our questions 11-13 in the notice.

Habitats Regulations gateway

2. Confirm whether Natural England has been approached for an opinion under regulation 76 on likely significant effects in relation to any project to accommodate asylum seekers at the camp. If yes, provide the request date and the opinion. If no, explain the basis on which no likely significant effects are said to arise, taking account of the Impact Risk Zone for Ashdown Forest and nearby watercourses. The Ministry of Defence letter records that no regulation 76 opinion has been sought and that cameras have been fixed to buildings. We require your position as the occupying department.

Status and scope of any project

3. State whether there is a defined project to accommodate asylum seekers at
Crowborough Training Camp for the purposes of the EIA Regulations and the Habitats Regulations. We are not asking for ministerial policy. We are asking whether a project exists on the ground or on paper now. If it does, provide the short project description including the intended period of use.

Relationship with MOD works

4. Confirm whether any of the security works described in our notice were requested by or on behalf of the Home Office, and identify the commencement date and spatial extent of your occupation under the Memorandum of Terms of Occupation. This will fix the line between Ministry of Defence security works and any Home Office works or use.

Locations and secure handling

5. If you regard camera locations as security sensitive, agree an Official Sensitive
handling arrangement or a closed viewing so that positions and mounting heights can be verified by officers. In the alternative provide, for each building elevation, the number of cameras and the mounting height range. This is required to complete our environmental note.

Water environment

6. Provide the nearest distances in metres from the installed cameras and any fencing to mapped watercourses, ditches and culverts on or abutting the land.

Fencing

7. Your response says temporary fencing is not development because there are no
footings. Acontinuous means of enclosure is ordinarily operational development
whether bolted down or block weighted. If you rely on permitted development please identify the legal basis. For Crown land this is usually Part 19 Class R which limits any gate fence wall or other means of enclosure to a maximum height of 4.6 metres. If you rely on a different provision please state which one and why it applies.

Please provide for each run:
· start and end points shown on a plan
· total length and any gaps
· height at every change point and any gates
· fixings and foundations includingblock weights or anchors
· intended duration and purpose
· nearest distance in metres to any highway used by vehicular traffic and to any
watercourse or culvert.

If you maintain that any run is not development, please explain the physical form and the intended duration and why it does not amount to a means of enclosure.

Administrative point
8. The Ministry of Defence response is dated 11 December 2027. Please confirm the correct year for the chronology.

If you maintain that you cannot provide the information requested, please confirm who holds it and on what date a request for it will be made. In the absence of a substantive response we will proceed on the basis that no screening direction exists, that no Natural England opinion has been sought, and that permitted development cannot lawfully be relied upon unless and until the environmental gateways are cleared.

We are open to a short call this week to agree a secure route for sharing any sensitive material, should this be necessary.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending
Director of Place

12 December 2025 – Email sent to WDC from Marine Society and Sea Cadets

Dear Sir or Madam.
1. I refer to your correspondence a copy of which is attached for your ease of reference. It concerns an alleged planning contravention pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 – Section 17C and a Planning Contravention Notice concerning Land at Crowborough Army Training Camp Uckfield Road, Crowborough TN61UB.

2. Colleagues have investigated the issues raised in your letter and respond as follows:

3. Those at the Sea Cadet Unit have not put up any freestanding masts for CCTV purposes.

4. There is a flagpole cable tied to a drainpipe attached to the building that can be taken down but it is a flagpole, not a CCTV mast. It has been there several years and it is not free standing it is attached to the building and there are no cameras on it. Those who work or volunteer for the Marine Society and Sea Cadets can arrange for it to be taken down as it is attached using cable ties. This does not correspond with the works listed in the notice. It would therefore seem that this is not a matter for this Organisation.

Yours faithfully

11 December 2025 – Letter to Alex Norris MP from WDC

Dear Minister Norris
Thank you for your letter dated 11 December 2025.

In your letter you say “After liaising with your office, the earliest, suitable date for all parties is13 January 2026. Based on the response from your office, no concerns were raised about the proposed date”. With respect, this was the earliest date the Council was offered by your office and to imply that earlier dates had been ruled out by this Council is just plain wrong. Our letter of 4 December remains valid. When we met with you, we all agreed to meet regularly and to work at pace to ensure the impact on our community was fully understood in your planning. We stand ready to meet with you before Christmas.

When we met on 25 November 2025, you gave us your commitment that your team would “get to us what you’ve got” in relation to all the background paperwork and assessments, even if they were still in draft format. In your letter today, you also state that “Home Office officials are working at pace to acquiesce your request for documentation relating to Crowborough Training Camp and are due to discuss this with council officials imminently.” The document we have received today from your team does expressly the opposite.

It confirms that very few documents will be shared and then only once they are completed (so not in draft) and only after you have made your decision to proceed with the site. It says that many documents will not to be shared at all. Please can you urgently investigate why your officials are not following your instructions in this regard?

As you will no doubt be aware, there is very significant and rising community tension about the Home Office’s plans. We are really worried about this. Specifically, there was an incident outside the camp on Tuesday evening that required police intervention and ended with a man being arrested for assault The cause of this is the lack of any communication from the Home Office with local residents. The resulting vacuum is inevitably being filled by speculation and misinformation. This fuels fear and local people are genuinely scared and concerned. Whilst in no way condoning violent protest, you need to insist that your team start providing timely, accurate and regular information to the community to stop these tensions rising any more.

