A residents’ group in East Sussex is preparing a second legal challenge against government plans to house asylum seekers at a former military site in Crowborough, reigniting debate over the use of defence facilities for migrant accommodation. The group, Crowborough Shield, confirmed it has secured sufficient funding to submit a renewed request for a judicial review after an earlier application was rejected by the courts.
The UK Home Office announced last year that around 500 people seeking asylum would be accommodated at the former army camp as part of a broader strategy to reduce reliance on hotels for temporary housing. The proposal has triggered sustained local opposition, with demonstrations taking place regularly since the plans were unveiled.
Crowborough Shield describes itself as a non-political, voluntary residents’ organisation. Its founder, Kim Bailey, confirmed that a community fundraising campaign had generated approximately £138,000 to support the renewed legal bid. Bailey said the group had been working closely with its lawyers to ensure the application would be submitted before the court’s deadline.
The legal action follows a decision by Wealden District Council not to pursue further proceedings against the government’s proposal. The council said it had acted on legal advice indicating that another judicial review would likely deliver “nothing of practical value” while risking unnecessary costs for taxpayers.
The proposed use of the military site has divided the local community. Some residents have raised concerns about potential pressure on public services and safety, while others have urged a more compassionate response, noting that previous refugees housed at the facility did not cause problems.
The site previously hosted Army and Air Cadets, who vacated the premises after the government confirmed it would be repurposed for asylum accommodation. In January, the first group of 27 male asylum seekers was transferred to the camp as part of the government’s phased approach.
The Home Office has previously argued that using military sites as temporary accommodation offers a more cost-effective alternative to housing asylum seekers in hotels, which ministers say has placed significant strain on public finances. Officials maintain that such facilities can help manage arrivals while limiting the impact on local communities.
If the courts accept the renewed judicial review request, the case could reopen legal scrutiny of the government’s approach to asylum accommodation and the wider policy of repurposing military infrastructure for temporary housing.
