Calum Miller, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester and Woodstock, has called on the Government to refuse the Botley West Solar Farm application in its current form, warning that too many fundamental questions remain unanswered.

In a formal submission to the Secretary of State, Calum said that the Applicant’s latest information had failed to resolve serious concerns about the development’s impact on nearby communities, the surrounding landscape and the Blenheim Palace World Heritage Site.

Botley West would be one of the largest solar developments in the country. Calum has consistently supported the rapid expansion of renewable energy but argues that projects of this scale must be backed by exceptionally robust evidence.

Among the outstanding issues highlighted in his submission are:

• The failure to assess individually the impact on homes within 250 metres of the development

• Important decisions about the location of panels and infrastructure being deferred until after consent

• Uncertainty over the proposed grid connection and whether it can be delivered in line with the Applicant’s timetable

• Unresolved questions concerning flood risk, aviation safety and land rights

• A lack of clarity about who will finance, own and operate the estimated £800 million project

Calum Miller MP said:

“Botley West is vast, yet the case for it is still full of holes.

“Residents still do not know how close panels could come to their homes. The grid connection remains uncertain. Basic questions about flooding, aviation safety, land rights, ownership and financing are still unanswered.

“I strongly support renewable energy, but that cannot mean giving developers a blank cheque. If the Applicant is struggling to provide key information before asking for a decision, that suggests this proposal is simply too big or in the wrong place.

“The Applicant has had every opportunity to make its case. It still has not provided the certainty that residents deserve. The Secretary of State should refuse Botley West in its current form.”

Calum added that, if the Secretary of State believes the outstanding problems can be resolved, the necessary assessments and agreements must be completed before a decision is taken, followed by proper scrutiny by local authorities and a further fair consultation with affected communities.

Calum Miller, Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester and Woodstock, has challenged the Government’s decision to use an “urgent” Crown Development Order process for its proposal to accommodate up to 1,250 male asylum seekers at MOD Bicester.

In the last week, Calum learned that the Home Office had submitted a Crown Development Order application seeking full planning permission for the temporary change of use of the former military site, known as Site A.

However, a written parliamentary answer obtained by Calum confirmed that the Ministry of Defence was first informed of the proposal in November 2025 - eight months before the application was submitted and long before local authorities and residents were informed.

On Monday, Calum wrote to Planning Minister Matthew Pennycook demanding an explanation of the grounds on which the application had been designated “urgent”.

He also asked the Minister to confirm how residents and local authorities could formally submit their objections, what deadline would apply and how those representations would be considered.

Calum has criticised the Government for using a planning route which risks curtailing proper local scrutiny of a proposal with significant implications for Bicester and the surrounding villages.

Since the plans were announced, he has worked with councillors and parish council representatives from across the political spectrum to coordinate local opposition. Last week, representatives signed a shared compact committing them to oppose the proposal through a united, inclusive and peaceful campaign.

Residents have raised serious concerns about the suitability of Site A. The location is isolated, with limited public transport and no safe pedestrian access to nearby shops and services. Questions also remain about the pressure accommodation on this scale would place on local infrastructure and public services.

A previous proposal to use the site for asylum accommodation was rejected by a planning inspector following a public inquiry in 2003.

Calum Miller MP said:

“The Government has known about this proposal since November. It is completely unacceptable for ministers now to claim that it is so urgent that the normal planning process and proper local scrutiny must be curtailed.

“Local residents and councils were kept in the dark for months. They now face the prospect of one of the country’s largest asylum accommodation sites being pushed through without even being told clearly how they can have their say.

“Site A was found to be unsuitable for asylum accommodation more than 20 years ago. The site remains isolated, poorly connected and far from the services people placed there would need. Ministers have provided no credible explanation of what has changed.

“I have written to the Planning Minister demanding that the Government explain why it is using this route and guarantee our community a genuine opportunity to be heard.

“I will continue working with residents and representatives from across the political spectrum to oppose this unsuitable proposal. We will be most effective by remaining united, inclusive and focused on the facts.”

Calum Miller MP has called for urgent action to reduce disruption for residents, families and businesses affected by the closure of Camp Road at Heyford Park.

The MP for Bicester and Woodstock has written to David Wilson Homes and Dorchester Living following concerns from local residents about longer school runs, delays getting to work, pressure on unsuitable rural roads, disruption to businesses, inappropriate HGV movements and anxiety about emergency access.