With Christmas fast approaching, we have very significant concerns around the potential for your decision and possible use of the site to take place at a time when the focus of the local community should be on coming together and having peaceful family time. This is a challenging period for local service providers, particularly Sussex Police and the NHS as they balance complex pressures and their teams reasonable expectation of a break with their families.

Whilst we understand that you and your team do not want to enter into a running commentary on the timetable for your final decision, given these specific issues, we invite you to clarify that you have no intention of ruining Christmas for our community and those that work tirelessly to protect and care for us and confirm that no decision will be made before the 5th January at the very earliest.

Yours sincerely

Cllr James Partridge

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

Cllr Rachel Millward

Local Deputy Leader of the Council and Culture, Community and Communications Portfolio Holder 

11 December 2025 – Response letter from MoD regarding PCN

Dear Planning Team
Crowborough Barracks (“Property”)

We refer to the above Property and confirm we act for The Secretary of State for Defence (“SSD”).

This letter responds to the Planning Contravention Notice (“the PCN”) served on the SSD dated 21 November 2025 by Wealden District Council (“the Council”) relating to the Property. The Property is owned freehold by the SSD. The Property is Crown land within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“TCPA 1990”) and the SSD is a Crown body.

Regarding the PCN, we comment as follows:-
1. The PCN was served by the Council under s171C TCPA 1990 on the basis that it
appeared to the Council that there may have been a breach of planning control. It
purports to seek information within the terms of s171C(2) and (3). Those sections, as relevant here, enable the Council to seek information as to any operations being carried out on the land, any use of the land, and any other activities being carried out on the land. The emphasised phrases in the above make very clear that the scope of the enquiry authorised under s171C relates to matters of fact at the date of the PCN and any response to it. This is pursuant to its statutory function in seeking to provide information to the authority on which it may decide whether there has been a breach of planning control and whether it is expedient to take enforcement action.

2. The scope of a PCN does not relate to any potential future breaches of planning
control. It relates to the current situation only. A number of the requests in the PCN fall outside this lawful scope and to use the PCN in this way, is contrary to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance that a planning contravention notice
“should not be used to undertake an investigative trawl just to satisfy the local
planning authority about what activities are taking place on a parcel of land”. These requests therefore fall outside of the terms of section 171C TCPA 1990.

3. Further, s171C(3) is clear that the response to any request is limited to the
reasonable knowledge of the recipient (“so far as he is able”). By way of
background, the SSD has entered into a Memorandum of Terms of Occupation
(“MOTO”) with the Home Office in respect of its occupation of the Property. As the Government cannot lease properties between departments, a MOTO is used to regularise occupation in a similar manner to a lease. Therefore, any proposed use of the Property is a matter for the Home Office.

4. The SSD considers some of the requests in paragraph 4 of the PCN beyond the
scope of section 171C and as a result has only provided information in response to
the requests numbered below, insofar as they relate to the present state of affairs. If the Council disagrees and wishes to provide a justification for its approach to
prospective development, then we will of course consider this. The relevant
information is set out below and in the appended documentation.

Please see below responses to paragraph 4 of the PCN:-
1. SSD is the freehold owner of the Property.
2. Please refer to the official copy of SSD’s freehold title.
3. a. SSD
b. 1) HO pursuant to the terms of the MOTO. 2) The Marine Society and Sea
Cadets pursuant to a lease dated 6 May 2025.

6. The CCTV works have been carried in accordance with Class S. We confirm the
CCTV installed is in accordance with the permitted camera sizes and conditions
and as such no prior approval is required from the Council. The fencing works are
temporary, and the fencing sits within the current Property boundary. There are no footings as the installation is above ground and as such, we confirm no
development has taken place.

10.We understand that only part of the Property is within the Impact Risk Zone for Ashdown Forest and therefore some CCTV works may fall outside of the scope of the Conversation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Accordingly, no
opinion has been sought from Natural England. In any event, the CCTV works are
minor in nature and have been attached to existing buildings. They are not
considered to have significant effect on Ashdown Forest.

11.We understand that HO have not yet made a decision as to the proposed use of the Property. The CCTV works carried out were as a result of safety concerns for MoD personnel and contractors.

14.We confirm the CCTV works are not within or immediately adjacent to any of the watercourses, drainage ditches or culverts.

18.There have been no CCTV columns, towers or masts installed or erected. The
CCTV has been attached to existing buildings at the Property. Given the CCTV
works are to enhance security, no location details or plan will be provided.
Should the Council require any clarification relating to the information provided, please do not hesitate to contact us further.

Yours faithfully
MoD Property Team 

11 December 2025 – PCN Response from Home Office

Dear Mr Bending,

PLANNING CONTRAVENTION NOTICE: LAND AT CROWBOROUGH ARMY TRAINING CAMP, UCKFIELD ROAD, CROWBOROUGH, TN6 1UB

I am responding to the Planning Contravention Notice (PCN) served on the Home Office on the 21st of November 2025. I am replying on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department as the Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director.

