Today, 23 October 2026, we can announce that Wrong Plan Wrong Site has launched a High Court legal challenge against the Government’s decision not to carry out a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed asylum accommodation development at MOD Bicester Site A.
The challenge has been brought through Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, the legal entity supporting our campaign, and focuses on whether the Government acted lawfully when deciding that a full assessment of the development’s potential environmental effects was unnecessary.
This represents a significant step forward in our campaign to ensure that the Government is held accountable for its decisions and that the environmental consequences of this substantial development are properly considered.
Why Are We Taking Legal Action?
The Government proposes to accommodate up to 1,256 people at MOD Bicester Site A for at least ten years, using the Urgent Crown Development planning process.
On 26 August 2026, the Government issued a Screening Direction concluding that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.
We believe that decision raises serious legal questions.
In particular, we are concerned that the Government reached its conclusion despite important investigations into contamination, ecology and wastewater infrastructure remaining outstanding.
A formal pre-action letter challenging the decision was sent on 16 September 2026. We have now taken the next step by bringing our challenge before the High Court.
Our position is straightforward: a development of this scale, in this location, must be subject to proper environmental scrutiny.
The Three Grounds of Our Legal Challenge
Our legal challenge raises three principal arguments.
1. Unresolved Environmental Investigations
We argue that the Government was wrong to conclude that significant environmental effects were unlikely while relying on the assumption that outstanding investigations would produce favourable results.
These investigations concern important issues, including:
- Potential contamination of the former military site.
- Ecological impacts and protected wildlife.
- Foul drainage and wastewater infrastructure.
Our challenge questions whether the Government properly considered what would happen if those investigations identified problems, what mitigation measures might be needed and whether those measures would be effective.
2. Insufficient Environmental Information
Our second ground concerns whether the Government took reasonable steps to obtain the information necessary to make a lawful decision.
We argue that the Screening Direction was issued without adequate inquiry into the potential effects of the nearby Piddington training area on people accommodated at the development.
We also question whether sufficient consideration was given to the adequacy of the preliminary ecological appraisal.
3. Concerns About the Decision-Making Process
Our third ground raises concerns about the arrangements under which the Government made its Screening Direction.
We argue that the decision was made in circumstances giving rise to a conflict of interest, without specific administrative arrangements to ensure appropriate functional separation.
We believe that decisions of this significance must be made through a transparent, lawful and properly independent process.
Significant Environmental Questions Remain
Our concerns are supported by important findings within the ecological information associated with the proposal.
The preliminary ecological appraisal identified potential bat roosting opportunities in five buildings and 13 trees, alongside high suitability for bat commuting and foraging.
Furthermore, a revised ecological appraisal issued on 22 September 2026, after the Government’s original Screening Direction, identified records within 2km of the site of:
- 74 bat records
- 131 great crested newt records
- 11 badger records
- 3 otter records
These findings underline the importance of ensuring that potential environmental impacts are properly investigated and understood.
Our concerns also extend to wastewater, artificial lighting, traffic and other infrastructure impacts.
We believe these issues deserve thorough, evidence-based consideration before decisions are made about a development that could remain in place for at least a decade.
We’re Asking the Government to Follow the Law
We are not asking for special treatment.
We are asking the Government to demonstrate that it has followed the law and properly assessed the environmental consequences of its proposal.
There are credible concerns about potentially significant environmental effects, and we believe the Government’s decision that a full Environmental Impact Assessment is unnecessary requires proper legal scrutiny.
Environmental protections exist for a reason. They should apply consistently, including when the Government itself is proposing a development.
Our campaign has always been about the suitability of MOD Bicester Site A, the decision-making process and the potential impact on the environment and surrounding communities. It is not directed against people seeking asylum.
Cherwell District Council, which also opposes the development, has been included as an interested party in the legal proceedings.
Our Message Is Simple: Prove It Before You Proceed
This is an important milestone for Wrong Plan Wrong Site and the communities we represent.
We remain committed to challenging the suitability of MOD Bicester Site A and ensuring that decisions affecting our countryside and communities are supported by proper evidence, transparency and accountability.
The Government has decided that a full Environmental Impact Assessment is unnecessary. We disagree, and we’re asking the High Court to examine whether that decision was lawful.
Our message remains clear:
PROVE IT BEFORE YOU PROCEED.
Support Our Campaign
Taking action to challenge decisions of this significance requires considerable time, expertise and financial resources.
Wrong Plan Wrong Site is a community-led, non-political campaign supported by Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC.
We rely on the support and generosity of local residents, businesses and organisations to continue our work.
If you believe the Government should be held accountable and required to demonstrate that this development has been properly assessed, please consider supporting our campaign.
