Planning inquiry opens on Stafford asylum seeker accommodation plan

Serco’s proposals for Stafford Court at Beaconside were refused permission by Stafford Borough Council’s planning committee last year after concerns were raised about social inclusivity, impact on public health services and fear of crime – despite being recommended for approval by planning officers.

Serco, which manages asylum seeker accommodation on behalf of the Home Office, has appealed against the decision. And a planning inspector is now hearing from representatives of the council and Serco in a public inquiry being held this week.

Around 50 people attended on the opening morning on Tuesday to watch proceedings at Stafford Rugby Club. The inquiry is also being livestreamed online for those unable to attend.

Residents are being given the opportunity to have their say during the hearing, which is due to run for three days this week. But planning inspector Gareth Jones – who shares his name with a borough councillor – had to warn audience members not to intimidate or catcall speakers after laughter and a call of “rubbish” were heard during Serco’s opening statement.

Jonathan Easton KC, representing Serco at the inquiry, said: “Whatever one’s political opinion, there is an urgent and pressing need to provide accommodation for people seeking asylum. The need is nationwide and the Government expects each local authority to support their fair share of asylum seekers.

“Given the acknowledged need for asylum seeker accommodation, together with the absence of any objections by the council or statutory consultee in relation to highway safety, trees, drainage, school places, noise, overlooking or residential amenity the case for the appeal scheme is only strengthened. It is therefore hardly surprising that the council’s expert planning officers could find no basis on which to refuse planning permission or that there were no formal objections from any statutory consultee.

“The police raised no objection to the appeal scheme and rejected the notion that there will be an increase in crime due to arrival of asylum seekers. The council does not produce one shred of evidence that the introduction of asylum seekers into a community results in an increase in crime caused by refugees; indeed the experience of the appellant is quite the opposite.”

Barrister Hugh Richards, representing the borough council at the inquiry, said: “The council’s concerns about social inclusivity relate to the conditions under which the proposed 481 asylum seekers will live, their daily routine and how these conditions need to be improved in order to mitigate adverse impacts on the local community.

"There appears to be a tension between the approach of the Home Office to keep conditions spartan so as to discourage asylum seekers from entering the country and the planning system, which seeks to build places of quality, sustainable communities and make available opportunities for productive and healthy work and leisure time.

“The council fears that having such a concentration of asylum seekers living on the appeal site gives rise to a rational and legitimate fear of crime in the local community. The crime they fear comes from both the asylum seekers themselves as a result of the conditions the Home Office proposes to keep them under, and from groups protesting – or worse – at their presence in the community or even the country.

“Finally, the council is not satisfied that the health services that will undoubtedly and rightly be needed by the asylum seekers will not deplete the resources that the existing community needs and relies on. The council’s case is that it is for Serco to explain satisfactorily, and it has not done so.”