I have been advised that a number of the questions posed in the PCN are beyond the scope of the power within section 171C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, in so far as they do not relate to activities which have occurred on the site but to potential future activities.

The Planning Practice Guidance (and case law) is clear that the power to serve a PCN should not be used to undertake an investigative trawl. For this reason, I will not be responding to Questions 4, 5, 11, 12 and 13, except to say that a final decision to accommodate asylum seekers at the camp will be made in due course.

If you disagree with this interpretation and would like to provide reasoning why you do so, I will be happy consider further.

For ease of reference, the information is set out in the order requested in the PCN.

1. State your interest in the Land (freeholder, lessee, tenant, etc.)
The Secretary of State for Defence (SSD) as the freehold owner has entered into a
Memorandum of Terms of Occupation (“MOTO”) with the Home Office in respect of its occupation of Crowborough Barracks. As the Government cannot lease properties between departments, a MOTO is used to regularise occupation in a similar manner to a lease.

2. If the boundaries of the Land in your ownership extend beyond those shown on the attached plan you are required to mark them on the plan in blue or black pen.

As per my response to Q1, the Home Office does not own the site and therefore has no ownership boundary.

3. Provide the full names and addresses of all/any persons with the following interests in the Land:

a. Freeholder/owner.

b. Leaseholder.

c. Occupier(s) – including any children/dependents.

d. Mortgagee (if any).

e. Agent (if any).

f. Person to whom any rent is paid.

g. If any of the above operates under a trading name, give the name of the owner and/or partners.

h. If any of the above is a Limited Company, provide the registered office address.

i. Provide the names and addresses of all contractors and professional advisers engaged on the works.

j. State whether held on weekly tenancy, agreement, leasehold, etc.

So far as I am aware, in addition to the Home Office’s occupation in accordance with the MOTO, the Marine Society and Sea Cadets are also on site.

Questions 6 to 10 and 14 to 19 relate to works which were carried out by the SSD, not the Home Office, and I do not provide a response on that basis. I understand the SSD will be submitting a separate response to the PCN. I would be very grateful if you could confirm receipt of this information.

If you require further information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Larter
Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director, Home Office

We recognise the strength of feeling from the local community to the Home Office proposals. We continue our strong objection to the use of this site for asylum seekers. We remain in correspondence with the solicitors acting for Crowborough Shield following their legal claim against the Home Office and continue to take expert legal advice from our two barristers on the best course of action.

10 December 2025 – Letter from WDC to Home Secretary and Secretary of State

Dear Home Secretary and Secretary of State

Crowborough Training Camp, East Sussex – Request for Crown consent under section 296A Town and Country Planning Act 1990

I write on behalf of Wealden District Council as local planning authority.

The Council recognises the national context here. However the site sits within the High Weald National Landscape and within the Impact Risk Zone for Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest. There are nearby watercourses and drainage features. We have observed initial site security works including fencing and free standing CCTV columns.

Section 296A TCPA provides that a local planning authority must not take any step for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crown land unless it has the consent of the appropriate authority. The statute defines steps for the purposes of enforcement to include entering land, bringing proceedings and the making of an application. Service of a notice is not a prohibited step, but notices do not provide a coercive remedy on Crown land.

In Braintree District Council v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Secretary of State for Defence [2023] EWCA Civ 727 the Court of Appeal, Sir Keith Lindblom Senior President of Tribunals giving the judgment, confirmed that the High Court has no jurisdiction to grant an injunction under section 187B in respect of Crown land unless the appropriate authority has given consent under section 296A. The court identified judicial review as the public law route where consent is not given.

Public interest basis for consent

Against that framework, we ask that Crown consent is given now on a without prejudice basis so that if a breach of planning control or a failure to satisfy pre conditions under the General Permitted Development Order or the Habitats Regulations were to arise, proportionate and prompt action can be taken in the public interest without delay.

Consent would:-

 allow orderly site monitoring and a clear audit trail for all parties;

 support timely resolution of any non compliance with conditions attached to any Special Development Order or any reliance on Part 19 Class Q, including the twelve month cessation and restoration duty and the notification duty;

 provide a safety net where environmental or safety concerns arise, including matters relating to Ashdown Forest and nearby watercourses; and

 reduce the risk of urgent judicial review where cooperative compliance could achieve the same end more efficiently.

Consent sought.

Please grant consent under section 296A TCPA to Wealden District Council to take steps  for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crowborough Training Camp, limited to the proposed asylum accommodation project, for an initial period of eighteen months, to include:-

 Entry to land under sections 196A to 196C for monitoring and evidence gathering, including photography and measurement.

 The making of applications to the court and the bringing of proceedings where
necessary, including applications for relief under section 187B.

 Any other step for the purposes of enforcement within section 296A that is reasonably necessary to address a breach of planning control or a breach of conditions or limitations attaching to reliance on permitted development or to any Special Development Order, and to secure compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017.

We acknowledge that service of notices does not require Crown consent, but confirm that we will continue to use service of notices as the first step wherever appropriate.

