New figures highlight the potential scale of the proposed asylum accommodation at MOD Bicester Site A, as campaigners pursue a High Court challenge over the Government’s environmental assessment decision.
Plans to accommodate up to 1,256 asylum seekers at MOD Bicester Site A could see approximately 50,000 people pass through the facility over a ten-year period, based on the Government’s proposed capacity and an assumed average stay of 90 days.
The calculation highlights the potential cumulative scale of the development, which is currently being considered through the Government’s Urgent Crown Development planning process.
Despite the proposed capacity and anticipated duration of operation, the Government concluded on 26 August 2026 that a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not required.
That decision is now the subject of a legal challenge brought by Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, the community interest company behind the Wrong Plan Wrong Site campaign.
How is the 50,000 figure calculated?
The Government’s EIA Screening Direction identifies a proposed accommodation capacity of 1,256 people and references stays of approximately 90 days.
Using these figures, and assuming the facility operates continuously at full capacity, the potential number of people accommodated can be calculated as follows:
- Maximum occupancy: 1,256 people at any one time
- Assumed average stay: 90 days
- Estimated annual throughput: 5,094 people
- Estimated throughput over ten years: 50,942 people
This means that, although the site would accommodate a maximum of 1,256 people at any one time, the total number passing through the facility over its proposed operating life could be considerably higher.
The estimate assumes continuous full occupancy and regular turnover every 90 days. Actual numbers would depend on occupancy levels, individual lengths of stay and the eventual duration of the facility’s operation.
Nevertheless, the calculation provides an indication of the potential scale of activity associated with the development over an extended period.
Questions over long-term environmental impact
The proposed facility occupies a former military site surrounded by countryside and environmentally sensitive habitats.
Local residents and environmental specialists have raised concerns about the potential effects of the development on protected wildlife, including Barbastelle bats, great crested newts and other species recorded in the surrounding area.
Campaigners argue that the environmental implications should be considered in the context of the development’s proposed scale and duration, rather than solely the maximum number of people accommodated at any one time.
Potential considerations include increased activity, artificial lighting, noise, wastewater management and the cumulative effects of long-term occupation on surrounding habitats.
These are among the issues that campaigners believe warrant detailed examination through the environmental assessment process.
High Court challenge seeks scrutiny of Government decision
Wrong Plan Wrong Site has initiated legal proceedings challenging the Government’s decision of 26 August 2026 that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was unnecessary.
The legal action asks the High Court to examine whether the Government followed the correct procedures and adequately considered the potential environmental consequences of the proposed development.
The campaign is not asking the Court to determine the merits of national asylum policy. Rather, the challenge concerns the lawfulness of the environmental screening decision and whether the potential effects of the development have been properly assessed.
With the proposals potentially affecting the site and surrounding communities for at least a decade, campaigners are seeking clarity about the evidence underpinning the Government’s decision.
Assessing the full scale of the proposals
The estimated throughput of approximately 50,000 people over ten years illustrates why the duration and cumulative effects of the proposed development are important considerations.
While the calculation represents a theoretical maximum based on the stated assumptions, it provides context beyond the headline accommodation capacity of 1,256 people.
Wrong Plan Wrong Site maintains that decisions about a development of this scale should be supported by appropriate environmental evidence and made in accordance with the relevant legal requirements.
The High Court challenge seeks judicial scrutiny of whether that standard was met when the Government concluded that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was unnecessary.
Source: Government EIA Screening Direction, 26 August 2026, and EIA Screening Direction Request. Estimated throughput calculated using 1,256 places, an assumed average stay of 90 days and continuous full occupancy over ten years.
