The proposal has been branded “unworkable” and ” the wrong plan in the wrong place” by the local action group.

Both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of York have written to the Home Office urging it to use the site for housing rather than an asylum centre, with North Yorkshire County Council also formally opposing the plan.

But the Linton-On-Ouse Action Group said the proposal remains under consideration, despite Prime Minister Andy Burnham claiming three times on national television a month ago that he would listen to concerns.

Professor Olga Matthias, spokeswoman for the Linton‑on‑Ouse Action Group, said: “As stated by all stakeholders, without urgent infrastructure upgrades, professional staffing and proper safeguarding, additional funding for fire and police, health and social care, housing large numbers of vulnerable people at the former RAF site poses unacceptable risks to both asylum seekers and the local community, which is why every single stakeholder has said no to the proposal.”

She added: “It is a real shame that Mr Burnham, who publicly pledged to listen to us on national television, has not, and he is definitely not fulfilling his promise of devolving power as he is not listening to our Mayor either – we are starting to think he is full of hot air or as they say up north all mouth and no trousers.”

Prof Matthias also revealed to GB News that neither the campaign group nor the village has had any contact from the Government since it announced it was reviving the plans four months ago.

Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative MP for Wetherby and Easingwold, continues to fight the plans in his Linton-On-Ouse constituency, but has been deferred to the civil service.

He previously told GB News the “only people supporting this plan are the Labour Government”.

Campaigners in Linton-on-Ouse have urged a government investigation after claims that it could cost taxpayers £270million.

The Linton-on-Ouse Action Group has written to the Chancellor, demanding a full financial review before the government uses public money to convert the former RAF base on the edge of the village in North Yorkshire.

The group claims the centre could cost between £443 and £853 per occupied bed per night, depending on occupancy levels, significantly more than the cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels.

But the Home Office says its plan to close asylum hotels and move people into alternative accommodation is saving taxpayers money.

A spokesman said: “The government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1billion on asylum support since the election.

“We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites which are designed to be self-contained to reduce impact on the local community. As part of the process, we engage with local authorities and police forces to ensure the safety and security of those in the surrounding area.”

In an open letter to Chancellor John Healey, the group claims North Yorkshire’s Deputy Mayor for Policing, Fire and Crime, Jo Coles, said the Ministry of Defence (MoD) may have to take back RAF Linton-on-Ouse by July 2029.

They also say the site has been extensively decommissioned; reinstating water, sewerage, power, and communications would be costly, time‑consuming, and extremely difficult at this rural site.

According to the group, local health, policing, fire, social services, and voluntary providers cannot meet the scale of need without unacceptable pressures on existing provisions, meaning asylum seekers would essentially go without key services.

The group added that proceeding with the centre despite unanimous local opposition would call into question commitments to listen to regional mayors and residents, truly devolve decision‑making, and operate in a democracy.

RAF Linton opened in 1937 and became an important bomber station during the Second World War, when British and Canadian airmen flew dangerous missions against the Nazis.

The base closed in 2020 and was subsequently proposed as an asylum reception centre by Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in 2022.

Those plans were eventually shelved after tireless opposition from residents, only for Labour to announce this year they were once again looking at housing asylum seekers.

Back then, the plans were branded the UK’s answer to “Guantanamo Bay”, dubbing it “Guantanamo-on-Ouse”.

Under the latest proposals, the former RAF base would house single adult male asylum seekers aged 18 to 65, with CCTV and 24-hour security.

The men would be free to come and go, but would be required to sign in and out.

Labour said the scheme would operate for a minimum of three years and cut Britain’s reliance on expensive asylum hotels.

Unlike other isolated military camps earmarked for asylum processing, RAF Linton is embedded in residential streets and cul-de-sacs.

Many homes backing onto the former RAF base could house asylum seekers, and a children’s playground is also nearby.

Linton-on-Ouse Action Group will keep campaigning against the plans, and the Home Office says it has not yet made a final decision.

Residents Rally Against ‘Unworkable’ Plans to House 1,200 Men in a Rural English Village

Plans to accommodate as many as 1,200 men in a quiet rural village have sparked opposition from residents who fear the proposals could place unsustainable pressure on local services, disrupt community life and transform the character of the area.

The proposals have brought residents together in a campaign to demand greater transparency and a clearer explanation of how the accommodation would operate. Those opposing the plans have described them as “unworkable”, arguing that a development of this scale would require careful consideration of transport, healthcare, public safety and the needs of the surrounding community.

The dispute reflects a wider debate across Britain over the provision of accommodation for people seeking asylum, particularly when large numbers are expected to be housed in areas with limited infrastructure. While the government faces pressure to provide suitable accommodation and reduce reliance on expensive hotels, local communities want assurances that any new arrangements will be properly managed.

For residents, the central question is not simply whether accommodation should be provided, but whether a proposal involving such a large number of people can work in a small village without placing excessive demands on existing facilities.

Residents voice concerns about the scale of the proposal

For people living in rural communities, the prospect of accommodating 1,200 men in one location can raise immediate practical questions. Villages often have fewer public transport options than towns and cities, while GP surgeries, shops, community facilities and other services may already operate with limited capacity.

Residents opposed to the proposal argue that these limitations must be addressed before any final decision is made. They want to understand how people would travel to appointments, access essential services and move around the area, particularly if the accommodation is located some distance from a town centre.