Proposed form of consent

For convenience we set out short wording that would meet the statutory requirement. If acceptable, please return a signed copy. “Acting as the appropriate authority for the purposes of section 296A Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, consent is given to Wealden District Council to take steps for the purposes of enforcement in relation to Crowborough Training Camp, East Sussex. Consent includes entry to land under sections 196A to 196C, the bringing of proceedings and the making of applications to the court including under section 187B, and any other step within section 296A that is reasonably necessary to address a breach of planning control or a breach of the conditions or limitations of any permission relied upon. This consent is limited to matters arising from the use of the site to accommodate asylum seekers and is effective from the date of this letter for eighteen months unless extended by agreement.”

Next steps

If you prefer to frame this by memorandum of understanding rather than a formal consent letter we would be content to agree that approach provided it gives effect to the statutory consent sought above. We also ask that you confirm the environmental predicates for any reliance on permitted development or any Special Development Order, namely any Natural England opinion under regulation 76 or any approval under regulation 77 of the Habitats Regulations and any screening direction under the EIA Regulations.

Please let me know your nominated contact so that we can agree practical protocols on access, information exchange and any urgent issues.

Yours faithfully
Chris Bending
Director of Place

cc Andrew Larter, Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director, Head of the Asylum Accommodation Taskforce, The Home Office

4 December 2025 – WDC letter to Alex Norris MP

Dear Minister Norris,

We write with reference to the ‘regular’ meetings you agreed to hold with us regarding Crowborough Army Camp. Despite that promise of regular meetings, having liaised with your office, the next meeting has been scheduled for the 13th January 2026. Your team cite diary pressures and a late international trip.

With all due respect, that is simply not good enough. It tells us as the locally democratically elected leaders, and our local residents and communities, that you don’t care about the impact your decision is having on us all. You should and must prioritise engagement and consultation with us and all those who will be so affected by your proposed decision.

If you still don’t understand, this decision is having an enormous and lasting impact on our residents. To refuse to engage regularly with us to discuss the process and the impacts cannot be right. Such a lack of care and empathy for our communities is not what we should expect from you as Minister and the decision maker.

Whilst writing, we would also flag that your team continue to obfuscate and delay sharing any documents with us. At our meeting you stated firmly and unequivocally that your team should ‘get us what you’ve got’. It was quite clear that sharing drafts of documents was what you had in mind so that we could input into the process and share our concerns through that process. We have still not received a single document from your team. Responses continue to pontificate and delay. If you stand by your commitment in our meeting, will you now give your team a clear direction that they must, today, share all those draft documents with us.

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

26 November 2025 – Letter from WDC to Alex Norris MP

Dear Minister Norris,

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday to discuss the situation regarding Crowborough Army Camp.

We relayed to you the fear and anger caused to residents and communities due to the complete absence of communications early in this process. Your recognition and apology for the way the communications had been handled was important and welcome.

As discussed, residents and statutory service providers feel that there is an ongoing vacuum in the information being provided by the Home Office about your plans. Not only does that create a space for misinformation leading to community tension, but it also makes it impossible for local statutory service providers to have any meaningful input into this process. We simply cannot assess fully the impact on our residents in the absence of the significant detail that we need. As expressed above, that absence of information is driving fear and very real concerns about safety and security. Whilst fundamentally a matter for Sussex police, it is imperative that we are all provided with the necessary information and reassurance that local people will be safe should you take a decision for the camp to go ahead.

You told us that you are still in the ‘feasibility assessment’ stage and that no formal decision has been made. Whilst that might technically be correct, the level of activity on site and the activity in preparing for the use of the site, such as recruiting staff, contacting local transport services etc. is adding to the level of mistrust in the process. Again, that can only be bridged by full, open and transparent communications. We appreciated your promise that your team would “get to us what you’ve got” in relation to all the background paperwork and assessments, even if they are still in draft format, and ask for this as soon as possible.

You also offered to share with us data from other similar camps across the UK, so that we have clear examples of the impact on local communities. We also asked you to confirm whether these sites are also accommodating as many as seven service users to a room.

During the meeting we made several points that we would like you to take into account as part of your decision-making process. Whilst we remain steadfastly of the view that this is the wrong site to be used as a camp for asylum seekers, there are obvious things that the Home Office could do to help local residents.

These include:
1. Review and reduce the number of people to be placed on site. We discussed the use of the site by Afghan refugees. That saw no more than 250 people on site and they were families. That number accords more closely with the current assessments by your team of the number of permanent residents for which the site is suitable. So, it suggests to us that a much smaller number than 540 is the maximum that should be placed on site.

2. Provide guarantees about safety and security. Residents remain fearful and need reassurance from you and Sussex Police. Having sensitive sites assessed and the Home Office funding any improvements appears vital. As does investment in local police resources to ensure adequate and visible presence in the town.

3. Cadets. The potential loss of the cadets from the site is a matter of great concern. They are a hugely important part of local life. We would impress on you that the Home Office should do all it can to enable the cadets to remain and if that requires additional investment in the site, then the Home Office should meet those costs.

4. Home Office communications. We feel there should be at least a weekly, in-person, surgery in the town to allow local people the chance to speak directly to the Home Office about any issues they have with the camp. We would also request weekly bulletin style updates direct from the Home Office to all residents of the town. We discussed the possibility of writing letters to all residents, to reach the many who are not accessing social media.

5. Formal guarantee that you will not use the site for more than 12 months. There is not trust or confidence in the statements that have been made that you will vacate the site after 12 months.

