Why it matters:
Wrong plan. Wrong site.
This is not a small or temporary change.
The Government is proposing to accommodate approximately 1,250 people on an isolated former military site for at least ten years.
We believe the scale, location and planning process raise serious questions for the people who may be housed there, the surrounding communities and the taxpayer.
Our concerns are about the scale, location, safeguarding and suitability of the proposal – and whether the Government has properly assessed its impact on everyone affected.
Our Concerns
- Too large for this location
Around 1,250 people are proposed for a rural site between small villages. The Government has not yet shown that the location can support a development of this scale.
- Isolated and difficult to access
Site A is several miles from central Bicester, with limited public transport and poor access to shops, healthcare, legal support and other everyday services.
- Serious road-safety concerns
Many surrounding routes have no continuous pavement or street lighting. Similar concerns were raised during the previous planning inquiry for this site.
- Can local infrastructure cope?
The proposal would place major new demands on water, wastewater, electricity, drainage and communications. Site-specific capacity evidence has not yet been published.
- Pressure on healthcare and public services
Residents would need access to GPs, hospitals, mental-health support, dentistry, interpreters and ambulance services. The Government must show that suitable provision is available.
- Safeguarding and wellbeing
A proposal to accommodate around 1,250 single adult men at a rural site requires a clear, evidence-led assessment of community safety. The Government should show how women, children and vulnerable people have been considered, what policing and reporting arrangements would be in place, and how public transport, walking routes, lighting and other local safety issues have been assessed.
- Environmental impact
The wider area contains important habitats and ecological assets. Proper site-specific environmental and protected-species surveys are needed before development proceeds.
- The condition of the site
Site A was used for military storage and logistics, not as a residential community. Questions remain about buildings, contamination, asbestos, drainage and required remediation.
- Why is this being treated as urgent?
The Government is using an urgent planning route. It should publish clear evidence explaining the national importance, genuine urgency and consideration of alternative sites.
- No meaningful consultation
Local communities were not involved while the proposal was being developed. Residents deserve access to the evidence and a genuine opportunity to influence the decision.
- What will it cost?
No full cost for the Bicester proposal has been published. The public needs to see the conversion, infrastructure, remediation, operating and long-term costs.
Who is accountable if something goes wrong?
A proposal involving multiple public bodies, service providers and contractors needs clear lines of responsibility.
The Home Office, Ministry of Defence, site operator, local authorities, police, NHS and fire services may all have different responsibilities. The important question is whether those responsibilities have been clearly defined — and whether the public can see who is accountable for each major risk.
Before Site A proceeds, we believe the Government should make clear:
- who assessed each significant risk
- who is responsible for mitigating it
- who will fund those measures
- who will monitor whether they work
- who is accountable if they fail
Public safety requires public accountability.
The central problem
Important questions remain unanswered
The Government has now published extensive technical documentation for the proposal. However, our review has identified significant outstanding questions and inconsistencies in that evidence.
These include concerns around land contamination and asbestos, incomplete ecological surveys, foul-water management, transport and infrastructure, and whether the development considered during environmental screening accurately reflects the development for which permission is being sought.
Some of these concerns now form part of a formal legal challenge to the Government’s Environmental Impact Assessment screening decision.
Decisions should be based on evidence
Wrong Plan. Wrong Site. is a community-led, non-political campaign.
We believe this proposal has not yet been shown to be safe, suitable, sustainable or good value.
The Government should answer the outstanding questions before any final decision is made.