Bright floodlights were seen illuminating part of MOD Bicester Site A for several hours overnight on Friday 18th September, raising fresh questions about the potential impact on bats and other wildlife at a time when the Government is already facing a legal challenge over the adequacy of its environmental assessment of the site.
In the early hours of Saturday 19 September, Tim McNally chairman of Piddington Parish Council attended the perimeter of MOD Bicester Site A reported that powerful floodlights had been switched on in the area of the compound where modular accommodation is proposed.
According to Tim McNally, the lights had remained illuminated for a number of hours. The reason for the overnight lighting is currently unknown.
But its appearance raises an obvious question: has the potential impact of prolonged artificial lighting on bats using the site and surrounding habitat been properly assessed?
Police contacted and media alerted
Tim McNally, said the police had been contacted through 101 and provided with information about the situation. He also said members of the media had been alerted so that the extent of the illumination could be documented. Speaking from outside the site shortly after midnight, Tim questioned why such extensive lighting was being used given the continuing dispute over the ecological evidence submitted alongside the proposed development.
There is currently no evidence that the lights were switched on with the intention of disturbing bats, and Wrong Plan Wrong Site is not suggesting that this is the case. However, given the questions already being raised about bat activity around Site A, we believe the Home Office should explain why the lights were switched on, how long they are intended to operate and what ecological advice was obtained before doing so.
Ecology already at centre of legal challenge
The incident comes just days after solicitors acting for Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC sent a formal Pre-Action Protocol Letter challenging the Government’s decision that the proposed development does not require a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
The letter was sent on 16 September, with the Government asked to respond within 14 days.
Among the issues raised in the challenge are concerns that ecological investigations had not been completed when the decision was taken that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was unnecessary. The Government’s published Urgent Crown Development application includes a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal as part of the environmental evidence supporting the proposal. However, local residents have subsequently raised questions about the wildlife data used within that assessment.
Bicester resident Claire Brenner obtained records which she says identify bats, great crested newts, badgers and otters in and around the site. Earlier analysis also found that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal did not identify the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre – Oxfordshire’s Local Environmental Records Centre – as one of the sources used for its background data search.
These concerns now form part of a much wider debate over whether the ecological consequences of the proposal have been sufficiently investigated.
Why were the floodlights on?
That makes Friday night’s activity particularly important.
There may be a straightforward operational explanation for the lighting. But in the absence of one, a number of questions need answering:
- Why were large areas of Site A being illuminated overnight?
- Was this routine activity, and if so, how frequently will it occur?
- What assessment has been made of bat activity in the area being illuminated?
- Has an ecologist considered the impact of the lighting?
- Are there restrictions on the intensity, direction or operating hours of external lighting at the site?
- Will the lights continue to be used while further ecological questions remain unresolved?
Cherwell District Council has itself objected to the proposal in its current form and said that further information, clarification and mitigation are required across a number of areas, including environmental matters.
Meanwhile, the Home Office has previously stated that no final decision has been made on whether MOD Bicester will be used for asylum accommodation and that the proposal remains subject to the planning process, wider due diligence and relevant assessments and approvals.
WPWS seeking answers
Wrong Plan Wrong Site believes the public deserves an explanation for what happened at Site A overnight. The issue is not simply whether lights were switched on. It is whether activity is now taking place on a site whose ecological evidence is actively being questioned, and whether appropriate safeguards are being followed while those questions remain unresolved.
We will seek clarification from the relevant authorities about the purpose of the floodlighting, how long it was operating and what consideration has been given to its potential impact on bats and other wildlife.
If you witnessed activity at MOD Bicester Site A on Friday night or Saturday morning, or have photographs or video showing the floodlighting, please contact Wrong Plan Wrong Site.
