A high court judge has ruled that two councils and a local resident can proceed with a legal challenge to the government about whether or not it is lawful to place thousands of asylum seekers on two military bases. West Lindsey district council is challenging the plans to move people into the RAF Scampton site in Lincolnshire, while Braintree district council and a local man, Gabriel Clarke-Holland, are bringing a case over moves to Wethersfield airbase in north Essex, where the Home Office started placing asylum seekers on Wednesday. A high court challenge earlier this week sought permission for judicial review of this issue. The two councils and Clarke-Holland brought the case against the home secretary and the levelling up secretary. Fifteen grounds were brought forward and three were granted on Friday, including permitted development planning grounds, and equality impact grounds. The first 46 asylum seekers who arrived at Wethersfield on Wednesday were brought from a processing facility in Kent over the weekend after crossing to the UK in small boats. Home Office officials said there would be 4,200 new bed spaces created by moving people on to the Bibby Stockholm barge, which will be moored in Dorset, and the two military bases. The three claimants argued in the high court that the plans were being forced through by Suella Braverman, the home secretary, using wartime emergency powers to circumvent adequate planning consultations. Lawyers for Clarke-Holland said the judicial review claims were significant for asylum seekers and communities across the UK, because they would affect whether the government could set up “potentially unsuitable and harmful military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, without any consultation, in remote areas of the UK, by using emergency powers to bypass planning regulations”. Mrs Justice Thornton DBE heard arguments in all three claims jointly to decide if they should be granted permission to proceed to a full hearing. The court heard that the far-right group Britain First had demonstrated at Wethersfield. The claimants argued that government should not rely on a planning rule known as Class Q – where planning permission is not required because usage is for a maximum period of 12 months when there is an “emergency” – while, in fact, the government’s intention was to use the sites for a much longer period. Therefore, they argued, ministers should obtain planning permission and an environment impact assessment screening. In written arguments submitted to the high court, the government dismissed these arguments and said that if any longer-term use was required planning permission could be sought further down the line. The Home Office stated that an “emergency” could be defined not just as a one-off event but as something that could occur “over a period of time and/or which is of a continuing nature”. Councillor Graham Butland, the leader of Braintree district council, said: “We are pleased that [the judge] granted us permission to proceed with our judicial review on the following challenges: environmental impact assessment, reliance on the use of permitted development rights and equality impact assessment. “We are grateful to have had another opportunity to put our views and the views of our local community across to the high court. We still believe Wethersfield airfield is not a suitable site for these plans.” A Home Office spokesperson said: “As this matter is subject to ongoing litigation it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage. We remain committed to deliver accommodation on surplus military sites which are not only more affordable for taxpayers, helping to reduce the £6m daily cost of hotels, but are also more manageable for local communities.”