Frequently asked questions

The proposal has been described as accommodation for approximately 1,250 single adult men seeking asylum.

The Home Office says occupation would be phased, beginning with smaller numbers, but it has not committed to publishing a live total for the site. It has also not yet published a detailed timetable showing how quickly the site might reach full capacity.

For context, 1,250 people would represent a substantial new residential population in a rural area between small villages. This is one reason the campaign believes the effects on roads, healthcare, utilities and emergency services must be fully assessed before approval.

The Home Office says the site would be used for a minimum of ten years.

“Minimum” is important. It means the proposal is not simply a short emergency arrangement lasting a few months.

A development operating for at least a decade could have long-term effects on:

• Nearby communities
• Roads and transport
• Local services
• Utilities
• The environment
• Public expenditure
• Future use of the land

The campaign believes a proposal of this duration requires full assessment and meaningful consultation, not a rushed decision based on incomplete evidence.

No final decision has been made.

The Home Office has submitted an Urgent Crown Development application, but the Government says the proposal remains subject to planning, feasibility work, due diligence, assessments and other approvals.

However, this does not mean residents can afford to wait.

The planning route is intended to move urgently, and important work may happen before a final decision is announced. This is why the campaign is gathering evidence, pressing for disclosure and preparing a possible legal challenge now.

The best opportunity to influence the outcome is before approval, not after the site has opened.

The Home Office says a specialist security provider would be present on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

It also proposes:

• CCTV monitoring and recording
• Controlled entry and exit
• A sign-in and sign-out system
• Home Office assurance staff based on site
• Ongoing liaison with the police, NHS, councils and other local partners

These measures relate primarily to the management of the site itself.

Residents are entitled to ask how security would operate beyond the site boundary, how incidents in nearby villages would be handled, whether local police would receive additional resources and how concerns could be reported. Detailed local arrangements have not yet been published.

The Home Office has not published a detailed travel or movement plan.

Likely destinations could include Bicester, Arncott, Piddington and other nearby communities, as well as shops, healthcare appointments, legal services and public-transport connections.

The site is in a rural location. The campaign’s research identifies limited pedestrian infrastructure, unlit roads and a need to cross the B4011 to reach the nearest practical bus stop. The nearest railway station is more than four miles away.

The issue is not whether residents should be permitted to leave. The issue is whether the Government has selected a location from which people can leave safely, without creating foreseeable risks for pedestrians, drivers and nearby communities.

The Home Office says healthcare provision would be determined in discussion with health partners and that efforts would be made to minimise pressure on local services.

That does not yet amount to a published healthcare plan.

A population of this size may require:

• Primary healthcare
• Emergency treatment
• Mental-health support
• Dentistry
• Prescriptions
• Interpretation
• Ambulance services
• Specialist or hospital care

Some services may be provided on site, but residents would still sometimes require treatment elsewhere.

The Government should publish a health-impact assessment showing what would be provided on site, what would be required from existing NHS services, how that provision would be funded and whether sufficient local capacity exists.

A centre accommodating approximately 1,250 people would inevitably require planning and coordination with police, fire, ambulance and other emergency services.

That does not mean serious incidents would necessarily occur. It does mean the possible demand must be assessed and properly resourced.

The Government says it would work through multi-agency arrangements with councils, the NHS, police and other local partners.

The campaign has not yet seen a complete published assessment setting out:

• Expected demand on each service
• Additional staffing or resources
• Who would fund those resources
• Emergency response arrangements
• Fire and evacuation planning
• Safeguarding procedures
• Contingency plans for major incidents

Local communities should not be asked simply to assume that existing services can absorb the additional demand.

The full cost of the MOD Bicester proposal has not yet been published.

A project of this scale could involve substantial spending on building conversion, construction, security, staffing, transport, healthcare, utilities, site remediation and long-term operation.

Previous large asylum accommodation projects have experienced significant cost increases, and the Home Office has acknowledged that large sites may cost as much as or more per person than hotel accommodation.

Before any final decision is made, the Government should publish:

• The estimated capital cost of preparing the site
• The expected annual operating cost
• Any infrastructure and utility upgrade costs
• Security, transport and healthcare costs
• Remediation and contingency costs
• The full value-for-money assessment

Without this information, the public cannot properly judge whether the proposal represents a responsible use of taxpayers’ money.

The campaign will only succeed through broad and sustained community involvement.