We repeat that whilst we remain firmly against the use of this site, the above list may help mitigate the significant impacts on the local community, if you decide to go ahead.

We trust the above is a fair reflection of our conversation and we look forward to meeting with you on a regular basis. To that end, we will be in touch with your office to make appointments to ensure this channel of communication can remain open.

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 and Communications Portfolio Holder

26 November 2025 – WDC letter to Home Office

Dear Mr Larter

I am writing to request written clarification of the Home Office’s plans to address any environmental health issues at Crowborough Army Training Camp. This request is made in line with the Council’s statutory responsibilities, as it is essential that all arrangements are clearly documented to ensure transparency and accountability.

We would therefore appreciate your written responses in particular to the following points:

 Asbestos Management: Please provide a copy of the current asbestos management plan for the site.

 Legionella Control: Please share the risk assessments and control measures in place for legionella.

 Infectious Disease Procedures: Please outline procedures for the control of
infectious diseases, including notification arrangements to UKHSA.

 Contaminated Land: Please provide a copy of any contaminated land survey,
including identification of hazardous material sites and associated control measures.

 Waste Water Treatment: Please detail the waste water treatment processes,
including plans for ungraded facilities and measures to mitigate any risk of spills at the site.

 Water Supply: Will all habitable rooms be provided with a mains water supply?

 Sanitary Provision: Please confirm the ratio of maximum residents to WCs, wash hand basins (with constant hot water), and showers.

 Sleeping Areas: What is the minimum sleeping area per person?

 Pest Control and Waste Disposal: Please describe the pest control and waste
disposal arrangements.

Wealden District Council is keen to ensure that all environmental health requirements are met and that our powers and responsibilities are respected. Your written responses will help us fulfil our statutory duties in the operation of the camp.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. We look forward to your detailed reply.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending, Director of Place

Council leaders met Alex Norris MP, the Minister of Border Security and Asylum, today (Tuesday 25 November) and Home Office officials to insist he respond directly to the widespread fear and concern caused by his proposal to use Crowborough Army Camp as asylum seeker accommodation. 

The councillors made clear the level of fear and misinformation in our communities, caused by the Home Office’s complete failure to communicate with residents, and asked for urgent clarification. The Minister apologised for the failure in their communications and promised to send more information quickly. 

The Minister insisted no formal decision has been made regarding use of the site. Council leaders demanded that the Home Office communicate the facts in detail and in writing to local residents, and through a consistent in person presence over the weeks and months to come. 

Leader of the Council, Councillor James Partridge, said, “We remain appalled at the mess the Home Office has made of the situation, but the Minister today accepted the validity of our concerns and agreed to provide more information quickly and to respond to our specific points. Let’s hope action follows these words, and fast.”

25 November 2025 – Letter from WDC to Nus Ghani MP

Dear Ms Ghani MP, ME Davies MP and Dr Mullen MP,

I refer to your letter of 19 November 2025.

Your letter implies that you are seeking to work with the Council, but both in your letter and elsewhere, you continually attack the Council, Rachel and me personally.

In your respective roles as Members of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, we wonder if you have signed up to the Debate not Hate campaign? I ask you to reflect on whether writing a letter on House of Commons paper that accuses another public body and elected representatives of ‘gaslighting’ and pushes false narratives in this way is consistent with that pledge.

We understand as well as anyone how serious this issue is for Crowborough. However, we all have a duty as community leaders to act in our community interests whilst not actively stoking hatred and division. I ask you to reflect on your role in this. I am therefore not going to respond to every political attack in your letter with one of my own. But let us be clear – our Council did not propose this plan. We have formally opposed this plan. We have not agreed anything with the Home Office. We have not received (nor yet been offered) a penny from the Home Office. We have, however, challenged the Home Office professionally and effectively and worked with our public sector partners to do so.

You asked us to correct the record about public meetings and I am very happy to do so.

As you say, on the 10 November we held a Scrutiny meeting with the Home Office in attendance, with the public invited to attend and watch online.

On the 13 November,  working with Crowborough Town Council we hosted a public meeting, which Ms Ghani attended, again open to the public and hosted online. Finally, most recently, we held our Full Council meeting on the 19 November with the Council unanimously passing a motion to oppose the Home Office plans – again open to the public and hosted online.

Your regular demands that the Council take action that would be unlawful and your exaggerations about its planning powers are just unhelpful. We have sought advice from leading King’s Counsel and will use this advice to hold the Home Office to account. For reasons which should be obvious, we cannot publish that advice.

You have complained that we haven’t met a minister, having failed to invite us to attend a meeting you secured. I am pleased to say that we now have an appointment with the Minister. It is clear from your letter that you do not intend to take a constructive approach and so I see no point in continuing this correspondence.

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

25 November 25 – Home Office response to Scrutiny & Performance Committee meeting

Dear Councillor Wilson,

During my attendance at the Wealden District Council Scrutiny and Performance Committee on 10 November 2025, I committed to write to you with further details on some of the points raised by Councillors during the session. I also note the follow up letter of 24 November from Chris Bending, Director of Place.

