Object to the MOD Bicester Site A application

The Home Office’s own application documents acknowledge that parts of the evidence base remain incomplete.

Its ecological consultant states that its survey cannot be considered a comprehensive assessment, while species surveys remain outstanding. The objection evidence also identifies missing biodiversity and fire-safety information.

No borehole investigation has been undertaken to test the ground for contamination.

A 2010 land quality assessment found areas investigated were generally unsuitable for redevelopment to a domestic end use without remediation and identified potential contamination risks at Site A. The more recent assessment does not resolve the contamination question raised by that earlier work.

The main accommodation is proposed on one of the lowest and most flood-prone parts of the site.

The evidence identifies significant surface-water flood risk and unresolved questions around drainage and attenuation.

The Transport Assessment repeatedly refers to the B1104, rather than the B4011 which actually borders the site.

The objection evidence also identifies a history of injury collisions on the nearby B4011 and the lack of a continuous footway or lighting along much of the route.

The application does not demonstrate a confirmed, reliable permanent electricity or wastewater solution.

The Utilities and Infrastructure Assessment says the condition and capacity of the existing electricity network cannot presently be relied upon, while questions also remain over sewage capacity and the proposed wastewater arrangements.

The published representation period runs from 7 to 17 September 2026, just 11 days, roughly half the 21 day minimum that applies to ordinary planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and that is prescribed at every stage of the standard Crown Development route. Nearly two months passed between the application being submitted on 6 July 2026 and it being published for comment on 2 September 2026, and its supporting documents run to well over 1,000 pages across multiple technical disciplines. The campaign does not believe 11 days gives residents, councils or technical specialists a fair opportunity to examine an application of this scale and complexity.

A smaller proposal for approximately 750 people on this land was refused by an independent Planning Inspector in 2003 and subsequently cancelled.

The current proposal is significantly larger, seeking accommodation for up to 1,256 people.

The National Audit Office has previously raised serious concerns about the Home Office’s large-sites asylum accommodation programme.

Its March 2024 findings concluded that the programme was expected to cost more overall than the hotels it was intended to replace, rather than delivering the savings originally projected.

Different application documents contain inconsistent figures relating to the size, phasing and capacity of the proposed development. One document even refers to 3,510 service users rather than the 1,256 stated elsewhere.

Although permission is sought on a temporary basis, the objection evidence identifies a lack of detailed information explaining how the development would eventually be removed and the site restored.

Questions remain about whether a permanent sewage solution can be delivered within the proposed lifespan of the scheme and what arrangements would operate until then.

The evidence identifies apparent inconsistencies between documents concerning nearby development and the assessment of cumulative impacts.

The site sits outside established settlements and has little surrounding public transport, retail or community infrastructure. Concerns have been raised about its compatibility with the adopted local development plan.

The application’s unexploded ordnance assessment remains preliminary and says a more detailed risk assessment cannot yet be completed.

A detailed lighting scheme and assessment of its potential effects on wildlife, including bats using nearby hedgerows and woodland, has not yet been completed.

The documents acknowledge that hospital care would not be provided on site. Questions have therefore been raised about the additional demand that could fall on existing local health and emergency services.

Site A does not form part of the development for which Cherwell’s existing Infrastructure Delivery Plan was prepared, raising questions about how the additional infrastructure requirements would be accommodated.

Concerns have been raised about the age and completeness of ecological evidence and the biodiversity net gain requirements that would apply to the development.

No field archaeological evaluation has yet been undertaken despite the recognised potential for Roman and medieval remains in the wider area around Alchester.

The application does not set out a detailed comparison showing what alternative sites were considered, the criteria used or why Site A was selected over other options.

Questions have also been raised about whether a hydrological pathway could connect development at Site A with nearby Arncott Bridge Meadows Site of Special Scientific Interest and whether this issue has been fully resolved.