Residents can:

• Write personally to the Minister for Housing and Planning
• Sign the petition
• Circulate the campaign leaflet
• Share verified information
• Attend community meetings
• Volunteer time or professional skills
• Sign up for campaign updates
• Donate when the campaign’s donation facility opens

Personal, respectful messages are usually more powerful than abuse or unverified claims.

The campaign’s case is strongest when it remains focused on evidence: the scale of the proposal, the suitability of the location, road safety, infrastructure, services, cost, consultation and proper planning.

Take action

The Home Office says the site would accommodate single adult men aged between 18 and 65 who have applied for asylum. Families and children are not currently proposed for the site.

The Government has not published:

• Their likely nationalities
• The routes by which they entered the UK
• How long they would remain at Site A
• The stage their individual asylum claims would have reached
• How frequently residents would arrive and leave
• A detailed assessment of the needs and risks associated with the proposed group

The campaign will not speculate about individuals. Our position is that the Government must provide enough information for the scale, operating model, safeguarding arrangements and local effects of the proposal to be properly assessed.

Yes. This would be accommodation, not a detention centre.

People with a pending asylum claim are generally permitted to remain in the UK while their claim is considered and cannot be routinely detained simply because they have claimed asylum. The Home Office confirms that residents at MOD Bicester would not be detained.

Residents would therefore be able to leave the site. The Government says everyone entering or leaving would be required to sign in and out at the front gate, which would be managed by the site’s security team.

The Home Office says the site would be designed to be largely self-contained, with essential services provided on site to reduce the need to leave. However, self-contained does not mean residents would be required to remain there.

This makes safe pedestrian access, public transport and clear management arrangements especially important.

The Government has not published the personal histories of the individuals who might be accommodated at Site A, so it would be wrong to claim that none had ever committed an offence.

The Home Office says all people seeking asylum undergo mandatory security checks. These use biometric information, including fingerprints and photographs, and check immigration, security, policing and criminality databases. The checks can include records of convictions, pending prosecutions, wanted-person reports and missing-person reports.

The asylum screening process also includes questions about previous criminality, terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and other security concerns.

However, the public has not been given detailed information about:

• How the Home Office would decide whether an individual was suitable for this particular site
• What risks would lead to someone being accommodated elsewhere
• How new information emerging after arrival would be handled
• What specific information would be shared with local police and safeguarding partners

The campaign is asking for clear, credible safeguarding and public-protection arrangements rather than blanket assurances.

Residents would remain subject to the same criminal law as everyone else.

The Home Office says the accommodation provider would establish behavioural expectations during induction. It also says criminal activity would be reported to the police and that the site would operate as a strict no-alcohol zone.

What has not yet been published is a detailed local protocol explaining:

• How incidents would be reported
• How quickly police could respond
• Whether additional policing resources would be provided
• How repeated antisocial behaviour would be managed
• When a person would be removed from the site
• How surrounding communities would be informed about serious incidents

These arrangements should be agreed with Thames Valley Police and made clear before the site opens.

The Home Office says no. It states that residents would normally stay at the site only during the initial processing stage of their asylum claims.

It has not said that everyone leaving Site A would be offered housing in Bicester or the surrounding villages.

However, the Government has not yet published detailed information about:

• The average expected length of stay
• Where residents would go after leaving Site A
• How frequently the population would change
• What would happen when someone received a positive or negative decision
• Whether any local housing responsibilities could arise

The site’s population could therefore be continually changing even if the total remained broadly similar.

People awaiting an asylum decision are not usually permitted to work in the UK. Limited permission may be available in certain circumstances, but it is not the normal position.

This raises practical questions about how residents would spend their time, what activities and support would be provided on site, and how isolation and wellbeing would be managed.

The Home Office says the site would contain communal areas and essential facilities, but a detailed programme of activities, education, volunteering or other occupation has not yet been published.

People seeking asylum who would otherwise be destitute may receive accommodation and limited asylum support while their claims are considered.

The Home Office specifically says that it does not provide asylum seekers with mobile phones or clothing, although charities may donate items. 

The important issue for this campaign is the total public cost of establishing and operating Site A. No full site-specific capital cost, operating cost or value-for-money assessment has yet been published.

The campaign believes the public should be shown:

• Conversion and construction costs
• Security and staffing costs
• Transport costs
• Healthcare and service costs
• Utility upgrades
• Land remediation
• Long-term operating costs

That is necessary to judge whether the proposal represents responsible use of public money.