Wales’ Minister for Housing and Local Government has been urged to ensure that the Welsh Government actively challenges the Home Office’s ‘autocratic action’ in repurposing the military camp at Penally as accommodation for asylum seekers.

The Home Office’s re-purposing of the military training camp to accommodate up to 250 male asylum seekers was carried out without any consultation with the Welsh Government, Pembrokeshire County Council, along with local stakeholders such as Hywel Dda Health Board and Dyfed-Powys Police.

The Secretary of State for Wales and local MP Simon Hart has stated that he was also unaware of the pending home office acquisition until 48 hours before the facility opened for asylum seeker accommodation.

During an online ‘community engagement meeting’ last week, director of borders, immigration and citizenship system at the Home Office Deborah Chittenden personally apologised for the lack of initial engagement, which was due to the urgent need of the situation due to a “blockage of the system” caused by Covid-19 lockdown.

Penally and Napier MoD sites were put forward as “immediately available” settings and because of “the speed in which we had to act” it had not been possible to carry out the usual engagement process, said Ms Chittenden, who assured the meeting, that it was a temporary agreement with the MoD for up to 12 months, and once the lockdown backlog was dealt with the site would not be needed.

However, the planning process in which the site has been obtained by the Home Office, continues to be questioned by stakeholders in Pembrokeshire.

Penally county councillor Jon Preston has now contacted Wales’ Minister for Housing and Local Government Julie James at the Senedd on the matter, to seek a ‘suitable resolution’.

“To date the Home Office has conceded that there is a requirement for a material change of use in this planning matter - therefore, planning consent is required with six-month emergency permitted development rights,” stated Clr. Preston.

“Due to there being a change of use, an assessment of the proposal against planning policy would be required, with an exception for any permitted development rights that may apply once the change of use occurs.”

As planning is devolved to Welsh Government, Clr. Preston has asked the Welsh Minister for full clarification on the following: ‘Do you agree that the emergency powers under Part 37, Class A of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 apply in this case, and if so, what burden of proof would the Home Office need in supporting this as a genuine emergency as opposed to planned policy?’

“I have written to PCC head of planning and suggested that a Planning Contravention Notice be considered for serving on the developer and Secretary of State seeking answers to questions to justify the state of emergency,” continued Clr. Preston, stating that in his opinion, the written information given to date does not discharge the ‘burden of proof’.

“The Home Office claim this action is key to resolving coronavirus social distancing guidelines, however the accommodation may not adequately support effective social distancing as suggested in a recent newspaper report which included photographs of the site.

“If an emergency situation is declared then the change of use at the site should show robust evidence of resolving that emergency.

“If these actions are not challenged then there is a possibility that the Home Office may not even pursue local authority approval. Therefore it remains imperative that a planning application is submitted.

“Then if the emergency designation is accepted, I understand that PCC could issue an enforcement notice if consent is not in place after six months.

“The Welsh Government should be actively challenging this affront to democracy by standing up to this autocratic action by Westminster.

“Many of those who are directly affected have worked all their lives to be able to enjoy a peaceful retirement in Penally, Pembrokeshire.

“To have this busy facility which is attracting national attention literally sharing a border with their homes and gardens is outrageous by anybody’s standards.

“Planning regulations (including Crown sites) are in place to protect the fundamental rights of people in our communities. There remains strict criteria which only allows policy to be wavered in the most exceptional of circumstances.

“For the good of the people we represent and for vulnerable adults to which we have a corporate safeguarding responsibility we must ensure that this criteria has been fully adhered to,” added Clr. Preston.