Opposing the wrong plan doesn’t mean opposing asylum accommodation. It means asking whether there’s a better way.
It’s a question we hear regularly at Wrong Plan Wrong Site.
“If you don’t want the asylum centre at MOD Bicester Site A, where do you think the people should go instead?”
It’s a reasonable question. After all, people seeking asylum need somewhere safe and suitable to live while their applications are being processed. But the question also reveals a misunderstanding about our campaign. Wrong Plan Wrong Site is not responsible for deciding where asylum seekers should be accommodated. That responsibility belongs to the Government, which has access to national property portfolios, specialist advisers, substantial public funding and the resources needed to assess alternative locations.
Our responsibility as a community campaign is to scrutinise the proposal being put forward, examine the evidence and raise legitimate concerns when a particular plan appears unsuitable.
We don’t have to design the entire asylum accommodation system to recognise that MOD Bicester Site A may be the wrong solution.
And when we look at the alternatives, there’s another important question worth asking: is the Government choosing accommodation because it offers the best value and living conditions, or because it is more publicly acceptable than the hotels it has promised to close?
The Problem With Asylum Hotels
Hotels have become one of the most controversial aspects of the UK’s asylum accommodation system. For many people, hotels represent something associated with holidays, leisure and an occasional luxury. Seeing them used to accommodate asylum seekers at public expense has generated considerable public criticism, particularly at a time when many households are under financial pressure.
The Government has committed to ending the use of asylum hotels and replacing them with alternative accommodation.
There are understandable reasons for wanting to reduce reliance on hotels. They are expensive, often involve substantial commercial contracts and were not designed to provide long-term accommodation for people waiting for decisions on their asylum claims. But there is an important distinction between reducing the use of hotels and reducing the overall cost of accommodation.
The two are not necessarily the same.
In March 2024, the National Audit Office reported that the Home Office’s planned programme of large asylum accommodation sites was expected to cost £46 million more than using hotels, despite originally being forecast to save £94 million. The findings demonstrated that accommodation which appears cheaper or more basic does not necessarily deliver better value for taxpayers.
And that brings us directly to MOD Bicester Site A…
Is a Former Military Base Really the Better Option?
The Government proposes to accommodate up to 1,256 people at MOD Bicester Site A for at least ten years. At first glance, a former military site might appear to be a practical and economical alternative to hotel accommodation. But Site A is not an operational accommodation facility simply waiting to be occupied.
The proposal involves substantial new construction and infrastructure, including modular buildings, electricity generation, water supplies, wastewater treatment, drainage, roads and supporting facilities. A technical viability assessment prepared by building surveyor Joe Marshall of Silver Teal Ltd has identified 77 construction and design risks associated with the proposed development, including significant unresolved infrastructure questions.
The campaign’s latest financial estimate places the cost of accommodation at MOD Bicester Site A at £338 per person, per night. That compares with a hotel accommodation benchmark of £144 per person, per night previously cited in Parliament. On those figures, Site A could cost approximately 135% more per person, per night.
The £338 figure is a campaign estimate, not a confirmed Government costing, and a definitive comparison requires the underlying expenditure and occupancy assumptions to be assessed on a consistent basis. Nevertheless, the figures raise a fundamental question.
If the objective is to save taxpayers’ money, why pursue a development that could cost substantially more than the accommodation it is intended to replace?
What About Buildings That Already Exist?
Rather than concentrating primarily on former military bases requiring extensive redevelopment, we believe the Government should demonstrate that it has properly examined suitable existing buildings. One possibility worth investigating is former boarding schools.
Across the country, independent schools have closed for a variety of reasons, including financial pressures, demographic changes and changing demand. Some former boarding-school properties may offer facilities that could potentially be adapted for temporary residential accommodation. Depending on the individual property, these could include existing bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, dining facilities, communal spaces and recreation areas.
Where those facilities remain usable, adapting an existing residential institution might avoid some of the substantial infrastructure expenditure associated with constructing accommodation on a former military storage site. Of course, not every former boarding school would be suitable.
