Asylum seekers have been housed in a Leicestershire village (Image: Google)
An MP has lashed out at the Government after claiming he was not consulted prior to asylum seekers being housed in his constituents’ village. It is reported that five men have been placed in a property in Fleckney, Leicestershire, as part of the Government’s plan to end the use of migrant hotels.
Conservative MP for South Leicestershire Alberto Costa said that Fleckney lacked the infrastructure and services of a place like Leicester, which he believes would be a more suitable location. He claimed the decision was made without consulting him, other elected representatives or residents, prompting him to write to the Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood.
Get the day’s biggest headlines in UK and World news and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
The Government plans to use MoD sites to house asylum seekers (Image: Getty)
However, a spokesperson for Harborough District Council said it had kept relevant stakeholders informed, speaking to Harborough FM. They said safety and wellbeing considerations were “primarily matters for Serco when assessing suitable locations”.
Private contractor Serco sources and manages the accommodation on behalf of the Government, which is working with local authorities to house asylum seekers in accommodation, including ex-military sites, to end the use of migrant hotels.
Five military sites are either in use or being explored, including MOD Bicester, MOD Barnham and MOD Linton-On-Ouse, and numbers in asylum hotels have halved in the last year to 16,000.
However, these plans have faced backlash in some areas, such as Piddington, Oxfordshire. Residents voted to become independent from the UK in a symbolic referendum to protest plans to house more than 1,000 migrants at a former military base nearby.
Previous plans to house asylum seekers in Kibworth were dropped following protestations by Harborough Conservative MP Neil O’Brien.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The concerns of communities are central to our immigration reforms. That is why we are closing every asylum hotel and moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites.
“We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, engaging with local authorities to reduce the impact on communities, and we have saved taxpayers over £1 billion on asylum support costs since the election.”
More than 80,000 people with no right to be in the UK have reportedly been removed or returned since the general election in 2024.
Fury as Asylum Seekers Are Moved Into Another Tiny UK Village After ‘No Consultation’
A fresh row over asylum accommodation has erupted in rural England after five asylum seekers were reportedly placed in a property in Fleckney, a village in Leicestershire. The decision has triggered criticism from local Conservative MP Alberto Costa, who says he was not consulted before the accommodation was arranged and believes residents deserved a greater say in a decision affecting their community.
The dispute comes as the government pushes ahead with plans to close asylum hotels and move people awaiting decisions on their claims into alternative accommodation. Ministers say the changes will reduce costs for taxpayers and create a more sustainable system. But in villages such as Fleckney, the policy is raising difficult questions about consultation, local infrastructure and how decisions are communicated to residents.
At the heart of the controversy is a straightforward concern: even when national policy requires accommodation to be provided, should communities be informed and involved before arrangements are made?
Why Fleckney Has Become the Centre of a Political Row
Fleckney is a village in Leicestershire, within the South Leicestershire parliamentary constituency. It has now become the focus of a dispute over how asylum accommodation is allocated across the country.
According to reporting published on October 2, five men seeking asylum had been placed in a property in the village. Alberto Costa, the Conservative MP for South Leicestershire, criticised the decision, saying he had not been consulted, nor had other elected representatives or local residents, before the accommodation was arranged.
Costa argued that a small village such as Fleckney does not necessarily have the same infrastructure or range of services as a larger urban centre such as Leicester. He believes the government should consider whether alternative locations would be better suited to meeting the needs of asylum seekers while minimising pressure on local communities.
The MP wrote to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood to raise his concerns. His intervention has added to the wider political argument over whether the government is communicating adequately with local representatives when accommodation decisions are made.
However, the question of consultation is disputed. A spokesperson for Harborough District Council said relevant stakeholders had been kept informed, according to local reporting. The council also indicated that assessments concerning the safety and wellbeing of accommodation residents were primarily matters for Serco, the private contractor involved in managing the arrangements.
The disagreement highlights an important distinction: a local MP’s claim that they were not consulted does not necessarily mean that no communication took place with any local authority or relevant organisation. Establishing precisely who was informed, when they were informed and what opportunities they had to raise objections will be essential to understanding the dispute.
The Government’s Plan to End Asylum Hotels
The Fleckney case is part of a much wider national policy.
The government has pledged to end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation and move people into alternative housing, including properties in local communities and former military sites. Ministers argue that hotel accommodation is expensive and was intended as a temporary response to exceptional pressure on the asylum system.
Under the dispersal system, asylum seekers who need accommodation while their claims are processed may be housed in locations selected through arrangements involving the Home Office and accommodation providers.
Serco is among the private contractors responsible for sourcing and managing accommodation on behalf of the government. Its role includes identifying suitable properties and administering housing arrangements under the relevant contracts.
The government has argued that moving away from hotels will save public money. It has also said it wants asylum accommodation distributed more fairly across the country rather than concentrated in a relatively small number of areas.
Yet implementing that policy presents practical challenges. Suitable housing must be available, contracts must be managed, and accommodation must meet the needs of the people being placed there. Local services and community concerns also need to be considered.
A property that appears suitable in a housing assessment may still generate questions about access to healthcare, transport, interpretation services and other forms of support. Small communities may have fewer local facilities than larger towns, although the suitability of any particular property depends on its circumstances.
The government therefore faces a difficult balancing act: reducing reliance on hotels while ensuring that alternative arrangements are appropriate and that affected communities are not left without clear information.
The Consultation Question: Were Residents Properly Informed?
For Costa and other critics of the policy, the central issue is not simply that asylum seekers have been accommodated in a village. It is the alleged absence of meaningful consultation before the decision was implemented.