Questions have also been raised about the impact on roads, parking and local infrastructure. If a significant number of additional residents arrive within a relatively short period, the community will want to know whether the existing arrangements can accommodate the change.

The scale of the development is therefore central to the debate. Opponents argue that a plan involving hundreds of people would require more than the basic provision of beds and buildings. It would need a detailed operational strategy, sufficient staffing, appropriate facilities and clear lines of responsibility.

Without those assurances, campaigners fear the local authority and surrounding community could be left dealing with problems that should have been anticipated during the planning process.

The pressure on rural services

One of the most significant concerns surrounding large accommodation proposals is whether local services can cope with additional demand.

Healthcare is often among the first issues raised by residents. People housed at the site may need access to GPs, pharmacies, emergency treatment and other medical services. However, rural areas can already experience difficulties recruiting healthcare professionals and providing convenient appointments.

Residents want to know whether the relevant authorities have assessed the likely demand and how additional needs would be met. They may also seek clarification about whether dedicated support services would be provided at the accommodation or whether residents would rely entirely on facilities in nearby communities.

Transport is another important consideration. In villages with infrequent buses and limited rail connections, access to shops, healthcare, education and other services can be difficult even for existing residents. A large accommodation site could require additional transport arrangements to ensure that people can travel safely and independently.

Local businesses could experience both benefits and challenges. Additional residents may create demand for shops and other services, but the effect would depend on the location, the arrangements in place and whether the development brings additional investment into the area.

The key issue is whether those responsible for the proposal have developed a realistic assessment of the village’s capacity rather than assuming that existing facilities can absorb any additional pressure.

Public safety and community reassurance

Public safety has also become part of the discussion, with residents seeking clarity about how the site would be staffed and managed.

A development housing a large population would require clear procedures for dealing with emergencies, maintaining the premises and responding to complaints. Residents may reasonably expect information about site management, access arrangements, communication with police and local authorities, and the availability of support when problems arise.

At the same time, the presence of asylum seekers should not automatically be treated as evidence of a threat. People seeking asylum have varied backgrounds and circumstances, and individual conduct should not be assumed on the basis of immigration status.

A constructive approach would focus on practical arrangements and reliable evidence. Residents need to know what measures will be in place, while those housed at the site should be treated fairly and protected from harassment or hostility.

Effective communication can help prevent rumours from filling gaps in information. If authorities explain how the site will operate, how concerns can be reported and who is responsible for resolving them, residents will have a clearer basis on which to assess the plans.

Without that communication, uncertainty can fuel opposition and make it harder for the community and site operators to establish a workable relationship.

The wider asylum accommodation debate

The controversy comes amid ongoing challenges for the UK’s asylum accommodation system. The government has faced criticism over the financial cost of using hotels and pressure to develop alternative arrangements.

Moving people into other forms of accommodation may reduce some costs, depending on the site and the contracts involved. However, a new facility is not automatically cheaper or more effective simply because it is outside the hotel system. The full cost of staffing, security, maintenance, transport and support services must also be considered.

Large sites can offer logistical advantages if suitable buildings and infrastructure are already available. Concentrating accommodation in one location may simplify the delivery of some services. But those potential benefits depend on the site’s suitability, the management model and the relationship with the surrounding community.

Rural locations can present particular difficulties if essential services are far away or the transport network is limited. A proposal that appears practical on paper may require substantial additional investment before it can function effectively.

That is why residents are asking for detailed answers rather than broad assurances. They want to know how the proposal would be funded, who would manage the accommodation, what support would be available and how the impact on the village would be monitored.

The importance of consultation

The strength of the opposition highlights the importance of meaningful consultation when a development could significantly affect a local community.

Residents may not have the final say over every aspect of an accommodation decision, particularly where national government responsibilities and existing planning arrangements are involved. Nevertheless, consultation can identify practical problems early and help authorities explain why a particular site has been selected.

A credible consultation process should provide information about the expected number of occupants, the proposed length of stay, the facilities available and the arrangements for staffing and support. It should also explain how residents can raise concerns and how those concerns will be considered.

Authorities should be prepared to address difficult questions directly. If transport improvements are required, the responsible organisations should explain how they will be delivered. If additional healthcare capacity is necessary, the funding and practical arrangements should be made clear.

Residents, in turn, benefit from assessing the proposal on the basis of documented plans rather than unverified claims. A debate focused on specific infrastructure, management and safety arrangements is more likely to produce useful answers than one driven by speculation.

What happens next?

The future of the proposal will depend on the relevant authorities’ decisions, the planning and approval process, and whether the concerns raised by residents can be addressed. The precise status of the plans, the proposed timetable and any formal commitments would need to be confirmed through official announcements.

For campaigners, the immediate priority is to ensure that decision-makers understand the scale of local opposition and provide clear answers before the project proceeds. They want evidence that the village has the infrastructure and resources necessary to support an accommodation scheme of this size.

For the authorities, the challenge is to balance national accommodation needs with the practical realities of the proposed location. Providing suitable accommodation is an important responsibility, but its success depends on more than finding an available building.

Ultimately, the dispute is about whether a major accommodation project can be delivered responsibly in a rural setting. The concerns raised by residents deserve a transparent response, while any final assessment should be based on the details of the proposal, the capacity of local services and the safeguards that would be put in place.

Until those questions are answered, opposition is likely to remain a central part of the debate. The coming decisions will determine whether the plans are revised, delayed or allowed to proceed, and whether residents believe their concerns have been taken seriously.