Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy in Downing Street (Image: Getty)

Cabinet Minister Lisa Nandy has warned Labour will continue with its policy of moving asylum seekers into wealthier areas after an Oxfordshire village voted overwhelmingly to become an independent state in a symbolic “referendum”. The people of Piddington have voted to secede from the UK after the Government announced plans to house 1,256 male asylum seekers at a nearby former military base.

Ms Nandy, the Culture Secretary, admitted people in her own constituency of Wigan would probably vote to quit the UK too, because they were also angry about asylum seekers moving into their communities. But in a blunt message to the people of Piddington, the Labour MP said there would be no change of policy.

Ms Nandy told Sky News: “What I would just gently say to the people of Piddington is we inherited a massive asylum backlog. We are getting that backlog down. In the meantime, we don’t think it’s acceptable for all of the burden of shouldering not just asylum accommodation but also many other forms of temporary accommodation to fall on poorer communities.”

She said residents in Wigan had been angry when local hotels were used to house asylum seekers.

“If you’d had this referendum in my town, which is a very welcoming town … when those two asylum hotels were opened up I think you would have got the same result to be frank.”

Some 285 Piddington villagers backed “independence”, with a turnout of nearly 92%. Only 26 residents voted against the motion, with one spoiled ballot recorded. The result was announced by a returning officer to an audience of dozens of journalists and residents gathered outside the village hall on Wednesday morning.

A pennant reading Battle for Britain 2026 also hangs outside the hall, alongside another commemorating the date of the Second World War military campaign, the Battle of Britain, on September 15 1940.

Speaking to the Press Association while villages voted on Tuesday, parish chairman Tim McNally said the vote was about “hope” for residents.

He said: “It doesn’t matter whether they’re priests or vicars, the proportionality isn’t acceptable.

“Your house value has dropped. We’ve had a number of house deals cancelled. We’ve had banks pull mortgages.

“We’ve had people who’ve got pensions in their properties have to be revaluated, because the value of their property is no longer what it was.

“That’s not about saying this is a wealthy area, this is no more wealthy than any other village around the country, but people work very hard, and they worked hard to earn what they’ve made, and they should be entitled to have what they’ve made.

“But overnight, to have that destroyed, ultimately, is disgraceful, and we’ve had no involvement in that process to determine what it means for us.”

Parish councillor Mike Nixon said the site has no pedestrian access areas, and the Government has suggested issuing asylum seekers with high-visibility jackets to keep them safe while walking along a busy road.

He told PA: “The nearest path is about a mile and a quarter away, down a very busy road that’s unlit.

“Their (the Government’s) own document says it’s not recommended that pedestrian access is used, so they’re proposing that residents would use the shuttle bus service from the site.

“And to further discourage them, they’re suggesting that should they walk, they would be issued high-vis jackets, and that’s the only mitigation for the residents’ safety.

“The road itself, the B4011, is a busy road, 50-mile-an-hour speed limit, but vehicles will regularly go in excess of that, so it is likely that there would be significant risk of road traffic collisions, injury, or even death, should the plan go ahead.”

Mr Nixon added that the proposed site is prone to surface water flooding, has an inadequate foul water drainage system, and an insufficient power supply.

Lisa Nandy Issues Blunt Reply After Village Votes to Quit UK in Migrant Row

Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy has delivered a firm response after a small Oxfordshire village voted overwhelmingly to “leave” the United Kingdom in a symbolic protest against Government plans to accommodate more than 1,200 asylum seekers nearby.

Residents of Piddington, close to Bicester, voted by a large majority to support a symbolic declaration of independence from the UK. Of the 312 ballots counted, 285 supported the motion, while 26 opposed it and one ballot was spoiled. Turnout was reported at almost 92 per cent.

The vote has no legal effect. Piddington remains part of England and the United Kingdom, and the referendum cannot prevent the Government from pursuing its proposed asylum accommodation scheme.

But politically, the result has become a highly visible expression of local anger over the plan to convert a former Ministry of Defence site near Bicester into accommodation for up to 1,256 single adult male asylum seekers.

Nandy’s response was equally clear: despite listening to the residents’ concerns, the Government does not intend to abandon the proposal.

‘We’re not going to change our plans’

Speaking after the referendum, Nandy said the Government was listening to the people of Piddington but would not change its policy.

“We’re not going to change our plans, but we are listening,” she said, according to the Guardian’s account of her interview.

She acknowledged the frustration expressed by residents and pointed to the Government’s efforts to reduce the asylum backlog by speeding up the processing of claims.

Nandy also defended the principle behind the Government’s accommodation policy: asylum housing should not continue to fall disproportionately on poorer communities.

Her argument was that Britain had inherited a large backlog and that, while cases were being processed, people awaiting decisions still needed somewhere to live.

That position puts the Government on a direct collision course with residents who argue that the proposed facility is simply too large for the surrounding community and that they were not sufficiently involved in the decision-making process.

Nandy says Wigan residents might have reacted similarly

One of the more striking elements of Nandy’s response was her admission that people in her own constituency might have reacted in a similar way.

Nandy represents Wigan, where asylum hotels had previously been used.

She said that if a similar referendum had been held in her own area when two asylum hotels were opened without what she described as sufficient warning or consultation, she believed residents would probably have voted in the same way.

In an interview with Sky News, she said Piddington residents were entitled to be frustrated but argued that the Government could not continue placing the responsibility for asylum accommodation primarily on poorer communities.

That is a significant distinction in the Government’s argument.

Ministers are not saying that local concerns do not exist. Instead, they are arguing that opposition from one community cannot determine where asylum accommodation is provided nationally.

Why Piddington residents are angry

The proposed scale of the development helps explain why the issue has generated such a strong reaction.

