At a full council meeting on Thursday 13 July, Dorset Council Leader, Cllr Spencer Flower, made the following comments in response to a question about the Home Office’s decision to house asylum seekers on a barge in Portland Port.
Dorset Council was first notified about a planned asylum seeker barge on 21 March 2023. This was after the Home Office had already reached a provisional agreement with Portland Port Ltd to site the barge in the Port.
Portland is not the right place for the barge. This is why we sought advice from a leading barrister, Richard Wald KC, about potential grounds for a legal challenge. Mr Wald was chosen because of his expertise and his success in obtaining an injunction against Home Office plans for asylum hotels in Great Yarmouth.
A team of council officers drawn from our legal service, planning, regulatory services, housing and children’s and adult social care prepared detailed background information and held meetings with the barrister to identify possible grounds for a legal challenge.
We focused on the planning status of Portland Port and whether it could be argued that the proposal to site the barge in the Port was unlawful because no planning permission had been obtained. In addition we asked for advice about whether the Home Office should have consulted the local community and the Council about their proposal. We also sought advice about whether the barge proposal was so obviously wrong that a court would be likely to intervene and declare it unlawful (what lawyers call an irrational decision).
After a thorough examination of the issues the barrister advised that we did not have strong grounds to bring a legal challenge. He also advised that there was no requirement for the Home Office to consult us about their proposals. Ahead of the meeting this evening the barrister has confirmed that this is still his opinion.
In some cases councils have obtained temporary injunctions after arguing that accommodating asylum seekers in hotels would involve a change of use from hotel to hostel accommodation requiring a new grant of planning permission. The circumstances at Portland Port are very different because where the barge is to be positioned is below the mean low water mark. This means that the barge is outside of our planning control and there is no requirement for planning permission from the council.
I still believe that Portland Port is the wrong place for the barge and later this evening at Full Council I will be supporting a motion from my colleague Cllr Tony Ferrari in opposition to the deal reached between the Home Office and Portland Port. Despite this I have also accepted advice that we do not have good grounds to bring a legal challenge. I for one do not wish to use local council tax to pay for an unsuccessful legal challenge.
The Notice of Motion that was proposed at Full Council by Councillors Tony Ferrari and Louie O’Leary was as follows:
“That this council condemns the commercial Agreement between the Home Office and Portland Port for the mooring of the Bibby Stockholm barge to accommodate up to 500 asylum seekers at this location.
“That the mooring of the barge in Portland Port is an entirely inappropriate location and should be removed at the earliest opportunity.
“That Dorset Council, while not the decision makers, will work with agencies to mitigate the impact this will have on Dorset.”
This motion was then amended by Councillor Paul Kimber to include the following:
“This Dorset Council recognises the contribution that refugees have made to our Dorset economy and society over the years, whilst we accept that the Bibby Stockholm Barge is inhumane and is entirely inappropriate.
“Dorset Council welcomes all refugees to be treated with dignity and respect.”
Councillors voted overwhelmingly to carry this motion and its amendment.
I would have gladly seen my council tax used to fight against the barge.
Nice to see we were given a chance…. NOT.
Poor attitude from some Councillors.
Dorset Council has a duty of care to all who live, visit and work in Dorset which well exceeds in number the 500 fuure inhabitants of the barge. The role refugees have or have not played in Dorset is irrelevant, as Dorset has benefitted more from those permanently reside,work,operate business & visit Dorset historically and currently than 500 male immigrants claiming asylum. Unlike, visitors, residents or business their asylum claims means none of these immigrants have or will contribute financially in any way to the council. However, they will fully use the services freely. This is whilst all others pay financially, in a variety of ways from parking to council tax and business rates
The barge inhabitants, according to the council, have not arrived and are temporarily using the barge. Hence, their worth to the county cannot be assumed snd is diminish
However, Dorset Council should confirm with all residing , working and having businesses in the county, especially in Portland and the surrounding areas whether they wish or wish not to make a legal challenge by a public binding referendum in the next 2 weeks.
Meanwhile, all in Dorset equally have the right to take the actions of the Council to the Local Government Ombudsman to see if this imposition with little or no prior consultation is legal, warranted and in line with this duty of care. If the Local Government Ombudsmen does not find in favour of the council, this righty gives all detrimentally affected the right to singularly or together seek substantial financial damages from Dorset County Council including but not withstanding erosion of their peace of mind to affects on loss of value of property and business
So the Council became aware on the 21 of March, on which date did you consider consaltating the community? Also why didn’t you refuse to process any payments? Secret deal’s and lies from the off.
I note that Dorset Council consider that it has no planning jurisdiction as the residential barge Bibby Stockholm is ‘positioned below’ the Mean Low Water Mark (MLWM).
I agree that planning permission is required down to the MLWM. However, that simple phrase is open to many different interpretations and only a court is competent to decide what it means in the circumstances of an actual case in the real world.
If used as semi-permanent residential accommodation, the Bibby Stockholm and the jetty to which it is moored would in my view form a composite planning unit, because the jetty is the sole means of access to the vessel. The ONS Boundaries map clearly shows that the jetty in question is within Dorset Council’s district, so must be considered to be subject to normal planning jurisdiction and it is certainly not below MLWM in any sense of the word.
(See ONS Administrative Geography Hierarchy Boundaries, December 2022, UK https://ons.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5cec9cc7208d418fbc1e7f538cb8745f)
I understand that Richard Wald KC was consulted by the Council on this important matter. In the interests of transparency, it is crucial that his written advice should be made public. Please could Dorset Council take further advice as to whether enforcement action should be considered (if the proposed residential use commences) on the basis that there would have been a failure to obtain planning permission for a material change of use. There would not be a huge amount of cost to obtaining that advice.
If the Council takes no action on the Bibby Stockholm, there is no public scrutiny of the actions taken by the Home Office and Portland Harbour and apparently nothing to stop Portland Harbour mooring a fleet of residential barges in the harbour if it wants to. The proposal to house asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm is one of the most challenging issues the Council is facing and it is of national importance – all the more reason for the Council to investigate this proposal to the full extent of its powers and resources.
Hi Nigel, Thank you for your question regarding the Bibby Stockholm. Dorset Council has received the Home Office’s written assurance that it has undertaken due diligence in considering planning issues. We have already used our powers and resources to obtain our own legal advice, conducting detailed investigation into any available grounds for legal challenge including planning and enforcement and while also having regard to the provisions of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended), legislation and the status of the port.
The Bibby Stockholm barge has been berthed in Portland Port below the mean low water mark. The mean low water mark defines the extent of terrestrial planning control, beyond which Dorset Council and any other land use planning authority has no jurisdiction. We cannot, as a planning authority, control what goes on below the mean low water mark.
At this point in time the council has no compelling evidence to indicate that a breach of planning has occurred, and even if this was established, we would need to consider whether not there is any harm (in relation to relevant planning considerations) that would justify enforcement action being taken. We will of course monitor the situation and can take further advice and review our position further should evidence or circumstances indicate differently. As things stand, the council has confirmed it is committed to working with the Home Office and our partners to ensure minimal impact to public services for local people, and that provision for the asylum seekers is properly resourced and is effective.
The legal advice sought by Dorset Council has not been publicly disclosed as it falls under legal professional privilege exemptions in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
I hope this helps answer your query, K.