Campaigners are furious over the migrant camp proposals (Image: Andy Stenning/Daily Express)

Labour is planning to create migrant “ghettoes” on former military sites, terrified villagers fear. The Government has assembled a £150million war chest to “fund additional large sites to accommodate asylum seekers”. And some of it will be used to find and convert new unannounced sites, Treasury and Home Office sources have confirmed.

The revelation has sparked fury, with communities already fighting proposals to house thousands of migrants near them, warning of a safety crisis. Campaigners in Linton-on-Ouse, a North Yorkshire village with a population of just over 600 adults, accused Labour of trying to impose “ghettoised mega asylum hotels” on communities across the country. They believe the Home Office will need 74 sites of a similar size “if large-scale sites were genuinely the solution to the asylum backlog”.

And dozens of terrified villagers met with top Tories Chris Philp, Joy Morrissey, Kevin Hollinrake and Sir Alec Shelbrooke on Friday to warn migrants will be wandering around outside their homes within minutes of leaving the proposed 1,250-person asylum camp.

The site is next to a housing estate, complete with a toddler play area which backs onto the asylum camp and scores of young families living nearby. Families living next to RAF Linton-on-Ouse have vowed to move away because they don’t want their children growing up next to 1,250 young, single men.

Martin Sanderson at the “ghost Street” of unoccupied houses in Linton-On-Ouse (Image: Daily Express)

Campaigners believe Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood will be breaking her own promise not to house asylum seekers near a primary school. The site will be “nearly three times closer” to Linton-on-Ouse Primary School and Nursery than “any active site in the UK”. The village’s schoolchildren will have to commute past the asylum seekers every day.

Pointing to the “exposed” locations of Wethersfield in Braintree, Essex, and Crowborough in East Sussex, activists in Linton warned they will not have a “distance buffer” to prevent them from surges in crime. Instead, RAF Linton-on-Ouse will be in the “heart” of the village, meaning men will be roaming freely outside their homes the moment they leave the base.

White Rose Close is just 20 steps from the camp’s perimeter. Overlooking the detached three- and four-bed houses in the residential street is a giant former military accommodation block, which will almost certainly be used by the migrants. From the windows, houses and gardens are clearly visible. The street is now a mixture of families waiting to see if the plans are thwarted, people racing to leave and vacant properties.

And Linton Place, which is a small cul-de-sac off the main road to the camp, is becoming increasingly barren.

Families are moving out, with an increasing number of “to let” signs going up, as villagers fear their community is being destroyed. Children are also not being enrolled at the local primary school.

Martin Sanderson, from the Linton-on-Ouse Action Group, told the Daily Express: “This is a mega-hotel. This is a plan to move people out of hotels into bigger ones. Now, the issue with that is when people talk about large sites, it gives the British public an idea that this will house a significant part of the accommodation challenge.

“This is going to be a huge site in respect of Linton-on-Ouse – 1,200 people in a community of 600. But in terms of the national challenge, this is minuscule.

“We’ve also been painted as some sort of wealthy middle-class community.

“This is literally the village of the prince and the pauper. Prince William trained here at RAF Linton-on-Ouse. He went to the College Arms pub. And when he was sat in there, he was sat alongside doctors, he was sat alongside nurses, he was sat alongside gardeners. He was sat alongside people who were really struggling in life.

“This is such a diverse community. That [the site] will be a ghetto.”

Dean Bovington, who lives in Linton-On-Ouse (Image: Daily Express)

Former military police officer Dean Bovington, who used to be part of the security team at RAF Linton-on-Ouse and now lives on Main Street, said: “I was military police for 28 years, and I settled in the village. During my time, I was in Afghanistan, on the ground doing checks on people and interacting with the locals in Afghanistan. It was hard to find out who they were and what they did and their background then.

“No passport, no sort of interaction with the co- country they’ve come from, how can we be certain they are who they say they are? Because they could make their name up.”

Mr Bovington admitted he is concerned “very dangerous men” will be moved into the village. He added: “To some extent, it’s where they’ve been brought up. Some of them are 15, 16 to 35-year-olds who have had experience in their own country, and that will have an effect on them and how they treat us and see us.

“Because they’re coming from a country that we probably haven’t got a great relationship with, the way we come over is not great in their country, but they still want to come here and settle because they do find it safe.”

Asked if he was concerned people with hostile views would be placed near his home, he said: “Hostile views before they came – but that hostile view is being brushed over for more economic reasons. It shows by the Home Office having pamphlets telling them not to, “please try not to rape women, and these are the reasons why. How can that sort of mentality come into this country and try and rewire their mindset?”