Residents often expect elected representatives to be informed about major changes affecting their area. Even when accommodation decisions are made under national contracts, timely communication can help councils prepare, clarify responsibilities and address concerns before rumours spread.
A lack of information can also undermine confidence in public institutions. When people discover that a property is being used for a new purpose without understanding how the decision was reached, they may feel that their views have been disregarded.
That does not mean every accommodation decision requires a local referendum or that every objection should automatically prevent housing from being used. Asylum seekers who need support must be accommodated, and national authorities have responsibilities that cannot always be determined by local popularity.
But there is a difference between consulting residents as part of a planning process and giving them an unrestricted veto over individual people receiving accommodation.
Good communication should explain the nature of the arrangement, the expected duration where known, who manages the property, which services are available and how residents can raise concerns. Local authorities should also have clear contacts for resolving practical issues.
In Fleckney, the competing accounts from the MP and the district council make it particularly important to establish what communication actually occurred. Without that detail, the phrase “no consultation” risks obscuring differences between a failure to contact a particular elected representative and a complete absence of engagement with local stakeholders.
Are Small Villages Suitable for Asylum Accommodation?
The debate has also raised questions about the suitability of rural locations.
Critics argue that small villages can lack frequent public transport, specialist health services and the range of facilities available in larger towns. People awaiting asylum decisions may need to attend appointments, access legal advice and obtain support while their claims are considered.
If those services are difficult to reach, accommodation arrangements may become more complicated for both the individuals concerned and the organisations supporting them.
However, rural accommodation is not automatically unsuitable. Some properties may be well connected, close to essential services or supported by effective transport and management arrangements. The relevant question is whether a specific location meets the needs of its occupants and whether its impact on the surrounding area has been properly assessed.
Local capacity matters, but it should be examined through evidence rather than assumptions about the people being housed.
There are also responsibilities on accommodation providers to ensure that properties are safe and suitable. Residents should know whom to contact if they have concerns about property management, noise or other practical matters. Asylum seekers, meanwhile, need access to support and a clear process for reporting problems affecting their own safety or wellbeing.
A transparent assessment of these factors would provide a stronger basis for discussion than either blanket opposition to rural accommodation or blanket assurances that every property is appropriate.
A Wider Pattern of Local Frustration
Fleckney is not the only community to have challenged plans for asylum accommodation.
In Piddington, Oxfordshire, a proposal to accommodate more than 1,200 asylum seekers at a former military site near the village prompted substantial opposition. Residents raised concerns about the scale of the proposal, local services, safety and the extent to which their views had been considered.
A symbolic village vote in September attracted considerable attention. Although it had no legal power to remove the village from the United Kingdom, it demonstrated the strength of feeling among many participants and highlighted the wider dispute over decisions made by central government.
Other areas have raised objections to the use of individual properties or former military facilities. Local authorities have sometimes questioned whether sites are suitable and whether they have received sufficient information to assess the implications.
These cases differ in scale and circumstance. Housing five people in a village property is not equivalent to establishing a large accommodation centre for more than a thousand residents. Treating them as identical would overlook important differences in capacity, infrastructure and likely impact.
Nevertheless, both types of dispute point towards a recurring challenge: national policy can become difficult to implement when local communities feel that decisions have been made without adequate explanation or engagement.
The government has said it is working with local authorities to distribute accommodation more fairly and reduce the impact on communities. The practical success of that commitment will depend on how consistently those assurances are reflected in individual cases.
What Should Happen Next?
The immediate priority in Fleckney should be clarity.
The Home Office, Harborough District Council and the accommodation provider should establish what consultation took place, which organisations were contacted and what information was shared before the property was used. If communication was inadequate, the authorities should explain how they will improve the process.
Residents should receive clear information about the arrangements, including who is responsible for managing the property and how concerns can be raised. Any response should distinguish between legitimate questions about services or accommodation management and unsupported assumptions about individuals based on their asylum status.
The government should also publish clearer guidance on how local impacts are assessed when properties are selected. That could include access to transport and healthcare, safeguarding arrangements, property standards and communication with councils.
Such measures would not eliminate every disagreement. Some residents may continue to oppose asylum accommodation in their area, while others may support the government’s approach. But transparent procedures would help ensure that disputes are based on identifiable facts and that local representatives can raise practical concerns before problems develop.
Conclusion: A Test of Trust in the Asylum System
The controversy in Fleckney illustrates the difficulties facing the government as it attempts to move asylum seekers out of hotels and into alternative accommodation.
Alberto Costa says he was not consulted before five asylum seekers were reportedly housed in his constituency. Harborough District Council, however, has said relevant stakeholders were kept informed. That disagreement deserves a clear explanation rather than assumptions about what happened behind the scenes.
The wider policy has a stated financial objective: reducing reliance on expensive hotels and finding alternative accommodation while asylum claims are processed. But savings alone will not determine whether the system works effectively. The quality of housing, access to services, local communication and proper management all matter.
Communities should not be expected to navigate major changes without clear information. Equally, people seeking asylum should not be treated as responsible for administrative decisions made by government departments and contractors.
The challenge for ministers is to demonstrate that national policy can be implemented with both financial discipline and respect for local communities. Better consultation, transparent site assessments and clear lines of accountability would help address the concerns raised in Fleckney.
Until the authorities explain exactly how the decision was made and what engagement took place, the dispute over consultation is likely to remain unresolved. What happens next will offer another indication of whether the government’s plan to end asylum hotels can win greater public confidence while meeting its obligations to people awaiting decisions on their claims.