The closure is linked to sewage infrastructure works connected to private housing development in the area.

Calum Miller has asked the two organisations to provide an urgent joint response setting out what has happened, what remains unresolved and what steps will now be taken to reduce the impact on residents and businesses.

Calum Miller MP said:

“Residents in Heyford Park have been hit with a road closure of up to six months to the only direct road into the village. They are being left to live with the consequences of infrastructure works linked to a private housing development. That cannot be right.

“People who already live locally are now facing longer school runs, delays getting to work, disruption to businesses, pressure on rural roads and serious concerns about emergency access.

“New homes need proper infrastructure, but residents should not be expected to sweep up the problems when developers have not put proper arrangements in place.

Councillor Gareth Epps has tried hard to press for an agreement between the developers but David Wilson Homes pressed ahead and, under current laws, the county council has not been able to refuse their application to close the road.

“I have written to David Wilson Homes and Dorchester Living asking them to explain what has happened, what remains unresolved and what immediate steps they will now take to reduce the impact on the community.

“If infrastructure works are needed to support new development, the disruption should be properly planned, properly communicated and properly mitigated by those responsible. Residents should not be left paying the price in time, stress and cost.”

PFAS contamination update: RAF Upper Heyford and Heyford Park

On 30 April, I attended a public meeting in Upper Heyford, bringing together local residents, environmental activists, environmental scientists and elected representatives.

It was an urgent wake-up call. The evidence presented on the level of contamination by forever chemicals (PFAS) in Gallos Brook, the hard reality that these are extremely hard to remove or remediate, and some worrying examples of human and animal sickness gave us all cause for concern. Like many others present, I was shocked by what I heard and keen to acquire more knowledge and evidence to answer a series of questions.

I wrote immediately to Ministers, regulators and public bodies for answers. Since then, I took the chance to raise PFAS contamination at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) on 20 May.

At PMQs, Keir Starmer agreed that a meeting should take place with the relevant Secretaries of State. I have written to both the Health Secretary and the Environment Secretary to request that meeting and we are continuing to press for it to be arranged. We are also in the process of setting up a meeting with Emma Hardy MP, the Minister responsible for PFAS, but are clear this cannot be a substitute for the joined-up meeting with both Secretaries of State that residents were promised.

This issue cuts across health, the environment, planning, water quality and the legacy of RAF Upper Heyford’s military use. Residents should not have to navigate different public bodies passing responsibility between one another. There needs to be one coordinated response from central Government.

I have written to a series of public bodies to seek answers about what is known, what testing has taken place and what further action is now needed. These include the Ministry of Defence, the Environment Agency, Cherwell District Council, the Department for Education, the UK Health Security Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

The most significant response so far has come from the Ministry of Defence, which has sent a large number of historic documents relating to RAF Upper Heyford. My team and I have started reviewing these documents and I intend to publish them so residents can see the evidence for themselves.

The documents do not prove PFAS contamination at RAF Upper Heyford. However, they do raise serious issues, such as:

MOD has confirmed that PFAS was not tested for in the historic Land Quality Assessments, because those checks were not carried out at the time (20260605-EIR2026_09271.pdf, pp.2-3).
The ministerial response also says the site was disposed of in the mid-1990s before any form of PFAS testing began, that MOD holds no records of PFAS contamination at the site and that MOD has not been involved in subsequent monitoring or engagement with regulators (MC2026_09251 Calum Miller MP.pdf, p.1)
Historic MOD documents identified the “Adjacent Fire Practice Pond” and associated building as a potential contamination source, with possible contaminants including petroleum, oil and lubricants, solvents and fire-fighting chemicals (Annex A_Redacted (1).pdf, p.25).
The same document says the fire pond area drained to storm water drainage (Annex A_Redacted (1).pdf, p.25), while another report confirms that the Fire Practice Pond was the only known burning ground area at RAF Upper Heyford (Annex H_Redacted_Redacted.pdf, p.43)
One report says the site represented a “potentially serious risk to the environment” because of historic activities, the major aquifer and nearby potable supply abstractors. It also says off-site impacts may already have occurred, although no documented impacts were known at the time (Annex A_Redacted (1).pdf, p.9).
MOD’s own consultants set out two options: remove contaminated soils from various areas, or provide all available information to potential developers so contaminants could be addressed through redevelopment plans. The recommendation was that MOD follow the second option (Annex D_Redacted.pdf, p.41).
One report also recommended regular groundwater quality monitoring throughout redevelopment (Annex G_Redacted (1)_Redacted.pdf, p.7).

