AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING of the COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF GOSPORT was held in the Council Chamber at the TOWN HALL, GOSPORT on THURSDAY, the TWENTIETH day of FEBRUARY 2003 at 6.0O PM.
The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Mrs Binfield) (P);
Councillors Allen (P), Mrs Angus, Mrs Batterbury (P), Bone (P), Burgess (P), Carr (P), Carter (P), Chegwyn (P), Clinton (P), Mrs Cully (P), Cully (P), Edgar (P), Edwards (P), Mrs Elshaw (P), Farr (P), Francis (P), Friend (P), Gill (P), Mrs Gravell (P), Hayward, Hook (P), Kimber (P), Langdon (P), Redrup (P), Russell M (P), Russell P (P), Mrs Salter, Searle (P), Smith (P), Taylor, Train (P), Mrs Wright (P) and Wright (P).
Also in attendance: Honorary Aldermen Mrs Bailey, Flory, Foster, O'Neill, Mrs Snaith and Mrs Whitbread.
____________________
APOLOGIES
Apologies for inability to attend the meeting were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Angus, Hayward, Mrs Salter and Taylor.
___________________
STANDING ORDERS 4.9.8 AND 3.5.2
In order for a Deputation from Fareham Borough Council to be presented to the Council the Deputy Mayor moved Standing Order 4.9.8 in order to waive Standing Order 4.9 (Procedure for Deputations). The Borough Solicitor also reported that a notice had been received which requested the suspension of Standing Order 3.5.2 (Deputation to be countersigned by ten electors).
RESOLVED: That Standing Order 4.9 be waived and Standing Order 3.5.2 be suspended to enable the Deputation from Fareham Borough Council to be presented to the meeting.
___________________
DEPUTATIONS
The Deputy Mayor reported that she had received requests for two Deputations from the Lee-on-the-Solent Residents Association and the Daedalus Action Group and from Fareham Borough Council.
LEE-ON-THE-SOLENT RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION /
DAEDALUS ACTION GROUP
Mrs Alison Roast addressed the Council on behalf of the Residents Association and Daedalus Action Group and the salient points from her Deputation are detailed as follows:
· The Action Group were delighted to hear that the campaign against the Accommodation Centre would have the full support of the Council and be an all party campaign.
· An important issue was security of the Military if asylum seekers were allowed to roam freely around the community. There were large numbers of servicemen and their families potentially at risk along with the Portsmouth Naval Base and numerous Royal Naval bases.
· 400 asylum seekers represented 8 % of the community and would have a significant effect on the area.
· Medical (both primary and hospital) and dental facilities were already at breaking point.
· Asylum Seekers would put pressure on the Council's Housing Waiting List.
· An Asylum Centre would undermine the area's economy, particularly tourism opportunities in Lee.
· The economy of Lee required a substantial re-occupation of Daedalus by the MOD or the release of the site for civilian development.
FAREHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL
Councillor Mandry, Deputy Leader of Fareham Borough Council, who was in attendance with County Councillor Knight (Fareham (Crofton)), addressed the Council on behalf of Fareham Borough Council and the salient points from his Deputation are detailed as follows:
· Fully supported Gosport Borough Council's opposition to the Accommodation Centre.
· The Fareham Executive had agreed to provide £5,000 to the campaign fund to be run by the two Councils. With this in mind he requested a Fareham Borough Council representative on the proposed Action Group.
· The situation nationally had been mismanaged with a reported influx of 100,000 asylum seekers per year. The Prime Minister had acknowledged that the numbers should be reduced by 50% by September 2003.
· The proposed Accommodation Centre would blight homes and businesses, have an impact on the local infrastructure and amenities, overload services which were already overburdened and there was the prospect of an increased fear and perhaps incidence of crime.
· The freedom of movement of the asylum seekers was likely to cause considerable alarm and restrict the movements of residents, with potential public order problems.
· The Accommodation Centre would affect the whole area including many residents of Hill Head and Stubbington who lived close to the establishment.
· Public consultation by the Government on the proposed Accommodation Centre was never part of the plan. Fareham Borough Council had not been consulted despite 80% of the site being in the Borough of Fareham.
· The proposal for an accommodation centre was unfair, unreasonable and unwarranted.
___________________
PUBLIC QUESTIONS PURSUANT OF STANDING ORDER 3.6
(A) Question No.1 standing in the name of Mr Beavis on the security implications of the asylum seeker route being used by terrorist organisations was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(B) Question No.2 standing in the name of Mr Astill on the subject of the lack of consultation by the Government with local authorities was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(C) Question No.3 standing in the name of Mr Kent on the subject of a potential increase in the number of asylum seekers without further public consultation was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(D) Question No.4 standing in the name of Mr Brown on the subject of the current situation with regard to the Government's application to house asylum seekers on the Daedalus site was answered by the Leader of the Council.
(E) Question No.5 standing in the name of Mrs Whitear on the subject of the impact of the
Government's proposals on the Gosport Housing Waiting List was answered by the Leader of the Council.
