The Government’s plans to house more than 1,200 male migrants in Piddington are ‘ambiguous’ and pose ‘avoidable’ risks, the council has said.
Cherwell District Council in Oxfordshire has formally objected to Home Office proposals to house 1,256 male asylum seekers at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) Bicester site near Piddington.
The proposal has sparked anger in the village, which has a population of around 350, driving residents to vote to leave the UK in a symbolic independence ‘referendum’ on Wednesday.
In its response to the Government’s planning application, the district council hit out at what it called ‘unresolved ambiguity’ in its plans for the site.
It accused the Government of having submitted a ‘concept’ rather than a ‘sufficiently defined full development’, with several elements missing from its application, including a proposed layout.
‘The absence of evidence is not automatically proof of harm,’ the council said, ‘but where the applicant bears the burden of describing the proposal and demonstrating acceptable effects, unresolved ambiguity cannot be treated as a neutral factor.’
It added: ‘The claimed urgency does not justify an avoidable risk to occupiers, local communities or the environment.’
The council pointed to several potential problems with the site, which is a former defence storage and distribution centre.
The Oxfordshire village of Piddington, where the villagers are up in arms over the proposed migrant centre being built next to their tiny village
A sign is displayed on a fence surrounding a former military base that will be used to house asylum seekers
It raised concerns about wastewater provisions, surface-water flooding, the ecological impact of the site, access arrangements and the impact on the local community.
The council called for an assessment of the former military site, which it said could house ‘asbestos-containing materials’ and unexploded ordnance.
Piddington parish councillor Mike Nixon previously said the site has no pedestrian access areas, and the Government has suggested issuing asylum seekers with high-visibility jackets to keep them safe while walking along a busy road, the B4011.
In planning documents, the Government described the site as having ‘limited’ pedestrian access, with travel on foot ‘not recommended’, adding shuttle buses may be provided as an alternative.
The district council said: ‘Advice, high-visibility vests and encouragement to use a shuttle are not a safe pedestrian network and are considered to be a meaningless exercise that will not deviate natural behaviour and curiosity.’
Included in the council’s objection is a draft response from Thames Valley Police.
The force warned the entrance to the site could become ‘a focus for protest activity, creating potential conflict with construction traffic, staff and other site users’.
Police also raised concerns about residents’ privacy, adding the site’s proximity to the B4011 could increase the risk of ‘observation, filming, harassment, hostile attention or protest’.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp and shadow minister for women and equalities Joy Morrissey (left) speak with residents of Piddington
The council said it acknowledged the ‘national importance and asserted urgency’ of providing asylum accommodation and emphasised it is not objecting because of ‘the identity or status of future residents’.
Rather, it said, its objection is based on the ‘land-use acceptability’ of the proposed site and the ‘level of detail’ submitted in the Government’s application.
Approval for the application rests with Housing Secretary Angela Rayner.
A spokesman for the Home Office said: ‘The Government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1 billion on asylum support since the election.
‘We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites which are designed to be self-contained to reduce impact on the local community.
‘As part of the process, we engage with local authorities and police forces to ensure the safety and security of those in the surrounding area.’
You must be logged in to post a comment Login