Labour mayor cost taxpayers £75k to try stop Bibby Stockholm barge

A Labour mayor's crusade to stop the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge has cost taxpayers more than £75,000, it has been revealed.

Carralyn Parkes took her local council to court after it failed to challenge the Home Office's decision to place the migrant barge in Portland Harbour.

The Labour councillor acted alone and launched a crowd-funded crusade to bring a Judicial Review in the High Court against the former Home Secretary and Dorset Council.

Her case was that the barge should have required planning permission.

Dorset Council said it had no choice but to defend its position at the review hearing.

Although the High Court dismissed her case, figures released under Freedom of Information request show the cash-strapped local authority was left with a bill of £75,853.

The hearing came at a time when Dorset Council had to make redundancies in its libraries and reduce opening hours.

But defiant Mrs Parkes, who raised £37,000 through crowd funding, today said she stood by her decision to mount the legal challenge as she believes it played a significant part in the new government's decision not to renew the barge contract.

However, locals have hit out at Mrs Parkes for wasting much-needed taxpayer's cash saying she should made to pay the costs. 

The left-wing councillor said: 'Even though we were not successful, I'm still glad that we did it - it is so important to show those in power that there are people willing to stand up for what is right.

'I stand firm on my decision to take the council to court. I think the fact there was so much publicity around the inhumane way they were being treated played a big part in the new government's decision not to renew.

'It came out in court that the council had the wherewithal to stop the Bibby Stockholm. While the actual barge may not have come under planning, all kinds of preparations had to be made to the pier and compound that required planning permission - bus stop, security gates.

'Dorset Council should have said 'you're not going to do that, you need to apply for permission'. They admitted in court that they were considering enforcement. But because the barge had a finite period it was easier for them to rollover.

Read More

Asylum seekers who were housed on the Bibby Stockholm are moved into hotel and council accommodation

'All they needed to do is just say no.'

She said her legal team did a lot of work for free on humanitarian grounds.

However, some local residents have said Mrs Parkes wasted taxpayers' money as it was a uphill struggle.

Mark Foreward said: 'She did not hold anyone to account. She was fighting a lost cause. No matter how you look at it, a lot of taxpayers' money has been wasted for a misplaced challenge.'

Dave Simminds said: 'She should be made to pay the taxpayers' legal costs since she lost the case.'

Dorset Council had considered legal action against the Home office but when specialist advice suggested the case was 'inarguable' and they could not win, they decided it would not be appropriate to use public funds pursuing it.

The 222-bedroom barge arrived in Portland Port in July 2023 to house about 500 men while their asylum claims were processed and reduce the expensive hotel costs.

But it proved very controversial with locals outraged that they had not been consulted, complaints that it would put huge pressures on already stretched services and concerns it would be inhumane for those living on it.

It was plagued by problems, including traces of Legionella bacteria being found in the water system just days after the first migrants arrived on board that saw everyone evacuated and welfare concerns after one migrant is believed to have taken his own life onboard.

When Keir Starmer entered No10, the government said barge's contract would end in January 2025 and it is set to start shutting down at the end of this month.

In the FOI request, Dorset Council said: 'Dorset Council has been opposed to the siting of the Bibby Stockholm at Portland Port from the outset.

'The council actively considered taking its own legal action against the Home Secretary but after King's Counsel advised that the council did not have good prospects of succeeding the council decided it was not appropriate to use public funds to actively pursue legal action against the Home Secretary.

'Dorset Council maintained that Carralyn Parkes' cases, which raised increasingly complex issues of planning and constitutional law, were unarguable but had no option but to defend them, incurring necessary legal costs as a result.'