___________________
STANDING ORDER 4.15.1
The Borough Solicitor reported that notice had been received requesting that Standing Order 4.15.1 be moved to enable the Chief Executive to present his report on the Home Office proposal to establish an Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers at HMS Daedalus.
RESOLVED: That Standing Order 4.15.1 be moved to enable the Chief Executive to present his report in connection with the Home Office proposal to establish an Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers at HMS Daedalus.
___________________
HOME OFFICE PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN ACCOMMODATION
CENTRE FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS AT HMS DAEDALUS
The Chief Executive had previously circulated a report to Members of the Council on the above matter. He reported that as part of what was described as a radical asylum reform programme, the Government had announced that it was considering the suitability of part of the former HMS Daedalus site as a location for a "smaller scale" accommodation centre for asylum seekers. Home Office Minister, Beverley Hughes, had made this announcement on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 at the same time as confirming that certain other locations around the Country would not be pursued further, although other sites would still be required.
CONSULTATIONS SO FAR
A meeting had taken place with a representative of the Home Office and two supporting consultants on 5 February. This meeting was held at the request of the Home Office and was attended by the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive. The following morning, Group Leaders and Deputies were briefed on the discussion.
Prior to this time, there had been no indication that the Daedalus site was under consideration for a use of the kind now proposed. At the meeting it was indicated that the site would be suitable for 400 - 500 asylum seekers with a split between single males of all ages and families. It was also suggested that there would be no announcement from the Minister for a few weeks.
In the event the announcement came sooner than expected, just three working days later. Although the Chief Executive was given about 10 minutes warning by the Home Office prior to the Ministerial announcement, there was no indication that the site was being investigated, not for single males and families but for 400 single males only.
THE PROPOSAL
The key elements of the proposal had been gleaned from the meeting last week and from Home Office publicity material. Further meetings with appropriate officials were being organised as a result of the Ministerial announcement.
Principles
Accommodation Centres were intended to make it easier for the Home Office to stay in touch with asylum seekers while their applications were being considered. At present, most asylum seekers were housed around the country in houses, flats or hostels. This proposal would change this by creating controlled self-contained centres. It was a model used successfully in some other European countries. Two other larger centres were currently proposed at RAF Newton near Nottingham, and at the Defence Storage and Distribution Centre near Bicester in Oxfordshire. Both were for 750 persons and were understood to involve new-build in more isolated greenfield locations than HMS Daedalus. Final decisions had not been made and both were the subject of Planning Inquiries.
Location
A 20-30 acre site occupied by substantial accommodation blocks and related buildings. This area was covered by a Conservation Area Designation and may include Listed Buildings depending on where the exact boundaries were drawn.
Numbers of Occupants
The 400 single male occupants would remain at the Centre while they were being assessed for asylum. The Home Office indicated at the meeting that this would normally be for about 6-8 weeks. There was, in any event, a statutory time limit of 6 months extendable in certain circumstances to 9 months.
Support Services
The Centre would be self sufficient in providing for basic living needs, education and health facilities, purposeful activities and voluntary work, interpretation facilities and access to legal advice. The Home Office were keen to stress that there should be no additional burden on local services.
Status while in the Centre
Accommodation centres were not the same as removal centres. The Haslar removal centre was for asylum seekers who had been assessed and were being processed for removal. Removal centres were secure, but accommodation centres such as that proposed at Daedalus would have open gates.
Post Decision Implications
After a decision was made about asylum seekers, those who were to be allowed to stay in this country would be free to go. The Home Office had programmes in place which were designed to re-settle them around the country with a particular emphasis on larger cities and locations where appropriate ethnic communities existed. Clearly there would be a need to clarify the extent to which such programmes would result in asylum seekers leaving this area and the extent to which they might remain here with resulting implications for housing, health, social services, education and other local services. It should be noted that they would, if they wished, have a right to remain here.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT
The Home Office had indicated its intention to use Circular 18/84 procedures. In many ways, these mock the normal planning application process. A consultation was submitted and this was processed in much the same way as a normal planning application. The Council, and any other interested parties would have the opportunity to comment or raise objections. There was no automatic statutory right to an Inquiry but if it was considered appropriate, an Inquiry could be held. It was noted that this approach had been adopted in the case of the two other sites currently being pursed by the Home Office. If the Inquiry route was taken, the final decision lay with the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Home Office wished to have further meetings to discuss the technical implications of this proposal and the submission of a consultation under Circular 18/84. They also wished to agree the consultation process surrounding any submission and possible time scales.
It was difficult to predict timescales but in the case of the other two sites mentioned in this report, announcements were made in July 2002 and as yet the issues had not been finally determined. In one case, the Inquiry was underway, in the other, it was due in April this year.
It was also understood that at the appropriate time, the Minister, Beverley Hughes, wished to meet representatives of the Council, Community etc, to explain the proposal and process in more detail. This situation was currently being clarified.