I will respond to each of these points in turn;

1. The Committee requested an explanation on the rationale for operating the site on a non-detained basis. The individuals who would be accommodated at Crowborough Training Camp are asylum seekers whose claims are being processed. Those with a valid pending asylum claim are considered lawfully present in the United Kingdom under immigration legislation, and as such are not subject to removal or detention. Detention does play a key role in maintaining effective immigration control and securing the UK’s borders, particularly in connection with the removal of people who have no right to remain in the UK but who refuse to leave voluntarily. Under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, detention must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate. Decisions to detain are taken on a case-by-case basis and detention must be for the shortest period necessary. Where detention is for the purpose of removal, there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale. We are regularly held to account on this by the courts.

2. Several questions were raised about processes and sanctions available where asylum seekers go missing or remain absent from the site. Concerns were also voiced about the risk of missing asylum seekers being vulnerable to Modern Slavery.

Residents of Crowborough Training Camp would not be detained and would be free to come and go as they wish, provided they adhere to the standard site conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions, would lead to their entitlement to accommodation being reviewed and could result in the provision of accommodation being withdrawn.

The camp would have a defined boundary and monitoring arrangements to ensure safety and security, with residents signing in and out as they enter and leave. Twenty-four-hour security would be operating seven days a week on site, with a strict no-alcohol on site policy, managed by an experienced specialist provider contracted by the Home Office. This would be overseen by the Home Office assurance team on site.

The Home Office operates a clear and proportionate framework for managing unexpected absences from asylum accommodation, balancing enforcement with safeguarding responsibilities. Specifically;

Investigation and Support Conditions – Where an individual is absent for the specified period, without permission for up to 7 consecutive days or 14 days in any 6-month period, the case is investigated promptly. Residents are given the opportunity to explain their absence before any decision is taken. If no valid reason is provided, asylum support may be suspended or discontinued in line with statutory provisions under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Individuals retain a full right of appeal.

Safeguarding and Vulnerability Protocols – Safeguarding is central to this process. Each case is assessed individually to identify risks such as mental health concerns, exploitation, or trafficking. Where indicators of vulnerability are present, the safeguarding protocols would be activated and a safeguarding referral made. This ensures timely intervention and coordination with local authorities and police who can refer potential victims into NRM if there are concerns, they have been exploited. Vulnerable individuals may be relocated or provided alternative accommodation if absence relates to safety or health needs.

Sanctions and Compliance Controls – Residents are required to comply with Conditions of Support, including attendance checks and reporting obligations.

Persistent non-compliance may result in:
• Formal warnings
• Reduction or withdrawal of subsistence support
• Discontinuation of accommodation support
• Site operators maintain 24/7 security, conduct welfare checks, and escalate
behavioural concerns through structured channels. Residents receive an induction booklet outlining site rules, sanctions, and complaint routes, supported by a Migrant Help helpline.

3. Oversight and Assurance
The Home Office monitors provider compliance through contract assurance inspections and regular situational reports. Engagement with local police and health partners ensures safeguarding risks are managed collaboratively. This approach ensures that absences are treated seriously but proportionately, maintaining the integrity of the asylum support system while prioritising the safety and wellbeing of those accommodated.

4. Contact during the asylum application process

As well as ongoing contact conditions on site, we expect asylum seekers to stay in contact with the Home Office and comply with the asylum process, including providing up-to-date contact details and following any reporting conditions. Reporting events are scheduled to maintain contact with asylum seekers and ensure the Home Office has up-to-date details. Asylum seekers are expected to engage with reporting events to ensure their compliance with the immigration system. As part of the asylum process, a claimant may be required by the Home Office to attend a one-off reporting event or series of scheduled reporting events. Failure to attend a reporting event, may lead to a claim being withdrawn in line with Paragraph 333C(b)(iv) of the Immigration Rules.

All asylum seekers, including those receiving accommodation or financial support must keep the Home Office informed of any changes in circumstances. At the decision and appeal stage, applicants are expected to engage promptly with correspondence and attend hearings. Even after a decision, compliance remains essential, whether transitioning to refugee status or cooperating with return arrangements. These measures collectively demonstrate a clear and consistent pattern of contact throughout the process. Further details of the asylum application process can be found here; 

5. Several Councillors requested confirmation on the average age of asylum seekers who would be accommodated on site.

The Home Office does not report on individual ages. Our published statistics focus on broad categories such as male vs female, over or under 18, and country of origin, as well as how these compare internationally. Detailed age-specific data was discontinued in 2023, so it is not possible to provide estimates beyond these categories.

6. Information on previous Ministerial decision about Crowborough Training Camp.

While Crowborough Training Camp and other sites have been assessed by successive ministers in the past, those decisions reflected the circumstances and priorities at the time. The current proposal is based on today’s operational needs and the outcome of refreshed feasibility assessments.

7. Request for details of the impact assessment Impact assessments, including community and equality considerations are ongoing as part of the standard process and published where appropriate.

5. Clarification on the timeline of meetings between the Home Office and Wealden District Council.

On 10 October, the Home Office held an online meeting with Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council to formally notify them of the intention to use Crowborough Training Camp as temporary asylum accommodation. This was followed on 13 October by initial meetings with the Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Sussex Police to discuss health and public safety considerations for the site. On 15 October, a site visit took place with representatives from Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council, providing an opportunity to see the facilities first-hand.