Taken together, the documents show that historic contamination risks were identified, including fire-fighting chemicals, a fire practice pond, storm water drainage and vulnerable groundwater pathways. But PFAS was not tested for. MOD now says it holds no PFAS records and has not been involved in subsequent monitoring.

I can understand why this decision may have been taken then. But, knowing the dangers of PFAS, that line cannot hold. These documents show enough to justify urgent, PFAS-specific testing and much clearer public accountability.

The responses from other public bodies also show why a coordinated response is needed.

UKHSA has said that it advises Government departments and agencies on public health risks from environmental exposure to PFAS, but that it has no regulatory powers to address contaminated land. Its response points to local authorities as the bodies responsible for identifying and dealing with unacceptable risks to public health and the environment. I do not think this provides the site-specific clarity residents need, so I will be writing again to press for fuller public health engagement. At the same time, I am asking Cherwell District Council to review its responsibilities in respect of the site and to work with the Environment Agency to agree a suitable testing and monitoring regime for water and soil quality.

According to Cherwell District Council’s PFAS information page, drinking water at Upper Heyford is supplied by Thames Water via the mains network, not from private or local water supplies.However, in light of MOD evidence, I have also recently written to the Drinking Water Inspectorate to seek clarity on drinking water supplies in Upper Heyford and the surrounding area, including whether properties are supplied through the public mains water network, what PFAS monitoring arrangements are in place and whether the DWI has any concerns about mains drinking water safety locally.

I recently met with a senior regional official for the Environment Agency, which has confirmed that it will convene a working group of key partners to coordinate the response. I will also meet with an Environment Agency PFAS expert ahead of my ministerial meetings.

Disappointingly, the Department for Education has failed to provide a response to my letter, which I am now chasing.  

The key questions I am now pursuing are:

• What testing has the Environment Agency carried out so far and what further testing is planned?
• Will the fire practice pond area, groundwater, surface water, springs, brooks and drainage pathways be tested specifically for PFAS?
• What soil testing has been carried out by Cherwell District Council, developers, landowners or consultants?
• Did MOD pass all relevant contamination information to developers or purchasers, as its consultants recommended?
• Who was responsible for ensuring contamination was addressed during redevelopment?
• What records exist on the use of fire-fighting foams, AFFF, fire training, spills and disposal at RAF Upper Heyford?
• When did the US Air Force and its suppliers of fire-fighting foams become aware of the potential presence of PFAS in those products? 
• What role should public health officials now play?
• What hydrological or hydrogeological advice is needed to understand how water moves beneath and away from the former airbase?

I will continue pressing for the promised meeting with the Health Secretary and Environment Secretary, while also progressing the meeting with Emma Hardy MP. I will also continue to press MOD, the Environment Agency, Cherwell District Council, UKHSA, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and other relevant bodies for answers.

Residents deserve proper testing, proper transparency and a coordinated response that treats this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

Local MP says Ministers are blaming the council for a housing crisis caused by national infrastructure failure

Calum Miller MP, the Liberal Democrat MP for Bicester and Woodstock, has condemned the Government’s decision to strip Cherwell District Council of control over major planning decisions, calling it a centralising power grab that punishes local people for failures made in Whitehall.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government today designated Cherwell under section 62A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The effect is that developers can now bypass the local planning authority entirely and take major applications straight to the Planning Inspectorate, removing them from councillors elected by and accountable to local residents.

The decision lands on an area already under intense growth pressure, where residents have watched housing numbers rise for years while the roads, surgeries, schools and utilities needed to support that growth have failed to keep pace. More than 11,000 homes across Cherwell already hold planning permission but have not been built, in large part because the electricity, water and sewage capacity to support them has never been delivered.

Calum Miller MP said:

“This is a Whitehall power grab dressed up as a plan for growth.

“The Government is blaming Cherwell for delays to development caused in large part by national infrastructure failure. Over 11,000 homes already have permission but have not yet been built, too often because the electricity, roads, water and sewage capacity needed to support growth has not been delivered.