THIS COUNCIL'S APPROACH
Clearly this proposal, if it was implemented, would have major implications for the social, economic and environmental infrastructure of the Borough. At present there were poor road links and no rail link to Lee, there were no NHS dentists and GP lists had been closed. These, and other concerns, were being expressed vociferously within the Borough, and within Lee-on-the-Solent specifically.
Group Leaders had already expressed their concern and wished to actively support and provide leadership for a campaign of opposition. It was very important that the facts and implications were properly understood and that a measured strategy was devised if there was to be a chance of overturning the current proposal. All those responsible individuals and organisations with a view must, as far as possible, work together to achieve a common approach.
The proposal in this report had a number of elements.
An Action Group needed to be established to take forward and co-ordinate the campaign of opposition to this proposal. The Group would co-ordinate Council work with other groups who share the same concerns as the Council. If Members agreed, it was suggested that the Group could be made up of the following representation:
· Group Leaders, or deputies, depending on availability
· Two Ward Councillors
· Two representatives of the Lee Community
· A fund raising co-ordinator
· The M.P.
· One County Council representative
It was suggested that this Group would most appropriately be chaired by the Leader of the Council. Clearly it would work closely with local groups in Lee-on-the-Solent and with Fareham Borough Council and Hampshire County Council, who were both concerned by this proposal.
A variety of petitions were being organised including one already created by the Borough Council. If the various parties agreed, it was suggested that the Council would collate these so that they could be presented, together with letters and e-mail correspondence, to the Home Office at the appropriate time.
Clearly there was much to do and various actions and methods of measured protest needed to be considered urgently. The proposed Action Group needed to meet quickly to give the Community a chance to have its say and make its views known, as well as to plan for longer term action, objection and comment.
The Action Group would need funding and it had been possible to identify £5,000 from the Council Budget for this purpose. Counsel's advice was that the money could be used in this way provided that it was used to co-ordinate and support relevant arguments; it should not be used for posters or fly-posting purposes. In addition it was envisaged that other stakeholders might wish to contribute. There had already been a very generous offer from a private source. The approach should be a legal, measured response in relation to the social, economic and environmental infrastructure of the Borough.
The Chief Executive recommended in his report that the Council –
(i) expresses its opposition to the proposal for an Accommodation Centre for asylum seekers at HMS Daedalus and supports a measured, co-ordinated campaign against it,
(ii) establishes and participates in an Action Group along the lines outlined above, and
(iii) approves the contribution of £5,000 towards the expenses of the Action Group.
The Leader of the Council moved that the Action Group should be renamed "Co-ordinating Group" and that a representative from Fareham Borough Council together with two extra representatives from the Lee community should be added to the membership of the Co-ordinating Group. The Council accordingly approved the Leader of the Council's Motion.
MOTION: That the recommendations contained in the Chief Executive's report be approved and adopted.
In accordance with Standing Order 4.12.4, it was requisitioned that the voting on each of the recommendations in the Motion be recorded.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on Recommendation (i) and the names of the Members voting for Recommendation (i) were read to the Council as follows -
FOR RECOMMENDATION (i): the Deputy Mayor, Councillors Allen, Mrs Batterbury, Bone, Burgess, Carr, Carter, Chegwyn, Clinton, Mrs Cully, Cully, Edgar, Edwards, Mrs Elshaw, Farr, Francis, Friend, Gill, Mrs Gravell, Hook, Kimber, Langdon, Redrup, M Russell, P Russell, Searle, Smith, Train, Wright and Mrs Wright (30).
Recommendation (i) was put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on Recommendation (ii) and the names of the Members voting for Recommendation (ii) were read to the Council as follows –
FOR RECOMMENDATION (ii): the Deputy Mayor, Councillors Allen, Mrs Batterbury, Bone, Burgess, Carr, Carter, Chegwyn, Clinton, Mrs Cully, Cully, Edgar, Edwards, Mrs Elshaw, Farr, Francis, Friend, Gill, Mrs Gravell, Hook, Kimber, Langdon, Redrup, M Russell, P Russell, Searle, Smith, Train, Wright and Mrs Wright (30).
Recommendation (ii) was put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.
A recorded vote was thereupon taken on Recommendation (iii) and the names of the Members voting for and against Recommendation (iii) and those abstaining from voting were read to the Council as follows –
FOR RECOMMENDATION (iii): the Deputy Mayor, Councillors Allen, Mrs Batterbury, Bone, Burgess, Carter, Clinton, Mrs Cully, Cully, Edgar, Edwards, Mrs Elshaw, Farr, Francis, Mrs Gravell, Hook, Kimber, Langdon, Redrup, M Russell, P Russell, Searle, Smith, Train, Wright and Mrs Wright (26).
AGAINST RECOMMENDATION (iii): Councillor Chegwyn (1)
ABSTENTIONS: Councillor Carr, Friend and Gill (3)
Recommendation (iii) was put to the meeting and declared CARRIED.
The Motion was accordingly put to the meeting and duly RESOLVED.
The Council rose at 8.15 pm
|
|
