A question from a Wakefield councillor has become the starkest expression of a growing confrontation between local authorities and the government over asylum accommodation: “How am I meant to protect the children and young people of this district, when I have no idea who’s coming in and out of this facility?”
Matthew Caton, Reform UK’s portfolio holder for children and young people at Wakefield Council, was speaking about Urban House, one of Yorkshire’s largest asylum processing and dispersal centres.
Police have made five arrests in less than a month in connection with alleged rape and child sexual assault at the site. The allegations have not established guilt, but have intensified concern among residents and politicians.
The centre, opposite Wakefield prison, has capacity for more than 300 beds and currently houses an estimated 200 to 260 people, according to Caton. He argues that a facility intended to process and disperse asylum seekers within days has become a longer-term presence, with some people reportedly staying for months or, historically, years.
“We have no eyes on them as a council,” he told GB News, arguing that limited information about arrivals and departures undermines local safeguarding responsibilities. He also questioned whether the Home Office was providing sufficient oversight.
Those are serious claims, but they have not been independently verified in the material available. Nor do the allegations against individuals establish that asylum seekers as a group pose a greater risk to the public.
The political pressure is nevertheless mounting. Reform-led Wakefield Council is urging Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to close Urban House and Cedar Court Hotel, another site used to accommodate asylum seekers. The council has no direct control over Urban House, leaving responsibility for its operation largely with central government.
Council leader Karl Johnson said an emergency motion had been put to the full council seeking the removal of residents from both sites.
“We need to look after our residents and make sure they feel safe in their homes,” he said. “We cannot carry on like this.”
His language reflects a wider confrontation over immigration policy. Reform, which won 58 of Wakefield’s 63 council seats in May, has made opposition to asylum accommodation a central local issue. Nationally, the party has proposed rejecting new asylum applications and deporting existing claimants if it enters government.
Residents interviewed by GB News described unease about safety in the city. Terry Siviter said: “It’s definitely not as safe as it was. You could walk into town, but I don’t think I’d walk around here now in certain places.”
Lesley Page-Dixon said people were worried not only for themselves but for “our children and also our grandchildren that live here”. Some residents reportedly said they were considering selling their homes and moving away.
Their fears underline the challenge facing authorities when serious allegations collide with wider public anxiety. But residents’ accounts, however sincerely held, do not establish that the centre has caused a general increase in crime.
The Home Office condemned the allegations as “sickening” and said its thoughts were with the victims. “We will not tolerate criminal behaviour,” a spokesperson said, adding that anyone convicted of a serious sexual offence would have their asylum claim rejected and that the government would seek removal at the first opportunity.
The department said strengthened safety measures had been introduced and an increased police presence deployed. West Yorkshire Police confirmed that reassurance patrols were taking place around Urban House.
Chief Superintendent Stuart Bainbridge, Wakefield’s district commander, said officers were working closely with site staff, the Home Office and the council to address concerns.
The government also pointed to rising returns, saying more than 80,000 illegal migrants and foreign criminals had been returned or deported since the election.
For Wakefield, however, the immediate test is whether reassurance patrols and tighter safeguards can restore public confidence. For ministers, the stakes are broader: demonstrate that vulnerable people are protected, allegations are investigated and accommodation is properly managed — without allowing individual accusations to become collective blame.
Until the government provides clearer answers on oversight and safeguarding, the question hanging over Urban House will remain as politically potent as it is troubling: who is accountable when local authorities say they cannot see enough to protect the people in their care?
Leave a Comment