Locals Speak Out and Reveal Why They Will Not Allow 3,750 Asylum Seekers to Be Housed in Their Community

The Government’s proposal to use RAF Barnham, a military base near the small village of Barnham close to Thetford, to house asylum seekers has sparked strong opposition from local councillors and residents. The site is one of three former military bases being considered to accommodate up to 3,750 asylum seekers, alongside locations in Bicester and MoD Linton-on-Ouse.

At an urgent meeting, West Suffolk Council unanimously voted to oppose the proposal, with councillors from all political parties joining together to send a clear message to the Government. They agreed that RAF Barnham is not a suitable location for asylum accommodation and pledged to press the Home Office to reconsider the plans.

The decision came after growing concern from local people. Around 200 protesters gathered outside RAF Barnham over the weekend, carrying banners and calling on the Government to abandon the proposal. Many residents said they felt the decision had been made without any meaningful consultation with the community and argued that people living nearby had been left in the dark about what the plans would involve.

During the council meeting, several residents spoke about their concerns. They questioned whether the local infrastructure would be able to cope with such a significant increase in population, pointing to existing pressures on healthcare services, transport, schools and other public facilities. Others raised concerns about safety, community cohesion and the lack of detailed information about how the site would operate.

John Bauer, chairman of Barnham Parish Council, criticised the way the proposal had been introduced, saying decisions that could dramatically affect a community should never come as a surprise. He argued that local people deserved to be properly consulted before plans of this size were announced.

Before discussions began, councillors were reminded to avoid divisive or discriminatory language following the protest held outside the base, where some speakers used strongly anti-immigration terms. Council leaders stressed that while residents had every right to express concerns about the proposal, the debate should remain respectful and focused on the practical issues facing the community.

Not everyone who addressed the meeting opposed asylum seekers themselves. Susan Downing, from Bury St Edmunds, reminded councillors that many people seeking asylum are fleeing war, persecution and hardship. She said they are often frightened, vulnerable and exploited, adding that their humanity and potential contribution to society should not be forgotten during the debate.

Despite those comments, councillors from across the political spectrum remained united in their opposition to using RAF Barnham for the scheme. Their objections focused mainly on the suitability of the location rather than the people who would be housed there.

Council leader Cliff Waterman said the unanimous vote would strengthen his position when meeting Government officials. He said the decision demonstrated that opposition was shared across political parties and reflected the views of the wider community rather than being the opinion of a few individuals. He expressed hope that ministers would listen carefully to the council’s concerns instead of dismissing them.

Conservative councillor Andrew Smith described Barnham as a quiet village with fewer than 600 residents, a primary school, a village hall and a parish church. He argued that such a small rural community was simply the wrong place for a large asylum accommodation centre. While acknowledging that the campaign still had a long way to go, he said he remained optimistic that the plans could ultimately be stopped.

Reform UK councillor Adrian Whittle also backed the motion but said residents needed clear guarantees that they would not have to change their way of life because of uncertainty or fear. He said one of the biggest frustrations was the lack of information about how many asylum seekers could be housed at the site and how essential services would be expanded to cope with the extra demand.

Green councillor Dylan Roques questioned whether a former military base could provide suitable living conditions for vulnerable people seeking asylum. He argued that the site would do little to protect their dignity or wellbeing and suggested that better accommodation should be found instead.

Liberal Democrat councillor Jon London criticised both the proposal and the decision-making process, describing it as one of the worst examples of development he had seen with very little democratic oversight. He said local communities should have a much greater say before major Government decisions of this kind are implemented.

The council has now committed to formally presenting its objections to the Home Office as pressure continues to mount over the future of RAF Barnham. While the Government has not yet made a final decision, the united stance taken by West Suffolk councillors highlights the growing local resistance to the proposal and the wider debate over where asylum seekers should be accommodated across the UK.