The Government’s decision to grant planning permission for an asylum accommodation centre at MOD Bicester Site A has attracted widespread national media attention. But there is one description that keeps appearing in the coverage which deserves to be challenged: that Site A is simply a former military site.
It creates an impression of an abandoned military facility, sitting empty and waiting for someone to find a new use for it.
The reality is considerably more complicated.
Site A forms part of an important military estate centred around Bicester Garrison, St George’s Barracks and the Piddington Training Area. This estate continues to support specialist military training, including the training of personnel responsible for dealing with some of the most dangerous threats faced by our Armed Forces.
Indeed, the Ministry of Defence’s own records describe these facilities as strategically important to Britain’s defence.
So why, at a time of increasing international instability and growing concern about Britain’s military readiness, is the Government proposing to repurpose military training land to accommodate asylum seekers?
What the Government is not telling us
The Home Office’s own MOD Bicester Site A factsheet, updated on 9 November 2026, states:
This site is no longer in active use by the Ministry of Defence.
Yet, in reporting published by The Telegraph on 12 November, the Government confirmed that specialist military training operations would be relocated away from the proposed asylum accommodation site.
These two statements raise an obvious question.
If Site A is no longer in active military use, why do military training operations need to be relocated?
There is an important distinction between a site no longer being used for its original purpose as a military storage and distribution facility and a site no longer having any operational military value.
The Government’s description risks obscuring that distinction entirely.
A £100 million investment in Britain’s military capability
In March 2013, the Ministry of Defence officially opened a £100 million specialist military training facility at St George’s Barracks in Bicester.
The facility brought together explosive ordnance disposal, munitions and search training from across the Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force under the Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal, Munitions and Search Training Regiment, known as DEMS.
This is not ordinary military training.
The personnel trained at Bicester learn how to locate, identify and safely dispose of explosive devices, including improvised explosive devices (IEDs), unexploded military ordnance and other explosive threats.
Their work can mean the difference between life and death for both military personnel and civilians.
At the time of its opening, the MOD described the facility as a centre of excellence, with provision for thousands of students each year and dozens of specialist training environments.
The facility also provides training to international military personnel, further demonstrating Bicester’s importance beyond Britain’s own Armed Forces.
The Government’s original announcement can be read here: £100 million bomb disposal training facility opens – Ministry of Defence.
Military training is still taking place
Local residents are well aware that military training continues across the Bicester defence estate.
Explosions and military exercises are a familiar reminder that this is an operational military environment, not simply an abandoned collection of buildings.
As we highlighted in our previous article, MOD’s own records show strategic importance of Bicester training estate, evidence submitted by the Defence Infrastructure Organisation in 2019 identified Site A, St George’s Barracks and the Piddington Training Area as core strategic defence infrastructure.
The MOD anticipated that the importance of the estate would increase as military facilities elsewhere were rationalised.
The same evidence documents demolition exercises involving explosives, infantry training, helicopter operations and exercises conducted outside normal working hours.
This is precisely the type of specialist training environment that cannot simply be recreated overnight.
The MOD previously objected to residential development nearby
Perhaps one of the most revealing aspects of this situation is that the Ministry of Defence itself has previously opposed residential development close to the Piddington Training Area.
During a planning appeal concerning a proposed six-pitch traveller site at Widnell Lane, the MOD raised concerns about the effects of military training noise and vibration on future occupants.
It also warned that introducing residential development close to the training area could result in pressure to restrict military exercises, potentially compromising the use of the facility.
The MOD’s objections are available through Cherwell District Council’s planning register.
Although that particular appeal was ultimately allowed, the military’s concerns remain highly relevant.
If the MOD considered that a small residential development could potentially interfere with its operations, what assessment has been made of the consequences of accommodating up to 1,256 people within the wider military estate?
There are also important welfare considerations. Some asylum seekers may have experienced war, violence or other traumatic events. Accommodating potentially vulnerable individuals close to military exercises involving explosions raises legitimate questions about the suitability of the location.
These are not questions that should be dismissed.
Which is the greater national priority?
The Government has a responsibility to provide appropriate accommodation for people seeking asylum. But it also has a fundamental responsibility to maintain the nation’s defence capabilities.
Those responsibilities should not be placed in unnecessary conflict.
The Government says that military training will be relocated without affecting the services currently provided. However, the public deserves a clear explanation of where that training will take place, how much the relocation will cost and whether the military’s existing training capacity will genuinely be protected.
The implications extend far beyond Piddington, Bicester and the surrounding villages.
Britain has invested heavily in developing specialist military expertise at Bicester. It has an established training estate that the MOD itself has identified as strategically important.
Before sacrificing any part of that estate for an entirely different purpose, the Government must demonstrate that doing so is genuinely in the national interest.
Wrong Plan Wrong Site believes that repurposing strategically valuable military land for asylum accommodation, at a time when Britain should be strengthening its defence capabilities, represents a serious failure of priorities.
Site A is not simply an abandoned military base.
It is part of an active defence estate. And the Government must explain why it believes giving up military training land is the right thing to do.
