MOD Bicester: an unlikely coalition?

An unprecedented cross-party coalition is developing in north-east Oxfordshire to oppose a military base being turned into asylum seekers’ accommodation. Principled opposition or dressed-up NIMBYism? We listen to the arguments.

Calum Miller, MP for Bicester & Woodstock, hosted a ‘town hall’ in the village of Langford, near Bicester, on Saturday. The MP has strongly opposed the recent government proposal to urgently develop MOD Bicester Site A into asylum seekers’ accommodation: this town hall provided an opportunity for the groups in opposition to strategise.

The proposal is being put forward as ‘urgent’, which would allow the Government to bypass normal consulting and planning procedures – even though documents show the site was chosen as far back as November. Local councillors and the MP were informed via press release one month ago.

Along with the MP, speakers included refugee advocates, local councillors, and environmentalists. Although some of the public questions were predictably informed by reactionary (and, at times, racist) stereotypes, a strong consensus developed that the site itself is not suitable for asylum seekers, for taxpayers, or for the local community.

Speakers explained that the site in question, a former military depot, has never been used for accommodation. It would require significant financial investment, not just to build the accommodation itself but also to connect it to utilities – indeed, a similar proposal in 2001 was cancelled for not being economically viable. Additional concerns include that there is no safe pedestrian route to any nearby amenities or even bus stops; the exit to the site involves crossing a high-fatality road.

The Government has promised that basic medical and dental care will be provided on site without impact to the local community, but they have declined to specify whether recreational amenities will be developed on the currently austere storage site. The focus of Miller and other speakers was on value for money for taxpayers compared to other proposed sites, and on the physical safety and wellbeing of asylum residents. Doubts were raised that the government shares this focus.

A further line of conversation considered protected species known to be present on and around the site, with concerns that the hugely rushed planning schedule would not allow for proper environmental consideration. Ironically, a short distance away at the housing development on the former MOD Bicester Site D, two new ponds for great crested newts are being built at significant expense.

Then came questions from the community, with several local councillors among the crowd. Inevitably, ‘concerns’ were raised about what a large number of bored men with no money may get up to. Calum Miller observed that if the Government would guarantee the provision of recreational facilities, that might be less of a concern – but that would cost additional taxpayer money.

True to form, some attendees were concerned about the implications of the site on their house prices. Concerns were also raised about the proximity of the site to HMP Bullingdon, with the awareness that impoverished and unsupported asylum seekers could be prime targets for grooming by gangs believed to operate around the area.

Your Clarion correspondent raised the recent Brookes report that shows that refugees with stable and secure housing are most likely to integrate successfully and have fewer resource needs – and asked if opposition to the site is merely the Liberal Democrats living up to a reputation for NIMBYism. Miller clarified that this site would be for short-term accommodation (less than three months). Any asylum seekers whose claims are successful would then, in theory, be dispersed around the country. Campsfield House, another contentious site in his constituency, is for those whose claims have either been rejected or have otherwise fallen foul of immigration laws: its inmates are not permitted to leave, unlike the proposed Bicester site. He went on to assert that if the Government reduced the backlog, fewer of these sites would be needed, but that he is supportive of transitional housing for those granted asylum.

There were clearly diverse political views in the room, and one or two questions led to sharp intakes of breath – not least from your Clarion writer. But a broad consensus was established that, purely on the basis of refugee wellbeing and safety, MOD Bicester is not suitable for asylum seekers. Other views do of course exist, not least in the Government; and Miller made the point that if they decide to plough ahead, the focus should be on ensuring a safe and supported environment for asylum seekers, without causing undue financial burden on the town, villages, or district.

For now, though, the focus is on gathering and preparing information for statutory consultee responses. Calum Miller asked for anybody with experience in preparing risk assessments, or with knowledge about previous environmental applications in the area, to get in touch with his office. We will continue to report on developments at the site.