The Government is facing a threatened legal challenge after Communities Secretary Angela Rayner granted full planning permission for a former military site near Piddington, Oxfordshire, to accommodate up to 1,256 male asylum seekers. The decision, announced on Thursday 12 November 2026, permits temporary, phased redevelopment of the former MoD Bicester storage site despite opposition from local residents. However, the Home Office says a final decision to proceed has not yet been taken. On Friday, Piddington Parish Council chairman Tim McNally said residents were preparing further action and raised the possibility of invoking the proposed Hillsborough Law.
Rayner grants full planning permission
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirmed that the Communities Secretary had granted full planning permission for temporary, phased use of the former military site. The proposal could accommodate up to 1,256 male asylum seekers. Residents have raised concerns about public safety, local services, transport and environmental effects. Earlier in the year, villagers held a symbolic referendum on leaving the UK in protest; it had no legal effect.
Home Office says the final decision is still pending
The Home Office welcomed the planning decision but stressed that it is not the final operational approval. A spokesperson said: “Planning permission allows us to continue to progress the use of MoD Bicester. However, a final decision to proceed is yet to be taken.” The department says it is seeking to reduce reliance on asylum hotels by using alternative accommodation, including former military sites. It says such facilities are designed to be self-contained with 24-hour security and CCTV. Its claim of more than £1 billion in savings since the election does not establish the eventual cost of this particular site.
Parish council chairman threatens legal action
Tim McNally, elected chairman of Piddington Parish Council, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that villagers were considering several actions. Asked whether ministers should expect a legal challenge, he replied: “Absolutely, absolutely.” McNally also suggested residents could seek to use the proposed Hillsborough Law in pursuing accountability. His comments reflect concerns and intentions, not a legal finding that ministers are responsible for any future crime.
What would the Hillsborough Law do?
The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, widely known as the Hillsborough Law, is intended to strengthen duties of candour and cooperation by public officials and authorities in investigations and inquiries. Parliamentary proceedings on 12 November confirmed that the Bill had passed the Commons but was still progressing through the Lords. The proposed law would not automatically make the Prime Minister or other ministers criminally liable for offences committed by a person housed at the site. Any criminal liability would depend on the law in force and the facts of the conduct concerned.
Six-week window for planning challenge
Opponents have a six-week window to challenge the planning decision. Campaigners have questioned the process and the site’s suitability, including environmental issues. A legal challenge would examine whether the planning decision was lawful; disagreement with the policy alone does not invalidate permission. The result of any court proceedings remains unknown.
Government and opposition respond
Defence minister Luke Pollard told LBC that the Home Office would continue engaging with the local community and that further steps remained before the plan could be implemented. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp, Liberal Democrat MP Calum Miller and Reform UK spokesperson Zia Yusuf criticised the approval. Their statements are political objections, not established findings that the site will cause crime. The Government maintains that security and engagement are intended to address concerns.
What happens next?
The Home Office must still decide whether to proceed with the proposed accommodation. Opponents may bring a legal challenge within the relevant window, and further operational arrangements may need to be settled before the site could open. Rayner’s planning permission is confirmed; a final Home Office decision to use the site is not.