Calum Miller MP has published a detailed statement setting out his current position on the proposed use of MOD Bicester Site A, the steps he has taken so far, and what he believes needs to happen next.
The statement covers the Government’s use of the Urgent Crown Development route, Parliamentary and local action, the case against Site A, preparation for a potential Judicial Review, fundraising and the need for local groups to remain focused on the shared objective of stopping the proposal.
Calum also confirms that he is working closely with Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. on evidence gathering, governance, legal preparation and fundraising.
The full statement from Calum Miller MP is reproduced below.
——————————————————–
How to Stop the MOD Bicester Asylum Centre: Where We Are in the Fight and What Must Happen Next
The Government plan to put a centre for 1,250 men seeking asylum on semi-derelict land at MOD Bicester is wrong and I will do everything I can to stop it. This site has never previously had accommodation and is not suitable for it. The scale of the proposal is enormous and totally beyond any capacity of the small local villages to absorb it, or our local infrastructure and public services to support it. Those seeking asylum would be warehoused in inappropriate accommodation without suitable amenities or facilities. It is the wrong plan for the wrong site.
After the initial shock of the announcement that the Government planned to create this site, I have been angry and frustrated that we have had so little information about it. I know that many people share this feeling and I understand why it has deepened anxiety and concern about the proposal. The purpose of this piece is to explain what has been happening, what I as your MP have been doing, and what we all need to do next to try to stop this terrible plan.
The Current Situation
Over 20 years ago, a Labour Government attempted to build an asylum centre at MOD Bicester and stopped only after a planning inspector concluded that the site was isolated, unsafe and unsuitable. Having already wasted more than £30 million on that failed proposal, another Labour Government is now attempting to force through an even larger scheme on the same site, this time using an urgent process designed to take the decision out of local hands.
In July, the Government announced that it intended to seek planning permission for the proposed asylum centre through an Urgent Crown Development Application. This is a highly unusual process which allows Ministers to bypass much of the normal local planning system and severely restrict the opportunity for residents and councils to scrutinise the proposal. Put plainly, Ministers are attempting to solve a national problem by forcing a pre-selected solution on our community through the fastest route available. Yet, over six weeks later, we still do not know when the application will be published, what it contains, or how the Government can credibly justify treating it as urgent.
That delay has left residents, councils and local services unable to examine what is actually being proposed, while the Government retains complete control over the timetable. The Government cannot maintain that their application is urgent when they have taken more than 40 days merely to publish it, particularly when the Home Office first approached the Ministry of Defence about Site A in November 2025. That shows this Government has been considering this proposal in secrecy for nearly an entire year. It is also increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government’s case is not ready and that officials are using this period to try to strengthen an application which they know contains serious weaknesses.
How Can We Most Effectively Oppose the Proposal?
While the Government has delayed and obfuscated, I have used every political and Parliamentary lever available to me to find out more information and oppose the plans. After hearing the news, I raised objections twice in the House of Commons, on 29 June and 6 July, submitted 38 written questions to Government departments and wrote repeatedly to Ministers, including Andy Burnham and the Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook, demanding answers about the planning process, infrastructure, costs, safety and the Government’s claim of urgency. Within days of the announcement, I launched a petition which has now been signed by more than 11,300 people; I have convened public meetings attended by hundreds of constituents; and I have met local councils, Thames Valley Police and major local businesses to make sure that the consequences of this proposal are properly understood and recorded. I have secured a meeting with the new Asylum Minister, Anna Turley, to reinforce my opposition and that of local residents.
From the beginning, I have also tried to build a united local campaign by inviting representatives from every political party to work together and asking everyone involved to leave party differences at the door. In July, parish, town, district and county councillors from across the political spectrum signed a joint charter committing themselves to an inclusive and peaceful campaign because, whatever our other disagreements, the decision to pursue this proposal was made by the Government and it is the Government which must be held responsible for it. I am hugely grateful to the many local people who have signed the petition, written letters and demonstrated their opposition to this proposal.
All of that activity has mattered. Demonstrations, petitions, letters and social media activity all help to show the strength of public feeling and maintain pressure on Ministers, and I respect those who have chosen to make their opposition heard through protest. It is so important, however, that our actions are consistent with the values of our community.
I have not attended the demonstrations and that has been a deliberate judgement. I will only lend my support to activity which is tolerant, peaceful, inclusive and consistent with the values shared by Bicester and the surrounding villages. I know that many people passionately oppose this proposal. So do I. Yet legitimate local concerns risk, and are being, exploited by outside parties and organisations – pursuing vindictive political agendas and using inflammatory rhetoric such as describing those seeking asylum as “orcs invading the Shire” – who are not attempting to solve our problem but to score political points. This outside involvement does not strengthen our campaign and could allow the Government to dismiss the substance of our case.
I will continue to work with any resident or organisation willing to campaign in the spirit of the campaign charter, regardless of party affiliation or previous disagreements, while using every opportunity I get to oppose this proposal.
I recognise, however, that it is both hard and frustrating to maintain these actions when the Government is withholding critical information. The truth is that we are currently in a holding pattern, waiting for the Government to publish its application. Only then can we get stuck into demolishing its case.
That, crucially, does not mean the work has stopped or that the campaign has lost momentum. It means that the most important work has shifted from the visible activity of speeches, meetings and social media posts to the less visible but nevertheless essential task of preparing a legal challenge which is capable of stopping the Government if – as I fear will be the case – Ministers refuse to listen.
How Can We Best Oppose the Government?
The underlying case against Site A remains as powerful as it was when the proposal was first announced. The planning inspector rejected a smaller asylum centre on the same site in 2003 because it was isolated, lacked basic facilities, was served by an unsafe road and risked damaging social cohesion. Site A has no residential accommodation and never has; it is a semi-derelict storage facility containing asbestos-ridden warehouses, which would cost over £10 million to clear before new buildings could be erected.
