There is an uncomfortable truth at the heart of the Crowborough Training Camp decision. The leadership of Wealden District Council did not lead the opposition to the proposal. It followed it. Residents were told there was “strong objection”. Public statements from figures such as Rachel Millward (Green Party deputy leader of WDC and “Co Deputy Leader” of the Green Party of England and Wales) and James Partridge (Liberal Democrat) expressed disappointment and concern. Yet that language only hardened from acquiescence to (weak) objection once the strength of feeling in the community became impossible to ignore. In the earliest stages following the Home Office notification that they intended to use Crowborough Training camp to house illegal migrants the council’s tone was different and conciliatory. The emphasis was on “working with the Home Office”, managing the situation, and cooperating with central government. It sounded like a managerial response to a political problem. Only after residents organised, public meetings, and visible opposition grew did the Council’s rhetoric shift into something stronger.
The community moved first. The local MP objected immediately and publicly. I objected formally as a District Councillor, and other Independent and Conservative councillors did the same. The concerns raised were not abstract. Community safety was an obvious live issue from the beginning. Incidents elsewhere in the country had already shown that the rapid introduction of large accommodation sites for small‑boat arrivals could create tension, significant policing demands and in increasing numbers of high profile cases, incidents of horrific criminal acts. Whether every incident was fairly represented or not, those examples shaped legitimate concern locally. At that early stage in October/November 2025 the projected £5.62 million policing cost had not yet emerged, but the risk was obvious to all but the most blinkered. When the figure later became known it confirmed what many had already feared. This was not a symbolic decision. It carried real implications for public services and public safety.
The location of the site raised another immediate concern. Crowborough Training Camp does not simply sit near Ashdown Forest. It directly borders it. It is a site that had been considered by the previous Conservative Govt and swiftly discounted. The site lies alongside one of the most protected landscapes in the South East. Ashdown Forest is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a Special Protection Area and a Special Area of Conservation. These protections exist because the ecological significance of the land has been recognised in law. Decisions that affect land bordering such an area require careful application of environmental safeguards. Additionally, the site was a nationally significant training facility for Army and RAF cadets – they were evicted back in early December 2025 to make way for 540 men who entered the Country illegally and would be free to wander the town and surrounding area. The Home Office line was as repetitive as it was unbelievable. “No final decision” was the mantra. Despite this, rennovations were ongoing, job advertisements posted, workers were hired and food was delivered in advance of the first “service users” arrivals. Then, on January 21st 2026 the Council Leader received a letter from Andrew Larter – the Home Office’s Director of Asylum accomodation – saying that the site would be occupied. A matter of hours later, the first 27 illegal migrants were bussed into the camp at 0330.
The Council’s own legal advice later acknowledged arguable errors of law relating to the Habitats Regulations and Environmental Impact Assessment regime. In plain language, that means there were legal questions worth asking. If arguable errors exist in the application of environmental protections around a protected landscape, testing those questions through the courts is not extraordinary. It is precisely how those legal safeguards are meant to function.
Yet when Crowborough Shield brought a judicial review challenge, it was residents who initiated and (importantly) funded that action. The Council did not lead the case. James Partridge’s administration joined the proceedings only as an interested party. When the case was dismissed on procedural timing grounds, another choice emerged. The Council could have stepped forward and brought a fresh claim itself. Instead, yesterday, it stepped back. Rachel Millward and James Partridge concluded that pursuing further legal action would be “morally wrong”, even while acknowledging that arguable legal errors had been identified by their own counsel.
The Home Office has relied heavily on emergency planning powers and Class Q provisions under the 2015 GPDO to justify bypassing the normal planning process. Emergency powers are intended to be exceptional. Yet the full decision‑making timeline, the internal assessments, and the evidence underpinning the claimed emergency have not been fully disclosed. Judicial review is often the only mechanism capable of compelling that level of transparency. When councils decline to test such decisions, they effectively accept the government’s account without forcing the reasoning behind it into the open.
The Council has demonstrated that it is prepared to spend money where it believes the cause justifies it. It committed £450,000 to the Ashdown Forest Foundation in connection with anniversary celebrations and has spent more than £80,000 on consultants developing its climate change strategy. Those decisions were defended as principled and forward‑looking. Climate change is undeniably a global issue. Yet the practical influence of a district council on global emissions is extremely limited (and should ideally be left to the national government). By contrast, the application of environmental law to a site that directly borders Ashdown Forest is immediate and local; it is also highly relevant to the Council’s actual responsibilities. If six‑figure sums can be committed to strategy documents and celebratory initiatives, it is reasonable to ask why testing arguable environmental errors affecting a protected forest is deemed beyond acceptable risk. We all thought the “Green Party” would be up for defending the environment – not in Wealden it seems.
Responsibility for this decision rests with the Council’s executive coalition of Green, Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors, led by James Partridge with Rachel Millward among its most prominent figures. The Greens frequently present themselves as champions of environmental protection. The Liberal Democrats emphasise local democracy and community voice. Labour speaks often about standing up for communities. Yet when confronted with a decision involving emergency powers, a site bordering a protected forest and substantial local implications, that executive chose caution.
Meanwhile, opposition councillors and the MP (Conservative Nusrat Ghani supported by neighboring MPs Mims Davies and Dr Kieren Mullan) objected clearly and early. The difference was not simply one of language. It was one of instinct. Some believed the decision required immediate challenge and scrutiny. Wealden’s “leadership” chose a more cautious path and hardened their stance only once community pressure made it unavoidable.
Leadership is not defined by statements issued after the fact. It is defined by who moves first and who is prepared to act when the outcome is uncertain. In this case the community moved first. Residents organised (forming a CIC, “Crowborough Shield” to fight the case), spoke out and forced the issue into the open. The Council’s leadership followed that pressure but ultimately declined to take the final step of testing the decision in court.
For many residents the sense of frustration is therefore not difficult to understand. When emergency powers are invoked on land that directly borders Ashdown Forest, when arguable legal errors are acknowledged, and when the local implications are significant, it is reasonable to expect the Council itself to lead the challenge. Instead, the burden now rests with residents and community groups. The question that remains is straightforward. If the Council only stands up once the strength of public feeling becomes impossible to ignore, is that leadership? And when the moment came to test the central government’s actions in court, should the community really have been left to carry that fight alone?
Crowborough Shield has raised another £60,000 to reissue proceedings; such is the strength of community feeling here. This is an important demonstration to the obstinate Home Secretary (Shabana Mahmood) that communities will not lie down and meekly accept being treated the way she has treated Crowborough. Her arrogant ambition to open “site after site” has hit a snag at the first hurdle, and I for one will continue to object to the consequences of national failure to secure our borders being unceremoniously dumped on communities in the UK.
Leave a Comment