Three distinct communities across England have been identified by the UK Home Office as potential sites to house a total of 3,750 asylum seekers, pending planning approval. The villages of Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, Barnham on the Suffolk-Norfolk border, and the town of Bicester in Oxfordshire have been selected as part of a government effort to move asylum seekers out of hotels and into alternative accommodation, including repurposed military sites.

The announcement has sparked significant opposition in all three areas, with residents and local officials expressing concerns over suitability, infrastructure, and the impact on their communities.

In Linton-on-Ouse, a village of around 700 people located eight miles northeast of York, many residents oppose the plan to house up to 1,200 asylum seekers in the former Second World War bomber base. The site, which dates back to the 1940s, previously drew controversy in 2022 when then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government proposed a similar use before abandoning it amid strong local resistance. Critics highlight several issues, including the site’s isolation, frequent flooding risk, inadequate sewage and power capacity, and deteriorating buildings. Professor Olga Matthias, a resident and campaigner against the proposal, said that none of these concerns had been adequately addressed since the earlier plan was shelved, and some conditions had worsened. North Yorkshire Council’s Conservative leader Carl Les described the plan as “the wrong proposal in the wrong location.” The Home Office has maintained that converting large sites like this into asylum accommodation will help reduce so-called "pull factors" that encourage illegal migration and allow the government to close asylum hotels.

Barnham, once a highly sensitive Cold War military site used to store nuclear weapons, is another proposed location. Opposition there includes local and parliamentary voices. Terry Jermy, Labour MP for South West Norfolk, expressed his intention to strongly oppose the plan, criticizing the Home Office for insufficient transparency and consultation. Similarly, former Conservative Home Secretary James Cleverly, MP for Braintree, has publicly opposed using nearby RAF Wethersfield, a Ministry of Defence site in his constituency, for asylum housing. Nonetheless, some in Barnham support the government’s strategy of using military properties to accommodate asylum seekers while their claims are processed. The Home Office stressed that its goal is to eliminate asylum hotel use by the next general election and announced the closure of an additional 20 hotels last week. It also argued that military facilities would reduce costs, with current hotel expenditures averaging about £170 per person per night.

In Bicester, an area known for its affluent population and a luxury outlet center attracting millions of visitors annually, there has also been pushback against the plan to house approximately 1,250 asylum seekers in a former British Army barracks near the town. The local Liberal Democrat MP Calum Miller questioned the feasibility of absorbing such a large number into a community with a nearest neighboring village population of around 370. He and Cherwell District Council criticized the Home Office for failing to engage in meaningful consultation with local authorities or residents. The Home Office defended its decision as part of a broader pledge made last year to increase the use of decommissioned military sites for asylum accommodation.

Across all three sites, government officials emphasize the move as a necessary measure to manage asylum seeker housing more effectively, reduce illegal migration incentives, and lower costs. However, local resistance highlights ongoing tensions between national policy objectives and community concerns about the practicalities and impacts of resettlement plans.