“I want to see homes built, including the genuinely affordable homes that young people in Bicester and Woodstock badly need. Too many are being priced out of the place they grew up. But growth without infrastructure is not growth. It means more pressure on GP surgeries, roads, schools and sewage systems. Rather than fixing those barriers, Ministers are taking powers away from local councillors and giving developers a route around local democratic decision-making.

“Labour talks about devolution and empowering communities, but when local voices point out practical problems with its political timetable, it reaches for Whitehall control. It is deeply ironic that a Labour Government is now using a period of Conservative leadership enabled by Cherwell Labour and Sean Woodcock to justify stripping powers from local councillors.

“Local people are being punished for a problem Ministers have failed to solve.”

The designation is based on the rate at which the council’s decisions on major applications were overturned on appeal. The Government cites a figure of 11.2 per cent against a threshold of 10 per cent. But the council’s own analysis shows the problem is driven overwhelmingly by a single year, 2023 to 2024, when Cherwell was run by a minority Conservative administration. That administration was put into office after the local Labour group, led by Sean Woodcock, withdrew from an agreement to form a joint administration with the Liberal Democrats and Greens.

Calum Miller pointed to the wider context that Ministers have ignored. Over 7,000 homes consented at North West Bicester could not proceed because of a shortage of electricity supply, a constraint set nationally rather than locally. The same shortage hit local businesses and the new Thames Valley Police forensics laboratory on Howes Lane, which was first promised a connection in 2027 only to be told, after construction had begun, that the date had slipped to 2037. Where local housing land supply falls short because consents cannot be built out, speculative developers are able to bring forward sites outside the local plan, which is precisely the kind of unwelcome development residents and parish councils across Cherwell have fought.

He added that the council had been working closely with the Government’s own ATLAS team and Homes England to resolve the electricity constraint, with discussions advancing towards an earlier connection for Bicester from East Claydon. Rather than backing that work, Ministers have chosen to take powers away from the people closest to it.

Calum Miller MP added:

“This is not serious planning reform. It is the Government blaming councils for a problem Whitehall helped create.

“You cannot force growth on Bicester, Woodstock, Kidlington and surrounding areas from a desk in Whitehall while ducking responsibility for the infrastructure that makes that growth work. I will be pressing Ministers to reverse this decision.”

Calum Miller MP has secured a commitment from the Prime Minister that both the Health Secretary and Environment Secretary will meet with him to discuss serious concerns over PFAS contamination at Upper Heyford.

Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions today, Mr Miller raised the case of residents living near the former RAF Upper Heyford site, where PFAS chemical contamination has been recorded at levels reported to be up to 43,000 times higher than the safe limit.

PFAS, often known as “forever chemicals”, have been linked to serious environmental and health concerns. Residents in Upper Heyford have been pressing for answers about the extent of contamination, the adequacy of testing and the possible long-term impact on local people, animals and the surrounding environment.

Mr Miller asked the Prime Minister to ensure that the new Health Secretary, James Murray MP, and the Environment Secretary, Emma Reynolds MP, meet with him urgently to discuss the situation.

In response, the Prime Minister agreed that the issue was important and confirmed that the meeting should take place.

Mr Miller has previously written to ministers and public agencies about PFAS contamination at Upper Heyford, raising concerns that Environment Agency testing has not gone far enough to establish the full extent of the risk. He has also highlighted residents’ reports of long-running health concerns and animal illness in the area.

Commenting after Prime Minister’s Questions, Calum Miller MP said:

“Residents in Upper Heyford are right to sound the alarm bells over the contamination levels of PFAS. My constituents deserve clear answers, proper testing and a Government response that treats this with the seriousness it deserves.

“Today I asked the Prime Minister to ensure both the Health Secretary and Environment Secretary meet with me to discuss this case. I am pleased he agreed.

“This cannot be allowed to fall between the cracks of Government departments. PFAS contamination is both an environmental issue and a public health issue. That is why we need joined-up action from Government, the Environment Agency and health officials.

“I will keep pushing until residents have clarity on the risks, confidence that testing is being done properly and a clear plan to prevent any long-term impact on local people.”

PFAS chemicals have been widely used in industrial processes and firefighting foams, including at former military sites. They are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not easily break down in the environment, lasting for hundreds of years.