Legal challenge launched over government plans to house asylum seekers at Bicester military base

Solicitors acting for Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC have sent a pre-action protocol letter to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, setting out an intended application for judicial review.

The proposed development at MOD Bicester Site A would provide accommodation for up to 1,256 single adult men, together with health and welfare facilities, infrastructure, wastewater facilities, roads, security infrastructure, parking and recreational areas.

According to Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, the legal challenge concerns the Government’s screening direction of 26 August 2026, which concluded that the proposed development was not likely to have significant environmental effects and therefore did not require a full EIA.

Outlining the grounds of challenge, the group said: “The first proposed ground concerns the Government’s reliance on future investigations and mitigation measures when deciding that significant environmental effects were unlikely.

“[…] The second proposed ground identifies what appears to be a significant discrepancy between the development considered during environmental screening and the development submitted for approval.

“The third proposed ground concerns Regulation 64 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.”

The group added: “The Home Office is bringing forward the proposal, while the environmental screening direction was made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

“The [pre-action letter] asks what administrative arrangements were in place to ensure the required objectivity and functional separation between those bringing forward the proposal and those responsible for determining it.”

The legal action has been “strongly supported” by local MP Calum Miller, who called on ministers to “withdraw this application today” in a Facebook post on 16 September.

Meanwhile, Cherwell District Council, a consultee in the Urgent Crown Development process, has formally objected to the proposal in its current form.

Cllr Chris Aramini-Brant, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Enforcement, said: "We recognise the government's responsibility to provide safe and appropriate accommodation for people seeking asylum. However, proposals of this scale must still be supported by sufficient evidence, detailed information and robust mitigation measures.

"There are still important questions that remain unanswered, significant amounts of information that has not been provided and concerns that have yet to be resolved.

“We are particularly concerned that residents, stakeholders and consultees have had only 10 days in which to consider a large and complex application. That is not how planning applications of this scale are usually assessed.”

The council added: "It is important to understand that neither the council nor the Planning Committee will decide this application. The final decision rests with government through the Urgent Crown Development process." 

On Tuesday last week, villagers in Piddington, near Bicester, voted to leave the UK in a symbolic protest against the plans.

Lottie Winson