Government faces a legal challenge to asylum barracks plan
• Community campaign seeks judicial review of controversial MOD Bicester site A development
• Government challenged over failure to conduct full Environmental Impact Assessment
A community campaign group is mounting a legal challenge to the Government’s decision not to carry out a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed asylum accommodation development at MOD Bicester Site A.
The challenge has been brought by Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC, the legal entity supporting Wrong Plan Wrong Site, a non-political community campaign group representing more than 50,000 residents opposing the proposal.
The Government issued an Urgent Crown Development application, allowing it to bypass normal planning rules, but Wrong Plan Wrong Site believes that in rushing to get the application through, the Government failed to consider the potential environmental effects of the development.
The Government issued its Screening Direction on 26 August 2026, concluding that an EIA was unnecessary for the proposed development. The development is proposed to accommodate up to 1,256 people for at least ten years.
A formal pre-action letter challenging that decision was sent on 16 September 2026 on behalf of Bicester Countryside and Communities CIC. In its legal argument which has been issued by the High Court today, the campaign group advances three grounds of challenge:
Ground One: the Defendant (The Government) erred in law by concluding that significant effects were unlikely on the assumption that the outstanding investigations into contamination, ecology and foul drainage would have a favourable outcome, without assessing what measures would be required if the outcome were not favourable or whether those measures would be effective; alternatively, that conclusion was irrational.
Ground Two: the Defendant failed to take reasonable steps to obtain the information necessary to reach a lawful decision, contrary to law, by issuing the Screening Direction without any inquiry into the effects of the nearby Piddington training area on the residents of the Development, and without any inquiry into the adequacy of its preliminary ecological appraisal.
Ground Three: the Defendant made the Screening Direction in a situation giving rise to a conflict of interest, and without any specific administrative arrangements to ensure functional separation.
The legal action seeks to address the unresolved questions at the time of screening concerning contamination, protected species and foul drainage. The arguments also highlight that the preliminary ecological appraisal identified batroost potential in five buildings and 13 trees and high suitability for bat commuting and foraging.
A revised ecological appraisal issued on 22 September 2026, after the Screening Direction, reported 74 bat records, 131 great crested newt records, 11 badger records and three otter records within 2km of the site.
A spokesperson said: "There are credible concerns about potential significant environmental effects. These include protected wildlife, wastewater, artificial lighting, traffic and other infrastructure impacts. We want the Court to examine whether the Government lawfully concluded that an EIA was unnecessary."
"We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking the Government to demonstrate that it has followed the law and properly assessed the
environmental consequences of a development of this scale and in this environmentally-sensitive location.”
"This is a substantial proposal, affecting a rural site and surrounding communities for at least ten years. There are legitimate questions about its potential environmental impact, and those questions deserve clear, evidence-based answers, not a rushed job.
"The Government has decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment is unnecessary. We disagree and believe that decision requires proper legal scrutiny.
"Environmental protections exist for a reason. They should apply consistently, including when the Government itself is proposing a development.
“Our message is simple: Prove it before you proceed.”
Cherwell District Council, which opposes the development, has been included as an interested party in the legal action.