Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC has formally begun the process of challenging the Government’s decision that the proposed asylum accommodation development at MOD Bicester Site A does not require a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
COMMUNITY-LED • NON-POLITICAL • EVIDENCE-LED
Today, 16 September 2026, solicitors acting for Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC sent a formal Pre-Action Protocol letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, setting out an intended application for judicial review.
The challenge concerns the Government’s screening direction of 26 August 2026, which concluded that the proposed development at the former Defence Storage and Distribution Centre at Bicester was not likely to have significant environmental effects and therefore did not require a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
The proposed development would provide accommodation for up to 1,256 single adult men, together with health and welfare facilities, infrastructure, wastewater facilities, roads, security infrastructure, parking and recreational areas. The 10.1-hectare site forms part of the former MOD storage facility, which was historically used for the handling and storage of munitions.
The legal challenge sets out three proposed grounds on which it argues that the screening decision was unlawful.
1. Reliance on investigations and mitigation that have not yet happened
The first and most detailed ground concerns the Government’s reliance on future investigations and mitigation measures when deciding that significant environmental effects were unlikely.
The PAP letter identifies concerns across land contamination, ecology and foul drainage.
On contamination, it states that the assessment available to the Secretary of State was a desk study without on-site ground data. No intrusive ground investigation had been completed, there was no remediation strategy and no human health risk assessment had been undertaken.
This is particularly significant because asbestos-containing materials have already been identified on the former munitions site, while unexploded ordnance cannot currently be ruled out.
Ecology
The letter also highlights the limitations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal.
That appraisal was based on a single site visit outside the optimal survey window and itself states that it cannot be considered a comprehensive assessment of the site’s ecological interest.
Despite those limitations, the appraisal identified habitat with the potential to support protected and notable species and recommended targeted surveys for hazel dormice, barn owls, breeding birds, great crested newts, reptiles and terrestrial invertebrates.
According to the PAP letter, none of those recommended surveys had been carried out when the screening direction was issued.
The legal argument is that the Government could not lawfully assume that a future Construction and Environmental Management Plan would adequately mitigate ecological effects when the surveys needed to determine what mitigation would actually be required had not yet taken place.
Sewage and foul water
There is also no confirmed permanent solution for foul water from the development.
The Government’s written assessment acknowledges that it has yet to be confirmed whether the existing sewer has sufficient capacity. Tankering of foul effluent is proposed as an interim measure, while use of Bicester Wastewater Treatment Works remains subject to confirmation that sufficient capacity is available.
The PAP argues that the screening decision therefore assumed that a future permanent solution would avoid significant effects before that solution had actually been established.
2. Was the wrong development assessed?
The second proposed ground identifies what appears to be a significant discrepancy between the development considered during environmental screening and the development submitted for approval.
The Government’s written statement says explicitly that its assessment was conducted on the basis of modular buildings being no more than two storeys or 6 metres high.
However, the Parameters Site Plan submitted with the application identifies an “Operational Development Zone up to 12m high measured from existing site levels”.
In other words, the maximum height permitted by the submitted parameters is twice the height used for the environmental screening assessment.
The PAP argues that this is material because building height directly affects matters including landscape and visual impact, noise, and the overall size and design of the development.
That is particularly relevant on a flat, rural site with nearby settlements, including Piddington approximately 250 metres away.
3. Questions over independence and functional separation
The third proposed ground concerns Regulation 64 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
The Home Office is bringing forward the proposal, while the environmental screening direction was made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The PAP asks what administrative arrangements were in place to ensure the required objectivity and functional separation between those bringing forward the proposal and those responsible for determining it.
It notes that no evidence has been published showing what steps, if any, were taken to discharge those obligations and asks the Secretary of State to provide details.
Further environmental information requested
The letter also seeks disclosure of information that has not yet been made public.
That includes Natural England correspondence dated 11 and 13 August 2026, which was referred to in the Government’s screening decision but has not been published.
It also raises a further issue with the ecological assessment: desk-study data was obtained from the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes Environmental Records Centre (BMERC) even though MOD Bicester is in Oxfordshire, where the local environmental records centre is the Thames Valley Environmental Records Centre (TVERC).
The Government has been asked to explain whether it knew that TVERC had not been consulted and what ecological information was used for its Habitats Regulations Assessment screening.
The letter additionally requests correspondence between the Home Office and MHCLG concerning the screening request and subsequent decision.
What happens now?
The PAP letter asks the Secretary of State either to consent to the proposed judicial review or, alternatively, to:
withdraw the existing screening direction; suspend the current consultation; reconsider whether a full Environmental Impact Assessment is required; and issue a fresh screening direction following that reconsideration.
The Secretary of State has been given 14 days to respond. If no response is received within that period, the letter states that proceedings will be issued without further notice.
This is about proper process
Wrong Plan Wrong Site and Piddington Parish Council are working alongside community partners in support of the legal challenge being brought by Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC.
This challenge is about ensuring that a development of this scale is subjected to the environmental scrutiny required by law, and that decisions are made using complete and reliable evidence.
We believe fundamental questions remain unanswered about contamination, protected wildlife, foul-water management and the development that was actually assessed.
Those questions should be answered before, not after, decisions are taken that could have lasting consequences for the site and surrounding communities.
We will provide further updates as the legal process develops.
Read the full Pre-Action Protocol Letter
