The Planning Concerns
Big decisions demand proper scrutiny.
The Government is seeking permission to develop MOD Bicester Site A through the Urgent Crown Development planning process.
The proposal would establish accommodation for up to 1,256 people for at least ten years, potentially bringing significant changes to a rural location.
We have serious concerns about the adequacy of the supporting evidence, the environmental assessments and the decision-making process.
We believe a development of this scale must be properly assessed, transparently justified and subject to appropriate scrutiny before it proceeds.
The Planning Numbers
1,256
Proposed accommodation capacity
The maximum number of people the Government proposes to accommodate at MOD Bicester Site A at any one time.
10+ Years
Proposed duration of the development
The accommodation is intended to operate for at least a decade.
26 Aug 26
Environmental screening decision
The date the Government concluded that a full Environmental Impact Assessment was unnecessary.
3
Grounds of legal challenge
The number of legal grounds advanced in our High Court challenge to the Government’s environmental screening decision.
Why Is the Government Using an Urgent Planning Process?
A development of this scale deserves careful consideration.
The Government has submitted the proposal through the Urgent Crown Development process, a special planning procedure available for certain developments considered to be of national importance and urgency.
While this is a lawful planning route, it differs from the usual local planning process.
We believe its use raises important questions about the level of scrutiny, public involvement and supporting evidence.
- THE NEED FOR URGENCY
What circumstances justify using the Urgent Crown Development process for accommodation intended to operate for at least ten years?
- LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
Have local residents, elected representatives and relevant authorities been given adequate opportunities to examine and respond to the proposal?
- SITE SELECTION
What evidence demonstrates that MOD Bicester Site A is suitable, and how were alternative locations assessed?
- PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
How can the Government demonstrate that the planning decision is based on complete, reliable evidence?
An urgent planning process should not mean that important questions go unanswered.
Has the Site Been Properly Assessed?
Our concerns extend to the completeness and adequacy of the evidence supporting the development.
At the time of the Government’s environmental screening decision, important questions remained about several areas.
CONTAMINATION
Has the site’s former military use been adequately investigated, and have any potential contamination risks been properly assessed?
ECOLOGY & PROTECTED SPECIES
Were appropriate ecological investigations available to inform the decision, particularly concerning bats, great crested newts and other protected wildlife?
FOUL DRAINAGE
Has the Government demonstrated that suitable wastewater infrastructure can be provided without unacceptable environmental consequences?
THE NEARBY TRAINING AREA
Have the potential effects of activities at the nearby Piddington military training area on future residents been adequately considered?
We believe these matters require proper investigation and evidence-based answers.
Who Is Holding the Government Accountable?
Transparency isn’t optional. Accountability matters.
The Government is responsible for proposing the development and has also made the decision that a full Environmental Impact Assessment is unnecessary.
We have raised concerns about whether appropriate arrangements were in place to ensure the necessary separation of responsibilities when that environmental screening decision was made.
Our concerns are not simply about the outcome.
They are about ensuring that the process is lawful, transparent and supported by sufficient evidence.
The Government should be able to demonstrate clearly how its decisions were reached, what evidence was considered and how potential environmental consequences were assessed.
We’re Challenging the Government’s Decision.
The environmental screening decision is now subject to a High Court legal challenge.
Through Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, the legal entity supporting Wrong Plan Wrong Site, we have launched a High Court challenge concerning the Government’s decision not to require a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
Our legal challenge raises three principal grounds:
- Unresolved environmental investigations
We argue that the Government unlawfully relied on assumptions about the favourable outcomes of outstanding investigations.
- Insufficient information
We argue that reasonable steps were not taken to obtain information necessary to reach a lawful screening decision.
- The decision-making arrangements
We raise concerns about a potential conflict of interest and the arrangements for ensuring appropriate separation of responsibilities.
The High Court has been asked to examine whether the Government’s environmental screening decision was lawful.
We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for the Government to demonstrate that it has followed the law.
Proper Planning. Proper Scrutiny. Proper Answers.
Decisions affecting our countryside and communities for years to come must be based on sound evidence and transparent processes.
We’re calling for proper scrutiny of the MOD Bicester Site A proposal and clear answers to the questions that remain.
Help us ensure the Government is held accountable.