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 proposal and the suitability of the site – not the individuals.
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
Large, isolated accommodation sites can increase the risks of poor mental health, social isolation and difficulty accessing healthcare, legal advice and community support.
- Community safety and emergency services
Clear plans are needed for policing, fire safety, ambulance response, security and emergency incidents. The campaign has not yet seen complete published evidence.
- 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.
- Environmental impact
The wider area contains important habitats and ecological assets. Proper site-specific environmental and protected-species surveys are needed before development proceeds.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- At least ten years
The proposed use could continue for at least a decade. A decision with such long-term consequences should not be rushed or based on incomplete evidence.
The central problem
Too many important questions remain unanswered
The campaign’s review had not identified several documents normally expected for a development of this scale, including:
- A current transport assessment
- A utilities-capacity report
- A health-impact assessment
- An equality-impact assessment
- Environmental assessment documents
- A formal statement of urgency
- A formal statement of national importance
Where information is missing, the campaign treats it as an evidence gap, rather than assuming what the answer might be.
But those gaps must be filled before a fair and informed decision can be made.
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.