Opposition to former councillor's idea to stop Wigan hotel being used for asylum seekers

Former independent councillor Gareth Fairhurst believes he has found a way for the local authority to stop Kilhey Court being used for asylum seekers.

But his suggestion has been dismissed by Wigan Council, Standish Voice and a ward councillor, who all believe it would not work.

Council leaders wrote to the Home Office opposing Kilhey Court in Standish being used to provide accommodation for asylum seekers, but they have no say in it being used in this way, despite opposition from residents and two protests.

Mr Fairhurst wonders if Standish’s neighbourhood plan could be amended to stop Kilhey Court being used this way.

There was a successful fight to stop the use of hotels for this purpose in Great Yarmouth, as the area was designated in the borough's local plan as containing key tourist accommodation.

He says a barrister is willing to provide a “legal opinion” on this – or whether another avenue could be pursued – and has written to council chiefs asking them to pay for this.

However, the council does not believe the plan can be used in the way Mr Fairhurst proposes and is already getting its own legal advice.

Mr Fairhurst, who delivered a petition concerning Kilhey Court to 10 Downing Street, said: "I think it is sensible that legal opinion from a leading barrister, who specialises in this area, would be prudent for all. At £6,000, this is pennies to the council.

“Also, if they say they agree with us that the hotel is not suitable for this use and they don't want it too, surely getting this legal opinion from this leading barrister would be something they would want too. We hope the council stands with Standish residents."

Neighbourhood plans allow communities to have more influence over their area. They become part of the wider local plan and are used to determine planning applications.

Standish Neighbourhood Plan was adopted in 2019 and covers issues such as housing, traffic, open spaces and the village centre.

But the council does not believe it could be changed to stop Kilhey Court being used for asylum seekers, as detailed in a frequently asked questions page on its website.

A council spokesman said: “One council, Great Yarmouth, was successful in its injunction application, due to its existing local plan.

“However, there are crucial differences in those circumstances compared to the Kilhey Court situation.

"It is important to note that even if changes are made to local plans, they cannot be applied retrospectively to previous decisions.

"The hotel in Great Yarmouth was on the sea-front and there was a specific policy already in place in the council’s local plan. It was designed to help boost tourism providing extra protection for hotels around changes of use.

"There is a Standish Neighbourhood Plan (which has similar status to a local plan) but it does not include any policies relating to Kilhey Court.”

A Standish Voice spokesman said: “Gareth Fairhurst did not contact Standish Voice – which created Standish Neighbourhood Plan – before issuing this ‘solution’ and we were not invited to his meeting when he announced it.

“If he had, we would have pointed out immediately that the Great Yarmouth ruling was due to its local authority, borough-wide local plan, created by the council, not a neighbourhood plan, created by a neighbourhood forum, which Standish has.

“These are totally different entities and have totally different rules of how they are prepared, constructed, consulted upon, voted upon, enacted and updated."

Standish with Langtree councillor Debbie Parkinson said: “Suggesting that you can retrospectively change a neighbourhood plan to effect something that is happening now is naive at best. It would be the same as a motorist asking for a speed limit on a road to be retrospectively changed to avoid a speeding fine.

"Wigan Council has already taken legal advice, as stated in various published information including the frequently asked questions, and advised that we would not win an injunction. The legal advice gained is current and valid and to suggest using taxpayers’ money for the barrister (who hasn’t been named) suggested by the former councillor is not acceptable.”