Piddington is a small village with a population of roughly 350 to 400 people.

The Government’s proposal would provide accommodation for up to 1,256 male asylum seekers at the nearby former military site.

That means the number of people accommodated at the facility could be several times larger than the village’s own population.

Residents have repeatedly raised concerns about infrastructure, transport, safety, drainage, flooding and the impact on the character of the community.

Some have also argued that the planning process has not given residents enough opportunity to influence the decision.

The village’s parish council has become increasingly vocal, while Oxfordshire local government representatives have also expressed concerns about the proposal.

The referendum was therefore not simply a formal political exercise. Organisers presented it as a way of demonstrating the strength of local feeling after conventional objections had failed to produce the response they wanted.

The ‘Principality of Piddington’

Following the result, the village embraced the symbolism of independence.

Local campaigners have referred to Piddington as the “Principality of Piddington”, turning the protest into a deliberately theatrical statement.

The idea was partly inspired by the 1949 British comedy Passport to Pimlico, in which residents discover that their neighbourhood is technically outside Britain and declare independence.

The Piddington referendum similarly has no constitutional force.

There is no legal mechanism allowing an English village to unilaterally leave the United Kingdom.

The vote’s importance therefore lies in what it communicates rather than what it changes legally.

With 285 people voting for the motion, organisers can point to an overwhelming local mandate for the protest itself.

But the Government remains responsible for determining the future of the former military site through the relevant planning and administrative processes.

Safety concerns have become central

Local campaigners have emphasised safety and infrastructure as well as opposition to asylum accommodation itself.

Parish councillor Mike Nixon has raised concerns about pedestrian access from the proposed centre.

He said the nearest pedestrian path was approximately 1.25 miles away and that the route involved a busy, unlit road.

He also criticised the proposed use of high-visibility jackets as one possible mitigation for people walking from the site.

Nixon has further raised concerns about surface-water flooding, foul-water drainage and the site’s power supply. These are specific infrastructure questions that can be assessed through the planning process rather than simply treated as political arguments.

The Government, meanwhile, says safety and security for asylum seekers, staff and surrounding communities will be a priority.

The Home Office has also argued that former military sites can provide self-contained accommodation, reducing some of the pressure associated with using hotels in town centres.

Why Labour wants to move away from hotels

The Piddington dispute is part of a wider Labour strategy to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of asylum hotels.

Hotels became a major part of the asylum accommodation system during the previous Conservative government, as the number of people awaiting decisions increased.

Labour has pledged to close asylum hotels and replace them with other forms of accommodation, including former military sites.

The Government says this will reduce costs and allow asylum accommodation to be distributed more evenly around the country.

The Home Office has said it is working to close asylum hotels and move people into alternative accommodation, including former military facilities designed to be more self-contained.

Ministers also argue that concentrating asylum accommodation in poorer areas is unfair.

That is the principle Nandy was defending when she told Piddington residents that the Government would not simply reverse course because one community had voted symbolically against the policy.

The political problem for Labour

The Government’s position nevertheless presents Labour with a difficult political challenge.

It wants to demonstrate that it can reduce the asylum backlog, close expensive hotels and increase the pace at which claims are processed.

At the same time, ministers must persuade local communities that new accommodation sites are suitable and that concerns about infrastructure and safety are being properly considered.

Piddington illustrates the tension.

Residents say they want their concerns heard before a major change is imposed on their community.

The Government says it has a national responsibility to provide accommodation for people whose asylum claims are being processed and cannot allow individual communities to veto the wider policy.

Neither side’s argument automatically resolves the practical questions surrounding the particular site.

Those questions include whether the infrastructure is sufficient, whether transport and pedestrian arrangements are safe, whether emergency services have adequate capacity and whether the proposed development meets the relevant planning requirements.

A wider debate about fairness

The Piddington dispute also reflects a broader argument about what “fairness” means in Britain’s asylum system.

For Nandy, fairness means ensuring that poorer communities do not continue to carry a disproportionate share of asylum accommodation.

For opponents in Piddington, fairness also means giving a small community a meaningful opportunity to influence decisions that could dramatically alter its local environment.

The two interpretations can come into conflict.

Nandy’s argument is that refusing Piddington would simply shift the accommodation elsewhere, potentially towards another community that has already hosted large numbers of asylum seekers.

That is why she has resisted calls to reconsider the site.

Her position is not that every concern raised by residents is irrelevant. Rather, she argues that the national problem cannot be solved if every proposed site is rejected whenever local opposition emerges.

What happens next?

The symbolic referendum does not decide the future of the asylum centre.

The proposed accommodation remains subject to the relevant planning and governmental processes, while local authorities and other organisations continue to raise questions about the site’s suitability.

The political debate, however, is unlikely to disappear.

Piddington has succeeded in turning a local planning dispute into a national conversation about asylum accommodation, consultation and the distribution of responsibility.

Nandy’s message is now unmistakable: Labour will listen to local concerns, but it does not intend to abandon its wider policy simply because Piddington voted to “leave”.

The Government’s argument is that Britain cannot continue relying on hotels or concentrate asylum accommodation in poorer communities.

Piddington’s residents are demanding that national policy should not come at the expense of local safety, infrastructure and democratic involvement.

The next stage will therefore be less about the symbolic declaration of independence and more about whether the Government can demonstrate that the proposed former military site is practically suitable and that the concerns raised by the community have been properly addressed.

For Labour, the episode is a reminder that changing the national asylum system inevitably creates local political battles.

For Piddington, the referendum has given residents a highly visible way of saying that they do not believe their concerns have been adequately heard.

And for Lisa Nandy, the response is straightforward: the Government says it will listen — but, for now, it is not changing course.