The site is situated in a village of just 600 people (Image: Owen Humphreys/PA Wire)
Campaigners seeking a Government u-turn on the decision to house migrants in a small Yorkshire village claim that taxpayers would be left with a £500 daily cost per occupant if given the green light. Residents opposing the plans to place more than 1,200 asylum seekers at the former RAF base at Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire, have used National Audit Office (NAO) figures from previous schemes abandoned over cost fears.
In a 27-page submission appealing the housing of migrants in their 600 person village, campaigners claim that they would be left outnumbered two to one and exposed to potential safeguarding risks. Olga Matthias, a spokesman for the Linton-on-Ouse Action Group, said: “The projected costs simply do not match the standard of care required for asylum seekers, nor do they represent an effective use of taxpayer funds with the cost per night being much higher than any other alternative.
“Yes, solutions need to be found, but in areas with existing infrastructure and asylum services where the huge investment for refitting, upgrading water, electric and sewage infrastructure is not required.”
Residents claim housing each migrant would cost more than three times the current £145-a-night bill for asylum seekers staying in hotels, and around 20 times the £23.25-a-night budget for standard “dispersal” accommodation such as houses of multiple occupation.
Linton-on-Ouse is one of three former military sites Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood has proposed converting into asylum accommodation for up to 3,750 migrants. The other locations are RAF Barnham in Suffolk and MoD Bicester.
Two existing asylum sites on Ministry of Defence land — RAF Crowborough in Sussex and RAF Wethersfield in Essex — are also set to expand, providing space for a further 1,750 asylum seekers. Their leases are expected to be extended for up to another four years.
Campaigners say the site would cost £500 per day per person (Image: Owen Humphreys/PA Wire)
Campaigners based their calculations on National Audit Office projections for RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire, a similarly decommissioned military base that the previous Conservative government had planned to turn into asylum accommodation.
Labour scrapped the Scampton scheme after taking office, saying it did not represent value for money.
But campaigners in Linton-on-Ouse argue the similarities between the two former RAF bases make Scampton the “most accurate financial benchmark available” for estimating how much their site could cost to convert and operate.
NAO figures suggested the Scampton scheme would have cost £403.4million over two years.
Using those figures, the group calculated that even if Linton-on-Ouse were filled at the fastest proposed rate of 60 new arrivals a week, the cost would work out at £408.40 per migrant per night.
They said a more realistic 27-month timetable before the site became operational would push the estimated cost even higher, to £527.81 per migrant per night.
The group added: “The financial justification for the Linton-on-Ouse asylum centre collapses under basic scrutiny. Far from providing a cost-effective alternative to the current system, this proposal represents an astronomical and fundamentally unviable drain on the public purse.”
The Daily Express has approached the Home Office for comment but Border Security and Asylum Minister Alex Norris previously said: “We promised to close every asylum hotel and hand them back to communities, and that is exactly what we are doing.
“Twenty more hotels have closed, and hotel numbers have more than halved since their peak. Instead, we’re moving asylum seekers into ex-military sites that are a far cry from the hotels the last Government left us with.
“This is a system being brought back under control – and we will not stop until the job is done.”
A Home Office source added that the government is accelerating plans to scale up the use of former military sites for asylum seekers to remove the incentives that draw illegal migrants to Britain and scale up removals of those with no right to be here.
They added: “As part of plans to use larger, basic and more suitable accommodation sites to house asylum seekers, discussions have begun to use three new former MOD sites to house asylum seekers, with planning permission being sought at MOD Bicester, MOD Barnham and MOD Linton-on-Ouse. Together, these new sites could eventually house around 3,750 asylum seekers.
“Meanwhile, the Government is seeking to extend the use of existing sites, including Crowborough until 2030 and Wethersfield beyond 2027. Capacity at Wethersfield will also expand, increasing bedspaces to over 1,200.”
Fury as Asylum Seekers at Former RAF Base Could Cost More Than £500 a Night Each
A growing controversy over the proposed use of a former Royal Air Force base to accommodate asylum seekers has raised fresh questions about government spending, immigration policy and the future of Britain’s asylum system. Campaigners in North Yorkshire claim that housing people at the proposed Linton-on-Ouse centre could cost taxpayers hundreds of pounds per person per night, potentially exceeding £500 under their calculations.
The proposal has prompted criticism from local residents who fear that the financial burden could be substantial and that the arrival of a large number of asylum seekers would place pressure on a small community. The government, however, argues that moving people away from expensive hotels and into alternative accommodation is an important part of its effort to reduce costs and reform the system.
