Planning permission to accommodate asylum seekers at a former military installation near Piddington in Oxfordshire has been granted by the government, despite overwhelming local opposition and legal challenges. According to BBC News, the Home Office's application to house up to 1,256 men at the MoD Bicester site was fast-tracked using an Urgent Crown Development application. The decision received 3,177 representations against the proposal and just one in support.
Housing Secretary Angela Rayner approved the permission on the grounds that "national demand for asylum accommodation remains high". A Home Office spokesperson confirmed that the planning permission "allows us to continue to progress the use of MoD Bicester" but stressed that no final decision on the proposal had been taken.
The symbolic resistance from the local community has been striking. Piddington voted to leave the UK in protest, with 285 of 312 votes cast backing independence. Joe Marshall, a Piddington parish councillor, expressed the frustration felt by residents:
The government has approved its own application against more than 3,000 objections and one letter of support, overruling the councils, the NHS and the Police and Crime Commissioner. No wonder we voted to leave the UK.
What will the facility contain?
The permission authorises demolition of existing buildings, construction of new modular accommodation, and provision of health and welfare facilities. The Home Office stated that the accommodation would be self-contained, with 24/7 security and CCTV to minimise impact on the local community.
However, the site has raised concerns among local authorities. Cherwell District Council's planning committee raised 15 concerns, including transport, local services, community impacts and site safety, and formally objected to the proposal.
What are the main objections?
Opposition has come from multiple quarters. Chris Philp MP, Shadow Home Secretary, said:
Angela Rayner and the Labour government have betrayed the people of Piddington by abusing their emergency powers in this way.He added that instead of accommodating asylum seekers, the government should leave the European Convention on Human Rights so people can be rapidly deported.
Lib Dem MP for Bicester and Woodstock Calum Miller described it as "the wrong plan and the wrong site for local communities, asylum seekers and taxpayers", adding:
I am deeply disappointed that the government has approved this proposal despite the serious concerns raised by residents and local councils as well as the major problems with the site.
One significant concern involves the site's current military use. Opponents say the proposed site is used by the military to train bomb-disposal specialists; the government says the training operation would be relocated without affecting services.
The government's August environmental screening decision found that a full environmental impact assessment was not required. However, campaigners' legal challenge disputes that decision and raises concerns about mitigation, differences between the screened and submitted plans, and decision-making independence.
What happens next?
The approval can be challenged by an application to the High Court within six weeks, beginning the day after the date of the decision. The government stated that a challenge "may be brought only on the ground that the decision is legally flawed; it is not an opportunity to reconsider the planning merits".
Even with planning permission secured, the government says any decision to proceed with using the site will follow further due diligence, assessments and approvals. The site factsheet indicates those feasibility assessments could take several months.
In a step towards implementation, Reds10 was awarded a £1.2 million design contract for the proposed centre; however, the contract does not commit the government to the later construction stage.
Why is the government pursuing military sites?
The Home Office is working on a fairer distribution of asylum accommodation across the country. The government has saved over £1 billion in costs since the election and is closing all asylum hotels in favour of alternative accommodation, including former military sites. This broader strategy reflects the government's commitment to continue housing asylum seekers on former military bases despite local protests, as new figures suggest thousands more places are planned.
The Bicester decision is part of a pattern of resistance across the country. Barnham Parish Council in Suffolk is considering holding a symbolic independence referendum similar to Piddington's vote, as opposition grows to government plans to house asylum seekers at RAF Barnham.