Laura Harman, a mother-of-two with two daughters aged 7 and 9, said: “It is not the fact that they are asylum seekers; it’s the fact that there are 1,200 men, that it’s so disproportionate against women and children in this village to have that many men suddenly here. And they’ll be bored, they don’t have anything to do.

“They’ll be hanging around the same spots that our kids might. I definitely would consider moving, but I will not be able to. Who would buy my house? We wouldn’t be able to sell if it went ahead, so we will be living here whether we like it or not. All I can hold on to is that we will continue fighting, this will not go ahead, and it’ll be life as usual in this beautiful village.”

Joe Atkinson, who lives in White Rose Close, said: “We’ve decided that we’ll be leaving Linton-on-Ouse, pretty much regardless of what’s happening there. My back garden backs onto the base. There is a fence between my back garden and the base.

“We’d sort of found a long-term home here, and unfortunately, that’s now occurring, and I just can’t take any risks when I’ve got two teenage daughters and a five-year-old daughter. My daughters are at an age where they want to be out with their friends, and I’d have worries about them walking down there in the dark.”

RAF Linton-On-Ouse in North Yorkshire (Image: PA)

Campaigners in Linton believe housing asylum seekers there for three years will cost £403 million, at £527 per person per night.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said: “This site is not detained, so the illegal immigrants are going to be free to come and go anytime they choose, anytime of day or night. There are multiple different entries and exits from the site, right next to people’s houses, right next to a child’s playground, very close to a primary school.

“So, people that live there could have illegal immigrants wandering around their houses and around the playground 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It will be a migrant ghetto. 1,500 young men in one place is going to be a ghetto. It’s going to be very hard to police. It’s going to be a huge threat to public safety in this village. It’s completely unacceptable.”

Shadow Women’s Minister Joy Morrissey told the Daily Express: “It’s going to destroy this village. This could provide vital family accommodation, and it is going to destroy this village. People will leave, and instead of this being a vibrant place where children can go to primary school, walk along the streets, because of this migrant accommodation, all of that could be shut down. And it’s not just posing a threat to women and girls, it’s posing a threat to the entire community.”

Andy Burnham’s Government has created a £150million war chest for next year to use Wethersfield and Crowborough, East Sussex, and to develop MoD Bicester, RAF Linton-on-Ouse and RAF Barnham.

Some 744 asylum seekers are living in Wethersfield, near Braintree in Essex, and 418 people are in Crowborough, according to the latest Home Office figures. But ministers want to move 1,257 migrants into MoD Bicester, near Piddington in Oxfordshire, and up to 1,200 in Linton-on-Ouse, Yorkshire.

Another 930 will be housed near the village of Barnham in Suffolk.

But the Daily Express can reveal some of that cash will go towards finding and developing new sites.

Treasury documents state: “The Government is providing £150million capital investment in 2027-28 to fund additional large sites to accommodate asylum seekers and facilitate the Government’s commitment to end the use of asylum hotels.”

Some 69,038 are living in houses, flats and bedsits – including large houses in multiple occupation or HMOs – which is up from 68,719 three months ago. This includes 4,790 failed asylum seekers.

Labour’s £150m Mega-Hotel Asylum Plan Sparks Village Backlash – Residents Fear Impact on Their Community

The Labour Government is facing growing opposition over a controversial £150 million asylum accommodation proposal, with residents expressing fears that their peaceful village could be transformed by plans to house large numbers of asylum seekers in a hotel.

The proposal has reignited Britain’s increasingly heated debate over immigration, public spending and the use of hotels to accommodate people awaiting decisions on their asylum applications.

For residents, the issue is not simply about government policy. It concerns the future of their community, the availability of local services and whether people living in the area have been properly consulted before major decisions are made.

The proposed development has reportedly caused considerable anxiety among villagers, many of whom believe that their concerns have not received sufficient attention from the authorities.

Some residents fear that a large accommodation facility could place additional pressure on local infrastructure, including healthcare services, transport and community facilities.

Others question why the government is considering spending such a substantial amount of public money on hotel accommodation when Britain continues to experience shortages of affordable housing and difficulties funding essential public services.

A £150 Million Proposal Sparks Anger

The reported £150 million cost has become one of the most controversial aspects of the proposal.

At a time when households are struggling with the cost of living, many taxpayers want to know how the government intends to justify such a significant expenditure.