At the centre of the dispute is a basic but difficult question: can converting a former military installation into a large asylum accommodation centre genuinely provide better value for taxpayers, or could the cost of preparing and operating the site undermine the intended savings?
Why the Linton-on-Ouse Proposal Has Become Controversial
The former RAF Linton-on-Ouse site, near York, is among several former military locations being considered by the government for asylum accommodation. The proposed centre could eventually house up to 1,200 people, although officials have stressed that the plan remains subject to assessments, approvals and further decisions.
The scale of the proposal has generated opposition in the surrounding community. Residents and campaigners argue that a facility accommodating so many people would represent a major change for a village with limited infrastructure and services.
They have also questioned whether the government has adequately considered the cost of preparing the site for its new purpose. A former military base cannot necessarily be converted into residential accommodation simply by reopening existing buildings. Infrastructure, water supplies, sewage systems, electricity, security arrangements and other essential facilities may all require significant investment.
The Linton-on-Ouse Action Group has argued that these costs could make the project substantially more expensive than the government expects. Its financial assessment draws comparisons with other large-scale accommodation schemes, including a previous proposal to use RAF Scampton in Lincolnshire.
The group has called for a full financial review before substantial public money is committed to the project.
The Home Office has disputed the campaigners’ cost estimates, saying it does not recognise the figures being used. Ministers have also maintained that moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation forms part of a wider plan to close asylum hotels and reduce the burden on taxpayers.
The difference between the two positions is significant. One side argues that the project could become an expensive mistake; the other says the government’s broader accommodation strategy is intended to deliver savings and improve the management of the asylum system.
How Campaigners Reached the £500 Figure
The headline figure of more than £500 per person per night comes from calculations produced by opponents of the proposal, rather than an official Home Office forecast.
In an assessment reported in August 2026, campaigners used projected costs from the abandoned RAF Scampton scheme as a benchmark for estimating what a comparable project at Linton-on-Ouse might cost. They argued that the expense of refurbishment, infrastructure improvements and operating the centre could be spread across a relatively short period of use.
Their calculations suggested that the total cost could exceed £400 million over three years, with the estimated nightly cost per occupied bed rising above £500 under certain assumptions. More recent reporting in October put the group’s overall estimate at approximately £270 million for a potentially shorter operating period, with the claimed cost per occupied bed varying according to occupancy levels. These remain campaigners’ projections, not confirmed government spending figures.
The underlying issue is how the total cost is calculated. If a site requires substantial initial investment but accommodates relatively few people during its early months, the cost per occupied bed can rise sharply. The figure could then fall if the centre reaches its intended capacity and operates for longer.
The opposite is also possible. Delays, unexpected construction work, higher security expenses or a requirement to return the site to the Ministry of Defence could increase the overall cost.
For that reason, any reliable assessment would need to include the full capital investment, running costs, staffing, security, healthcare provision, maintenance and the likely length of the contract. It would also need to estimate realistic occupancy levels rather than assume that every available bed would be filled immediately.
Without a complete and independently assessed business case, the precise nightly cost remains uncertain.
The Comparison With Asylum Hotels
The dispute is particularly sensitive because the government has repeatedly promised to reduce its reliance on hotels for asylum accommodation.
Hotel accommodation has become a major expense for the Home Office, partly because the asylum system has struggled to process cases and provide suitable longer-term housing quickly enough. When people remain in temporary accommodation for extended periods, the public cost can accumulate rapidly.
Figures published in September 2026 indicated that hotel accommodation cost approximately £199 per person per night in April 2026, including VAT, while ordinary dispersal accommodation cost around £25 per person per night. These figures illustrate the difference between emergency accommodation and more conventional housing, although the precise costs depend on the period and method of calculation.
The National Audit Office has previously warned that large accommodation sites can cost more than hotels when initial investment and other expenses are included. Its 2024 investigation found that the Home Office’s latest estimates at that time suggested its large-site programme would cost approximately £46 million more than using hotels, despite the original expectation that the approach would save money.
That history explains why campaigners are demanding greater scrutiny of the Linton-on-Ouse proposal.
However, comparing one accommodation model with another is not straightforward. Hotels may have high per-person costs but require less initial construction work. Large sites may involve significant upfront investment while potentially providing more predictable accommodation over a longer period.
The final comparison depends on how many people are housed, how long the facility operates, the cost of preparing the buildings and whether the site delivers other benefits, such as improved security or reduced disruption in residential areas.
