North Yorkshire Council has formally urged ministers to drop plans to house 1,250 single adult male asylum seekers at an ex RAF base, insisting it is “the wrong proposal in the wrong location”.
In a letter sent on 24 July 24 to Border Security and Asylum Minister Anna Turley, council leader Cllr Carl Les said a motion opposing the scheme had passed with unanimous support from members across all political groups, reflecting “a clear and strongly held view that the proposal should not proceed”.
He wrote: “We fully recognise the government’s stated obligations towards those seeking asylum. Our concerns are not directed at asylum seekers themselves, nor do they diminish the need for a fair, humane and effective asylum system.”
The former RAF station sits immediately beside a rural village of around 600 people and is now largely decommissioned.
Based on current information, the council believes around 1,250 single adult males will be accommodated on the site at any one time – more than twice the population of the host village - with “many thousands of individuals” potentially passing through over the life of the facility.
“Such a concentration of residents would be unprecedented in a rural community of this size and would inevitably place significant pressure on local infrastructure, services and communities,” Cllr Les wrote.
He said the village and surrounding area lacked “the infrastructure normally required to support a development of this scale and nature”, citing limited amenities, services, employment opportunities and support networks, as well as rural roads “vulnerable to flooding and disruption”.
The council warns the isolated setting is “unlikely to promote wellbeing, integration or positive outcomes for residents and asylum seekers alike” because of “limited public transport, lack of employment opportunities and essential services, restricted access to services and absence of established support networks”.
“We do not believe that accommodating large numbers of asylum seekers in such a remote environment represents best practice or serves their short or long-term interests,” he added.
Infrastructure concerns listed in the letter include highway capacity and transport accessibility, water supply resilience, sewerage and drainage capacity, electricity supply and network resilience and the absence of a mains gas connection.
Significant elements of the infrastructure have been removed following decommissioning, he said, meaning “considerable investment would therefore be required before the site could become operational” and raising questions over whether this would “represent value for money”.
The council also highlights the proximity of social and affordable housing, children’s play areas and Linton‑on‑Ouse Primary School, “approximately 600 metres from the site”, and notes “a significant number of families and vulnerable residents live in close proximity”.
The letter states: “Questions remain about the practicality of securing a site of this size and complexity” – around 680 acres – and about safeguarding arrangements needed “to protect both local residents and the wider community, and the inhabitants of the site itself”.
Regeneration, consultation and cross‑party backing Cllr Les argues the plan risks undermining recent “housing growth and regeneration” in and around the village, potentially damaging confidence and conflicting with ambitions for “housing, employment and economic growth”.
He criticises the lack of engagement, saying the proposal “was announced without prior engagement with either North Yorkshire Council or local communities” and that such decisions “should be informed by meaningful consultation”.
“I therefore urge the government to reconsider the use of the site and to work with local and regional partners to identify more appropriate alternatives that better serve both asylum seekers and host communities,” Les writes.
The letter is backed by North Yorkshire and York MPs including Sir Julian Smith, Kevin Hollinrake, Rishi Sunak, Tom Gordon, Sir Alec Shelbrooke and Rachael Maskell, who “have agreed to support this letter and the concerns expressed”.
What do you think?
Feel strongly? Send us a letter. Please write no more than 250 words and you must provide your full name, address and mobile number. Send your views by email to: letters@thepress.co.uk
Share