The Home Office has informed Braintree District Council of its intention to increase the operational capacity of Wethersfield asylum centre from 800 to 1,245 temporarily.
Capacity at Wethersfield asylum centre will temporarily increase past its standard operational 800 bed limit, Braintree District Council has been informed.
The Home Office has stood up an extra 445 spaces at the site, with the first of those beds potentially in use from Thursday, July 31.
Inflow would be in gradual increments, following the site’s established intake process of no more than 60 individuals a week. The Home Office has stated there are no plans to exceed 1,245.
Cllr Graham Butland, leader of Braintree District Council, said: “At the earliest opportunity, I updated the Council that the Home Office was considering this option for Wethersfield due to record small boat arrivals.
“We now have had confirmation of the plans, along with more details on how this would operate, which we are now sharing.
“We will continue to monitor the situation and, along with other partners, hold the Home Office to account to ensure that the site runs safely alongside the local community.”
Prior to the announcement, the Home Office has worked with their on-site providers on their readiness for a “steady and safe increase” past 800.
In subsequent weeks, intake may raise to no more than 100 a week, with an intention to return to regular occupancy levels in October. A detailed schedule of activity for the planned drawdown will be announced by the Home Office ahead of that time.
Men will continue to be sent onto dispersed accommodation outside of the Braintree district area after a maximum of nine months on site.
Cllr Butland added: “This does not change what we have been saying for more than two years since we first learnt of the Home Office’s plans; this disused airbase in a very rural area does not have the infrastructure to host asylum seekers on such a large scale.”
Has the site risen above 800 capacity previously?
No. This is the first time the Home Office has used its ‘surge’ capacity for the site. Under the Class Q conditions, which the site operated under for a year before the SDO was laid before Parliament in April 2024, the population reached 630.
What allows the Home Office to make this decision?
The Home Office, under the conditions of the Special Development Order, has the power to house up to 1,700 men at Wethersfield.
However, following an operational review in early 2024, it decided to self-impose a normal operational limit of 800, while having a temporary ‘surge’ capacity of up to 425.
While it can be assumed that the decision to surge would be tied to the levels of small boat crossings, the levels of capacity across the wider Home Office estate are not shared with us.
Where would the new occupants come from?
Any new intake of asylum seekers at Wethersfield will continue to come directly from small boat arrivals after initial processing checks have been completed rather than elsewhere in the estate.
This is the established intake procedure that has been in place and agreed with Braintree District Council since the first asylum seekers arrived on site.
How long will it take to get to the maximum capacity of 1,245?
The intake at Wethersfield is entirely dependent on small boat arrivals. There are also weekly dispersals from Wethersfield on a weekly basis to onward dispersal accommodation throughout the UK.
It has taken until this month for Wethersfield to reach its standard operational capacity of 800, despite having the cap of 580 beds removed in February.
Braintree District Council is the planning enforcement authority, why doesn’t it shut the site down?
The council has consistently opposed the change of use for Wethersfield airfield through various legal challenges in the High Court and through the Court of Appeal, which proved unsuccessful.
The council was bypassed through the use of Class Q and Special Development Order planning permissions to the MHCLG. This is covered in detail on our Wethersfield information page.
Despite this, we have made our position clear; we do not support the use of the site for the accommodation of asylum seekers given the scale of the development, the lack of capacity in local services and its isolated location.