More Than 1,200 Male Asylum Seekers Set to Move Into a British Village, But What Angry Residents Are Planning Could Change Everything

Residents of a small village in Oxfordshire have promised to continue fighting plans to house more than 1,200 male asylum seekers near their homes, despite the Government approving the project.

“We will not stop. We will not accept it,” said Tim McNally, chairman of Piddington Parish Council, as he accused the Government of ignoring local people and misleading them about the plans.

The anger follows a decision by Housing Secretary Angela Rayner to approve planning permission for an asylum accommodation centre at the former Ministry of Defence site near Piddington.

The site is expected to accommodate up to 1,256 male asylum seekers for at least ten years. The project could cost taxpayers around £1.25 billion, including an estimated £256 million to prepare the site.

Piddington has a population of around 350 people, meaning the number of asylum seekers could be almost four times the number of local residents.

Many villagers say they are worried about what such a large increase in population could mean for their small community.

In September, residents held an unusual vote to declare their village independent from the United Kingdom in protest against the plans. A total of 285 people voted in favour, while 26 voted against.

Although the vote had no legal power, residents hoped it would send a strong message to the Government.

However, their protests did not stop the planning approval.

Speaking outside the village hall on Friday, McNally said residents would continue challenging the decision through the courts.

He also warned that he would seek to hold senior government officials responsible if anyone in the village was harmed by someone staying at the centre.

McNally referred to the proposed Hillsborough Law, which aims to make public officials more accountable for their actions and for misleading the public.

He accused the Government of using its powers unfairly and said villagers would explore every possible legal option to stop the project.

One of the biggest concerns raised by residents is the condition of the former military site.

According to McNally, the location currently has no running water, electricity or working sewage system.

He questioned how the Government could consider the site suitable for more than 1,200 people.

He also claimed that generators would be needed to provide electricity and could consume thousands of litres of fuel daily.

Residents have raised concerns about security, particularly because the accommodation centre would be close to homes and local playing fields.

McNally said that although the Government had promised security guards and CCTV cameras at the centre, those measures would not necessarily cover the surrounding village.

Some women living in Piddington have also

expressed fears about their personal safety.

A local protest group called Women of Piddington has been campaigning against the plans, with some members attending self-defence classes.

The women have also written to female MPs asking them to consider the possible impact of the centre on families and children.

Victoria Hubbocks, 32, a mother of three boys, said she was particularly worried about how the plans could affect her children’s freedom.

Her youngest child is four, while her oldest is 11.

She said the proposed ten-year period would cover much of their childhood.

Victoria explained that she wanted her children to continue enjoying village life without feeling afraid to go outside or visit friends.

She said residents were not prepared to give up their campaign.

The group has been raising money, visiting Westminster and organising meetings to discuss what they can do next.

Victoria also criticised Angela Rayner, pointing to Labour’s promise to reduce violence against women and girls.

She believes the Government has failed to take local women’s concerns seriously.

However, the fears expressed by residents do not mean that people who may eventually stay at the centre have committed crimes or will pose a danger.

Another resident, Claire Brenner, said she loved living in Piddington and wanted to protect the village.

She has been helping with legal challenges against the Government’s decision.

Claire said an independent expert had identified the possibility of a rare bat species living near the proposed accommodation site.

She believes the Government should have properly investigated the possible impact on protected wildlife before approving the project.

There have also been concerns about great crested newts, another protected species that may be present in the area.

Campaign group Wrong Plan Wrong Site has already asked the High Court to review the Government’s actions.

The group argues that ministers failed to follow important environmental rules before granting permission.

Cherwell District Council is supporting the legal challenge.

The dispute has also attracted attention from senior politicians.

Conservative Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp and Reform UK’s Zia Yusuf visited Piddington on Friday to speak with residents.

However, the two politicians became involved in an argument outside the village hall.

Yusuf accused the Conservatives of failing to control immigration when they were in government.

Philp responded by accusing Yusuf of using the situation to score political points.

At one point, Philp told Yusuf to stop talking and pay attention to the concerns of local residents.

Philp later criticised Angela Rayner’s decision, saying the Government had ignored the wishes of the village.

He argued that using special planning powers to approve accommodation for more than 1,200 men beside a small rural community was unacceptable.

The Government has defended its wider plans to move asylum seekers out of hotels and into other types of accommodation.

Downing Street said it had saved £1 billion in asylum costs since taking office and was working to close expensive hotels.

Officials explained that former military sites were among the alternatives being considered.

The Government also promised that such centres would have security staff working around the clock, CCTV cameras and facilities intended to reduce the impact on surrounding communities.

The Home Office said planning permission would allow preparations for the Bicester site to continue.

However, it stressed that a final decision on whether to proceed with the accommodation centre had not yet been made.

Despite that statement, many Piddington residents remain angry and unconvinced.

They believe their concerns have been ignored and say they will continue their campaign until the plans are stopped.

For McNally and other protesters, the approval is not the end of the fight.

They are now hoping that legal challenges and continued public pressure will force the Government to reconsider its decision.