Labour is facing mounting opposition to plans to accommodate 1,256 male asylum seekers at a former military site near Bicester, after the police and crime commissioner for Thames Valley warned that the development could increase crime and leave local residents paying the price of additional policing.
Matthew Barber has urged Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to reconsider the proposal for the Ministry of Defence site, arguing that the scale of the planned accommodation presents significant challenges for public safety. He warned that, without additional funding from central government, the demands placed on local police could divert resources from other communities.
“We must expect an increase in crime,” Barber wrote in a letter to Mahmood. “It is naïve to consider that such a large population of single men will not bring with it a greater risk of violent and sexual offences.”
The commissioner cited Thames Valley Police’s experience of asylum hotels, where he said offences had occurred, including incidents between asylum seekers themselves. He argued that concentrating a much larger population at the proposed site could increase the scale of those challenges.
His comments represent a serious warning about the practical consequences of the government’s plans, although they do not establish that asylum seekers as a group are more likely to commit violent or sexual offences. The specific risks at the proposed site, and the extent of any additional crime, remain to be determined.
Barber said residents in nearby villages and towns had legitimate concerns about their safety and that police would need to increase their presence in the area. The site’s open nature, he added, could create additional demands on officers.
“Without significant additional funding, this will come at an unacceptable cost to local taxpayers and a reduction in policing services elsewhere,” he wrote, calling on the Home Office to provide full cost recovery if the project proceeds.
The warning comes as nine women from Piddington travelled to Parliament to oppose the plans, demanding that ministers abandon the proposal. They said their repeated attempts to engage with the government had gone unanswered, intensifying their frustration over a decision they believe could transform their community without sufficient consultation.
The women have drawn comparisons with the failures that left victims of grooming gangs feeling ignored by authorities. Their remarks reflect the depth of their anger, though the circumstances of the proposed asylum accommodation are distinct from those cases.
The dispute has also become politically charged, with critics accusing Labour of dismissing residents’ concerns because of their social background. Such accusations have yet to be substantiated, but the perception that local objections are being brushed aside has become central to the backlash.
Barber’s intervention places the government under pressure to explain not only why the site has been selected, but how the additional demands on policing would be managed. His letter makes clear that reassurance alone will not resolve the issue: officers, funding and an operational plan would be required.
The political dispute comes after MPs voted 309 to 113 against a Conservative motion calling for withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights to facilitate the deportation of illegal migrants. The vote did not itself determine the future of the Bicester site, but it underscored the wider parliamentary divisions over asylum policy and deportation.
For ministers, the challenge is now twofold: to demonstrate that accommodation plans can be implemented safely, and to persuade communities that their concerns will be heard before decisions are finalised.
For Piddington’s residents, Barber’s warning has reinforced fears that the costs of the proposal could fall disproportionately on a small community. For the police, the immediate question is whether the Home Office will provide the resources needed to manage any additional demand without weakening services elsewhere.
The government’s credibility will depend on the answers. If ministers proceed without transparent planning, adequate funding and meaningful engagement with residents, opposition to the scheme is likely to deepen. But predictions of inevitable increases in particular offences should not be treated as established outcomes before the site is operational and evidence is available.
The controversy has exposed a fundamental weakness in the debate over asylum accommodation: communities are being asked to accept a major change, while questions about local capacity, accountability and public safety remain unresolved.
Leave a Comment