The proposal would create a settlement the size of Arncott in an area already struggling with shortages of electricity, fresh water and sewage capacity, and while local GP surgeries, NHS dentists and police services are under considerable pressure. It would also be wrong for the 1,250 asylum seekers placed there, many of whom may have fled violence or persecution, to be accommodated together on an isolated rural site with few facilities and limited access to proper support. This remains the wrong plan, on the wrong site, pursued through the wrong process.
If the Government grants itself permission and refuses to reconsider its plan, the only institution with the power to compel Ministers to stop, reconsider their decision, or correct an unlawful process will be the courts. A Judicial Review offers the legal mechanism through which a court can examine whether Ministers acted lawfully, followed a fair process, considered the relevant evidence and reached a rational decision. Once the Government has approved its application, it may be the only remaining route capable of changing the legal position.
The experience of Crowborough demonstrates both why this route matters and why preparation is essential. Crowborough Shield CIC initially brought a challenge before the Home Office had made its formal decision, but the High Court refused permission because the case had been brought prematurely. After the Government reached its decision, the group lodged a fresh claim, secured permission for it to proceed and returned to the High Court in July, with judgment now awaited.
Crowborough Shield was only able to reach that point because local residents formed a proper community organisation, instructed specialist lawyers and raised more than £155,000 from almost 3,000 pledges. Whatever the final judgment in that case, Crowborough has shown the difference between merely expressing opposition to a Government decision and building an organised campaign with the legal and financial capacity to test that decision in court.
That is why I have been working closely with the local volunteers leading the Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. campaign group, helping them gather the evidence and put the structures in place for a potential Judicial Review. A significant amount of work has been taking place behind the scenes on the legal advice, governance, compliance, evidence gathering and organisation required to create a credible community challenge, while discussions have begun with lawyers about what will be needed once the Government finally publishes its application and reaches a decision.
This is urgent – if time-consuming – work, as a legal challenge may have to be brought quickly once the decision is made. This means the organisation, evidence, legal team and funding must be ready beforehand. Crowborough’s experience shows the danger of moving too early, but it also demonstrates why a community cannot afford to begin raising money and finding lawyers only after the Government has acted.
Our current estimate is that a Judicial Review could require between £200,000 and £250,000 in legal funding. That is an enormous sum, but there is no way around the financial reality of taking on a Government which has access to its own lawyers and considerable public resources. If we are serious about stopping this proposal, we must be equally serious about assembling the resources needed to challenge it.
That is why I and Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. will therefore be organising fundraising events across our area and approaching local businesses, major employers, community organisations and other potential supporters to ask what practical or financial assistance they can provide. I will also continue speaking to local authorities about the evidence, expertise and support they can lawfully contribute, while helping the group to build the broadest possible coalition behind the legal challenge.
The community fundraiser is central to that effort, both because it will provide the money needed to instruct lawyers and because it will demonstrate that local residents are willing to come together behind a serious, practical attempt to stop the proposal. More than 11,300 people have already signed our petition and, if those supporters contributed an average of £20 each, the campaign would raise more than £226,000. I know that not everyone is in a position to give that amount and nobody should contribute more than they can afford. But, every donation – large or small – moves us closer to having the resources required to take action.
We Must Remain United in Our Opposition
People will naturally continue to hold different views about immigration, asylum policy, demonstrations, political parties and the way the campaign should be conducted. There have also been accusations made about my own approach and motives, some of which are simply incorrect and untrue. Where necessary, I will take steps to correct the record. For example, I can categorically say that I have had no meetings with Home Office ministers or officials since the phone calls in late June through which the Asylum Minister initially told me about the proposal. All the interactions I have had with the Government have been to oppose this scheme. However, I do not intend to allow arguments between local campaigners to consume the time and energy which should be directed towards the Government, our shared opponent in this issue.
My reason for insisting from the beginning that this should be an inclusive and non-political campaign was not to prevent anybody from voicing their concerns. It was due to the cold, harsh truth that local squabbling over tone, tactics or party politics distracts us from the central fact that the Government made this decision and only the Government, or ultimately the courts, can reverse it. We do not need to agree with one another about everything in order to agree that Site A is unsuitable and that the proposal must be stopped.
The more ways we can voice our opposition, the better. Those who wish to arrange inclusive, peaceful demonstrations should do so; those who wish to campaign online should continue to make the case; and those who wish to organise within their communities should be encouraged. Alongside these approaches, there is a strong need to build the legal case and legal fund. If we spend the coming weeks attacking one another, arguing over ownership of the campaign or competing to appear the most outraged, the only beneficiary will be the Government.
Next Steps
I will continue to pursue the political case, demand the publication of the application and challenge Ministers at every opportunity, while working with Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. to ensure that the legal preparations are completed and the necessary funding is secured. If the Government sees sense and withdraws the proposal before a court challenge becomes necessary, that will be a victory for the whole community, but if it does not, we must be ready to act from the moment its decision is published.
You can contribute to the Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. community challenge here. You can also help by sharing the fundraiser, attending local events, speaking to businesses and organisations which may be able to support it, or volunteering your own time and expertise.
The result of this next stage of our campaign will only be determined by whether our community can build the evidence, organisation and financial might necessary to challenge the Government. That is the hard reality of the position we are in. It is not easy. But, whatever our differences, we must come together behind this effort.
Thank you for all you have done already to support the campaign; this matters hugely to our community. It is going to take determination and staying-power to see off this terrible proposal and we can only do this with your continued support.
——————————————————–
WPWS note: This statement is published in full at the request of Calum Miller MP. The views expressed are his own. Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. remains a community-led, non-political campaign.