I trust this is helpful, please do reach out if you require any further clarity on any of the points covered.

Yours sincerely,
Andrew Larter
Asylum Accommodation Delivery Director

24 November 2025 – Response Letter from Alex Norris MP

Dear Cllrs Partridge and Millward,

Thank you for your recent letters about the potential use of Crowborough Training Camp as temporary asylum accommodation. I recognise the strength of feeling locally and appreciate the concerns you have raised.
Firstly, I want to emphasise that no final decision has been made on the use of Crowborough Training Camp.

Discussions are ongoing, and any decision will only be taken once all relevant factors have been carefully considered.

I deeply regret that the recent leak forced the Home Office to accelerate our
communication and act out of sequence with the engagement plan we had agreed in principle. This was not the approach we intended, and we recognise the difficult position this placed Wealden Council in. I am aware that the leak has led to speculation and misinformation circulating locally, which is something I take extremely seriously. The Home Office priority is to ensure accurate information is shared promptly and transparently.

To address this, officials have worked at pace to ensure the community receives clear, factual information. Including:
• Providing a publicly available fact sheet setting out the key facts, safeguards, and rationale behind any potential use of the site. The fact sheet is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-accommodation-at-militarysites-factsheets/crowborough-training-camp-east-sussex-factsheet.

• Engagement with Wealden Council: on 10 October, the Home Office held an online meeting with Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council to formally notify them of the intention to use Crowborough Training Camp as temporary asylum accommodation. This was followed on 13 October by initial meetings with the Sussex Integrated Care Board (ICB) and Sussex Police to discuss health and public safety considerations for the site. On 15 October, a site visit took place with representatives from Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council, providing an opportunity to see the facilities first-hand.

With regards to the concerns you raise about the site specifics, including security and wellbeing, occupancy, and access to essential services I want to reassure you of the following;

Safety and wellbeing
The safety and wellbeing of both asylum seekers and the local community is our absolute priority.

If the site is progressed:
• All individuals will undergo initial screening and security checks before arrival.

• The site will have a 24/7 security presence, controlled access, and CCTV
monitoring.

• Welfare support will include healthcare provision, including mental health support.

• There will be clear safeguarding protocols for vulnerable individuals and robust reporting mechanisms for any issues.

• We are working closely with local police, NHS services, and voluntary sector
partners to ensure risks are managed and community cohesion is maintained.

Occupancy and cohort
Occupancy of the site will be phased and incremental, allowing the Home Office to monitor impact and carefully manage the site. In terms of scale, Crowborough Training Camp has a capacity to accommodate up to 540 individuals.

Healthcare
The Home Office intention is for the site to run as self-sufficiently as possible. The detailed design of the provision of essential services such as healthcare and legal advice is currently being worked on. The offer will ensure that asylum seekers receive the support required by law during the processing of their asylum claims.

In summary, the Government has a statutory duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. We are determined to restore order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly.

Moving away from hotels is essential to reduce the pressure of communities and costs to the taxpayer. Crowborough Training Camp offers basic, safe accommodation designed to minimise the impact on local services while meeting our legal obligations.

I note your request to meet. I look forward to meeting you on Wednesday 25th November to discuss this matter.

Yours sincerely,
Alex Norris MP, Minister for Border Security & Asylum 

24 November 2025 – WDC Letter to Home Office

Dear Mr Larter

Crowborough Army Training Camp

Thank you once again for attending our Scrutiny & Performance Committee meeting on Monday 10 November 2025, where you agreed to respond in writing to several important FAQs following our discussion.

As a reminder, the Committee’s outstanding questions were as follows:

 Details of where the asylum seekers have come from before being located to the Crowborough Army Camp.

 Modern slavery – what initial and ongoing checks do you have in place?

 More information on the process regarding checks on asylum seekers allowed out of the site for 7 days.

 Information on whether the Army Camp had been considered before now (including by the previous government) and rejected.

 Community Impact Assessment – the Home Office advised that as much information as possible would be shared, and where it is not possible to fully meet the needs of the Council’s Members and communities, we would be informed of the reasons.

 More information on sanctions for service users breaking rules on site (EG
consumption of alcohol on site)

 Whether a planning application would be made to Wealden District Council.

We appreciate your commitment to providing answers to these questions. However, as some time has now passed since our meeting, we would be grateful if you could prioritise your response and let us know when we can expect to receive the information requested.

The Committee and our local community are keen to understand these matters as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to your prompt reply.

Yours sincerely
Chris Bending, Director of Place

Planning Contravention Notice

We have served a Planning Contravention Notice on the Home Office. This is to obtain detailed information about what building works are happening now, what is planned for Crowborough Training Camp and to understand, from the Home Office, the basis on which they deem the works to be lawful.

This will help to identify whether there are any grounds for challenge in relation to planning law or more generally.

By law, planning enforcement powers, such as Stop Notices and Enforcement Notices can only be used after there has been a breach of planning control, not pre-emptively in the way that is being suggested by some parties.

You can see the full guidance at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement

19 November 2025 – Letter from Nus Ghani response to WDC

Dear Cllr Rachel Millward and Cllr James Partridge, 

Thank you for your prompt letter dated 14th November, which sadly failed to answer the basic questions we raised to help us and our constituents see what Wealden District Council has been doing to lead the legal challenge against the
Home Office.

