The Cost to Taxpayers
A billion-pound question the Government needs to answer.
The Government’s proposal to accommodate up to 1,256 asylum seekers at MOD Bicester Site A could come at an extraordinary cost to British taxpayers.
From constructing and maintaining the accommodation to providing security, policing, transport and essential infrastructure, the financial implications extend far beyond the initial development.
We believe the public deserves to know the true cost of this proposal, why this location was chosen, and whether better-value alternatives have been properly considered.
The Numbers
£1.2 Billion
Estimated total cost over the proposed operating period
£269.7 Million
Estimated cost before the accommodation opens
£1.7 Million
Estimated policing costs associated with the site
£235 per person, per night
Proposed Site A accommodation – estimated minimum daily cost
Could Using Existing Accommodation Cost Less?
The Government has proposed constructing a substantial accommodation facility in a rural location, requiring significant investment in infrastructure and ongoing operational support.
But is this really the most cost-effective solution?
The campaign’s working figures suggest a striking difference between the estimated daily cost of accommodation at MOD Bicester Site A and an alternative hotel-based arrangement.
A simple comparison
£235
Estimated Site A cost per person, per night
VS
£144
Illustrative hotel accommodation cost per person, per night
That’s a potential difference of £91 per person, every night!
These figures require confirmation on a like-for-like basis, including what services, capital costs and operating costs each estimate covers.
We believe the Government should publish a transparent comparison of the available accommodation options before committing substantial public funds to this proposal.
The Costs Don’t Stop at Construction
The initial investment is only part of the financial picture.
Operating a large accommodation facility in a rural location potentially creates additional demands on public resources.
- Policing and security
What additional policing and security resources will be required, and who will pay for them?
- Transport and access
How much will it cost to transport residents, staff, supplies and essential services to and from this relatively isolated location?
- Roads and infrastructure
What additional costs could arise from increased traffic, road maintenance, wastewater management and supporting infrastructure?
- Energy and utilities
What will it cost to power, heat and maintain the accommodation, particularly if diesel generators and temporary infrastructure are required?
These costs deserve proper scrutiny, particularly when evaluating whether the development represents value for money.
Why Spend Millions Developing a Rural Site?
We believe there are fundamental questions about the Government’s decision to select MOD Bicester Site A.
Why invest substantial public money in developing a former military site when other accommodation options may already exist?
Were alternative locations properly considered? What were the projected costs of each option? And what evidence demonstrates that Site A represents the best value for taxpayers?
The Government should provide clear answers to these questions.
We believe accommodation decisions should be based on suitability, environmental responsibility and demonstrable value for money – not simply the availability of Government-owned land.
Taxpayers Deserve Answers.
The financial implications of the MOD Bicester Site A proposal are too significant to ignore.
We’re calling for greater transparency, proper scrutiny of the costs and a clear demonstration that better-value alternatives have been considered.
Help us challenge the proposal and demand accountability.