The government therefore needs to demonstrate not simply that it intends to close hotels, but that its proposed alternatives can deliver practical and financial benefits.
Local Residents Want Answers
For people living near Linton-on-Ouse, the financial questions are only part of the dispute.
Residents have raised concerns about the potential impact of a large accommodation centre on local services, transport, healthcare provision and community life. They argue that the village’s existing infrastructure may not be designed to support a substantial increase in its temporary population.
The proposed centre could also require additional security arrangements and coordination between the Home Office, police, local authorities and accommodation providers. Campaigners want reassurance that the necessary resources would be in place before the site begins operating.
These concerns should be assessed through evidence rather than assumptions about the people who might be accommodated there. Asylum seekers are individuals whose immigration claims are being considered, and their circumstances vary. Effective planning must protect residents while also ensuring that people accommodated at the site are treated safely and lawfully.
The government has said that security and the effect on surrounding communities are important considerations. Ministers have indicated that any decision will depend on assessments, planning requirements and operational arrangements.
For the local community, however, those assurances may not be enough without clear information about the proposed timetable, the number of people expected to arrive, staffing levels and the arrangements for dealing with emergencies.
Meaningful consultation and transparent planning could help address some of the uncertainty, even if disagreement over the principle of the scheme remains.
Lessons From Previous Military Accommodation Plans
The experience of earlier asylum accommodation projects adds weight to the demand for detailed financial scrutiny.
The former RAF Scampton scheme was abandoned after costs rose substantially. The Home Office subsequently recorded significant losses associated with the failed project, demonstrating how public expenditure can be wasted when a site is prepared for a purpose that is later cancelled.
The National Audit Office has also identified the risks associated with rushed decisions, changing assumptions and investment in facilities that fail to operate as originally planned.
These experiences do not automatically prove that Linton-on-Ouse would suffer the same fate. Every site has different buildings, infrastructure requirements, contractual arrangements and operating conditions. Nevertheless, they show why government departments need realistic cost estimates and clear plans before committing large sums of public money.
A proper business case should explain why the location was selected, how much conversion work is required, how long the facility is expected to operate and what would happen if the project became unviable.
It should also compare the proposed centre with alternative approaches, including ordinary housing, other existing accommodation and improved processing of asylum applications.
If the government believes that a large former military base is the most effective option, it should be able to explain the evidence supporting that conclusion.
Immigration Policy and Public Confidence
The controversy also reflects a wider debate about immigration and the management of asylum claims.
People seeking asylum must have their claims considered in accordance with the law, while the government is responsible for ensuring that accommodation is available and public expenditure is properly controlled. These obligations can become more difficult to meet when cases take a long time to resolve or when suitable housing is scarce.
Reducing the number of people staying in hotels may be a legitimate policy objective, but the success of that objective depends on the quality and cost of the alternatives.
If the government moves people into a cheaper form of accommodation that operates effectively, the change could reduce pressure on the public purse. If it commits substantial funds to a temporary facility that becomes expensive to operate, the financial outcome could be very different.
Public confidence depends on the government explaining those trade-offs honestly. It also depends on distinguishing verified expenditure from estimates produced by campaign groups, while ensuring that those estimates are taken seriously enough to be examined independently.
The figure of more than £500 per night is striking, but it should not be presented as an established bill that taxpayers will definitely face. It is a projection based on assumptions about the cost and operation of the proposed site. The government’s own assessment will be essential in determining whether the estimate is realistic.
What Happens Next?
The future of the Linton-on-Ouse proposal remains uncertain. The Home Office has indicated that no final decision will be taken until the necessary assessments, approvals and operational arrangements have been completed.
Campaigners are seeking a full financial review before work proceeds. Their argument is that the government should establish whether the project offers value for money before committing further public funds.
Ministers face a competing challenge: they must find alternatives to costly hotel accommodation while ensuring that new sites are safe, suitable and financially defensible.
A credible decision will require transparent figures, realistic occupancy assumptions and a clear explanation of the project’s expected lifespan. The government should also set out how it intends to measure whether the centre is achieving its objectives.
Ultimately, the controversy is about more than one former RAF base. It raises questions about how Britain manages asylum accommodation, how quickly it can process claims and how effectively public money is used.
The campaigners’ figures have intensified scrutiny of the proposal, but the final judgment should rest on a full comparison of costs and benefits rather than a single headline number. If the government can demonstrate that the centre will operate safely and provide value for money, it will have a stronger case for proceeding. If it cannot, officials will face growing pressure to reconsider the plan and pursue a more sustainable alternative.