Oxfordshire County Council has submitted formal objections to the Home Office regarding plans for an asylum seeker facility in the vicinity of Bicester.
The council has flagged significant worries about public safety and the potential strain on local communities, citing inadequate advance communication about the development.
The proposals, unveiled during the summer months with local authorities receiving fewer than 24 hours’ notice, centre on establishing a non-detained asylum accommodation centre at the Ministry of Defence Bicester Site A location.
Neil Fawcett, who serves as deputy leader of Oxfordshire County Council, expressed concern that the plans demonstrate limited consideration for the effects on neighbouring residential areas, despite the application acknowledging the possibility of public anxiety, demonstrations, protests or disturbances connected to a facility without detention capabilities.
He pointed out that the site’s closeness to the boundary with Buckinghamshire means the implications extend beyond Oxfordshire.
Fawcett added that Thames Valley Police, who have already encountered tensions prior to any construction activity, ought to receive extra financial resources to maintain public safety.
The deputy leader also condemned the absence of community involvement surrounding the scheme.
He noted that the authority had not received an adequately developed community engagement strategy from central government to counter misinformation and neighbourhood tensions.
Fawcett emphasised that decisions of this magnitude require transparent development through authentic collaboration with local residents, a process he said had not occurred in this instance.
The council’s formal objection document outlined numerous deficiencies, among them insufficient transportation connections, outstanding flood risk issues and soil contamination matters, alongside inadequate fire safety provisions for temporary residential structures.
Questions were additionally posed regarding the site’s capacity to handle disease outbreak scenarios, deliver mental health assistance, and sustain safe environments when temperatures become extreme.
The correspondence indicated that the scheme provides insufficient detail regarding vaccination programmes, isolation capacity, and whether communal modular buildings could remain secure during periods of increasingly warm weather.
Ambiguity surrounding health and welfare provisions also featured among the objections.
The council maintained that the plans fail to clarify how services including adult social care, child protection, public health, fire and rescue operations, transportation infrastructure, and voluntary sector assistance would be evaluated, financed or addressed.