Buildings would require assessment of their condition, ownership, location, accessibility, fire safety, safeguarding arrangements, planning requirements and operating costs. But that is precisely the point.
These are options the Government has the resources and responsibility to investigate.
Former boarding schools are not the only possibility. Existing residential institutions, suitable former student accommodation, smaller converted properties and other appropriately located buildings should also form part of a comprehensive options assessment.
No individual category will provide a universal solution, but examining a wider range of suitable properties could help identify accommodation that is both more practical and more economical.
Could Hotels Themselves Be Part of a Different Solution?
There is another question worth considering. If suitable hotel buildings already exist, could some be acquired or leased under different long-term arrangements and converted into dedicated accommodation? Rather than continuing expensive short-term hotel contracts, the Government could assess whether purchasing or securing longer-term control of suitable buildings might offer better value. Such properties would no longer need to operate as conventional hotels. They could be adapted and managed as dedicated residential accommodation, subject to the necessary standards, approvals and safeguards.
That would not automatically make them cheaper. Acquisition costs, conversion work, staffing, maintenance and eventual resale or alternative use would all need to be included in a proper financial assessment. But the option deserves evaluation rather than dismissal simply because the building was previously a hotel.
The suitability and cost of accommodation should matter more than the label attached to the building.
Bigger Doesn’t Always Mean Better
The financial questions are only part of the issue. Large accommodation centres can also create significant challenges for the people who live in them. MOD Bicester Site A is in a rural location, away from the facilities and services available in larger towns. The proposal would accommodate up to 1,256 people in one location, potentially for extended periods while their asylum applications are considered.
Living in a large institutional setting can present challenges relating to privacy, personal independence, access to services, social integration and wellbeing. The size and isolation of a facility can also create practical difficulties for healthcare access, transport, volunteering, legal appointments and other everyday activities.
These considerations matter for residents and for the surrounding communities.
Smaller accommodation settings, particularly those with good public transport and access to established services, may offer advantages that deserve proper consideration. That does not mean every hotel or smaller property is suitable, or that every large facility is inherently unsuitable. It means accommodation decisions should consider the wellbeing of the people being housed alongside the cost, location and impact on local communities.
A cheaper building is not necessarily a better building. Equally, a larger site is not necessarily a more efficient or humane solution.
The Government Must Demonstrate That It Has Considered the Alternatives
Wrong Plan Wrong Site accepts that the Government faces a difficult challenge. It must provide appropriate accommodation for people seeking asylum while managing public expenditure and responding to concerns from communities across the country. But difficult decisions still require clear evidence.
The Government should be able to explain:
- What alternative properties and accommodation models have been considered.
- Whether suitable existing buildings could be adapted rather than constructing new facilities.
- How the full lifetime costs of different options compare.
- Whether smaller, better-connected accommodation could meet the same need.
- How the welfare of residents and the impact on surrounding communities have been assessed.
- Why MOD Bicester Site A represents an appropriate choice when measured against those alternatives.
These are reasonable questions about the use of public money and the suitability of a major development. They are not objections to people seeking asylum.
Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. Not Wrong People.
Our campaign has always been clear about its position. We recognise that people seeking asylum need safe, appropriate accommodation. We also recognise that the Government has a responsibility to manage the asylum system effectively and spend taxpayers’ money carefully.
But those responsibilities do not make every proposed development appropriate. At MOD Bicester Site A, significant questions remain about construction costs, environmental impacts, infrastructure, accessibility and suitability.
Finding alternatives is the Government’s responsibility. Demonstrating that its chosen option is the right one is its obligation.
We believe a proper assessment should consider a wider range of accommodation solutions, including suitable existing buildings, rather than treating former military bases as the inevitable replacement for hotels. The question should not simply be where the Government can accommodate large numbers of people. It should be where it can provide safe, suitable accommodation at a responsible and demonstrable cost.
Because if an alternative to asylum hotels costs more, requires extensive new infrastructure and presents additional challenges for the people expected to live there, we have every right to question whether it represents progress.
It’s not enough to have a plan. It has to be the right plan.
Further Reading
Learn About the Impact on Our Communities
National Audit Office: Investigation into Asylum Accommodation