Taking legal action was the clear statement of intent made by Cllr James Partridge with Cllr Rachel Millward at the public meeting hosted and chaired by Nusrat Ghani MP on Monday 10th November.

We had hoped that Wealden District Council leadership would be true to their word, but alas, not a single item of evidence has been shared to show any legal action has or will definitely take place. What’s more your letter states:
“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.”

This is a joke, as it clearly reflects that your decision to take legal action will be political, as you are yet to be convinced that the right reasons exist.

A – We and your constituents are fed up with this gaslighting – are you or aren’t you going to take legal action?

B – At the public meeting organised by Crowborough Town Mayor, Cllr James Partridge admitted that he couldn’t explain nor understand your own KCs advice. This is beyond parody and we and our constituents have zero
confidence that you have the skills, willingness or even interest in pursuing the Home Office on behalf of Wealden.

Can you confirm that you have read and understood your KCs advice and will share that with key stakeholders – when and where will this happen?

We worked on our technical letter to you with guidance and shared legal experiences of other Councils fighting the Home Office, saving you time and helping you hone your case. It sets out multiple planning challenges you can use against the Home Office, opportunities that exist and have been deployed by other councils in similar situations. We have shared details of those councils with your officials and have helped secure a meeting with West Lindsey District Council, basically stepping in and doing the jobs you have been elected to do.

C – Have you even attended those meetings to improve your lack of knowledge?

Instead of dismissing our letter, you should be using it to strengthen your legal case and challenge the Home Office over its process and perceived legal powers. You can thank us later.

D – As for your ‘wasting public money’ point, you allocated £1.2m to Sussex Wildlife Trust, £450k to celebrate Winnie the Pooh and £450k per year for District Councillors to donate to local charities in line with your Council strategy. Can you confirm these are choices you have made on public money expenditure?

You make disingenuous statements that you want us to ‘work together’. How do we work with you when you haven’t done anything, won’t meet in public, or share information. We aren’t going to join you in sitting on your collective hands, letting the clock run down. We will work with you, when you actually evidence you will do all in your power to legally challenge the Home Office. A
letter before action, for example.

Until then, we will continue to do what we can with our constituents and local stakeholders to gather as much information to challenge the Home Office and put pressure on you as the lead and planning authority to actually take
legal action.

E – If you change your mind, do as our letter asks and set up a weekly/daily working group which meets in public and works towards challenging the Home Office, not working with them.

In your letter to us ref points 7 and 10 (below) are a fabrication and need to be formally corrected, unless you can share when and where you have held any public meetings where we and the public had the opportunity to question
you, Crowborough Councillors and Officers.

Nusrat Ghani MP and the Crowborough Town Mayor (to question the Home Office) have held public meetings, and the council have held a scrutiny meeting (where the Liberal Democrat and Green Leadership were forced to address the issue). We trust you will correct the record and not spin misinformation.

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.”

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.”

You end with the following:
“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.”

This is just dither and delay. We urge you to just move in some direction, any direction and we will applaud you. To date you have held one meeting with stakeholders on Friday 7th November, where you excluded us MPs and local
representatives, and we are informed by stakeholders present, that they are still awaiting for minutes from you. As if we have all the time in the world.

As for exchanging long letters, welcome to the real world of governing, accountability and transparency. Please respond to points A to E by Friday 21st November. We look forward to an update on the all the outstanding points you failed to answer. You can always get the answers from the Home Office, and if they don’t share them, use your legal powers to access the answers. We hope that helps improve your knowledge of the powers you have.

On behalf of Wealden and Crowborough we ask you to step up, get a grip of the situation and not waste any more time playing politics. Roll your sleeves up, and start working with the rest of us in legally challenging the Home Office.

Yours sincerely,
Nusrat Ghani MP – Sussex Weald
Mims Davies MP – East Grinstead and Uckfield
Dr Kieran Mullan MP – Bexhill and Battle

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

18 November 2025 – WDC letter to Alex Norris MP

Dear Home Secretary and Minister Norris

As you will be fully aware, on 28th October you announced your intention to utilise Crowborough Army Camp in our district as a temporary asylum camp for 540 single adult males.

Since that announcement, this council has written letters and emails to you and your officials, but you have failed to provide a single substantive reply to any of the questions and issues we have raised.

Central to that has been a request that you meet with us as the local, democratically elected leaders of the district. We have asked that this takes place as a site visit to the Crowborough Army Camp and the town. We do so as we find it impossible to believe that you would take such a significant decision without seeing first-hand the site and understanding the impact this decision will have on residents and the community.

Please will you and your officials engage meaningfully with us and local residents to understand the strengths of our collective concerns.

We therefore write, once again, to ask you to meet with us urgently to discuss this situation. And whilst, as stated above, we think it essential you visit our town, if you are not prepared to come here then we are fully prepared to come to Parliament to meet with you.

Please may we now have an urgent response to this request as well as all the other points we have raised 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

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

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

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 recorded public 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.

4 November 2025 – WDC 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 – WDC letter to 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 November 2025 – WDC letter to 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 – Letter to 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