The cost of asylum accommodation has been a persistent concern for successive governments.

When asylum applications cannot be processed quickly, the Home Office must arrange temporary accommodation for applicants who would otherwise have nowhere suitable to stay.

Hotels have increasingly been used because the government has struggled to provide sufficient alternative accommodation.

However, hotel contracts can be expensive, particularly when large buildings are used for extended periods.

Critics argue that the government should concentrate on reducing the asylum backlog and developing more sustainable accommodation arrangements.

They believe that relying on hotels creates unnecessary financial pressure and can make it harder for local communities to understand how long particular arrangements will remain in place.

Villagers Fear Changes to Their Community

For people living in small villages, the possibility of a large asylum accommodation facility can create significant uncertainty.

Residents may worry about increased demand for GP appointments, pressure on local transport and the availability of community services.

In areas with limited infrastructure, even relatively small changes in population can require careful planning.

Villagers also want clear information about the number of people who would be accommodated, how long the arrangement would last and what support would be available.

Some residents have expressed concerns that their village could lose the peaceful character that makes it attractive to families and older people.

However, it is important to distinguish these concerns about planning and infrastructure from assumptions about asylum seekers themselves.

People seeking asylum come from different countries and backgrounds, and many are escaping conflict, persecution or serious personal danger.

There is no justification for automatically treating them as a threat to local communities.

The responsibility of the government is to ensure that any accommodation arrangement is properly managed, adequately funded and respectful of both existing residents and those being accommodated.

Local Services Face Questions

One of the biggest concerns surrounding the proposal involves the capacity of local services.

Small villages often have fewer healthcare facilities, limited public transport and fewer public amenities than larger towns.

Residents therefore want assurances that the additional population will not leave existing services struggling to meet demand.

Local authorities may also need to consider waste collection, road maintenance, emergency services and community support.

These practical questions should be addressed before any major accommodation arrangement begins.

The government and Home Office must provide clear information about how the facility would operate and which organisations would be responsible for managing it.

Without transparency, uncertainty can quickly become a source of conflict between residents, local authorities and central government.

Labour Faces Questions Over Its Immigration Policy

The controversy comes at a difficult time for Labour.

The government has promised to reduce the use of expensive asylum hotels and improve the efficiency of the immigration system.

However, the continued need for temporary accommodation demonstrates how difficult it can be to deliver those commitments.

Ministers face pressure from several directions.

Some voters want a tougher approach to illegal immigration and faster deportations for people who have no legal right to remain.

Others emphasise Britain’s humanitarian responsibilities and argue that asylum applications must be assessed fairly.

Local communities, meanwhile, want to know why accommodation decisions are being made and what consequences they may have for their neighbourhoods.

Labour must find a way to address all these concerns without allowing the debate to become dominated by fear or political confrontation.

Why Are Asylum Hotels Still Being Used?

The use of hotels is closely connected to the wider problems within Britain’s asylum system.

When people arrive in the country and submit asylum claims, their applications must be considered by the relevant authorities.

This process involves examining individual circumstances, checking available evidence and determining whether someone qualifies for international protection.

If applications take too long to process, the government must continue providing accommodation while decisions remain outstanding.

This can result in substantial public expenditure.

Reducing the backlog could therefore help lower accommodation costs and provide greater certainty for both applicants and local communities.

However, speeding up decisions must not come at the expense of proper assessments or legal protections.

The government also needs sufficient alternative accommodation to avoid simply transferring the problem from one location to another.

Residents Demand Transparency and Consultation

One of the strongest messages emerging from opposition to large asylum accommodation proposals is the demand for greater local consultation.

Residents want to understand why a particular building has been selected and whether alternative locations have been considered.

They also want to know whether the local council has been involved and how concerns about infrastructure will be addressed.

Public consultation is particularly important when decisions could have a lasting effect on a small community.

Providing information at an early stage can help prevent misunderstandings and allow residents to raise practical questions before arrangements are finalised.

The government should also publish clear details about the financial agreement, the number of people expected to be accommodated and the planned duration of the arrangement.

These are reasonable questions for taxpayers and local residents to ask.

The Wider Political Battle

The controversy is likely to provide further opportunities for opposition parties to challenge Labour’s immigration record.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has repeatedly criticised the government’s approach to asylum accommodation and illegal Channel crossings.

He argues that Britain needs stronger border enforcement and a more effective system for removing people who do not qualify for protection.

The Conservatives have also criticised the financial costs associated with asylum hotels.

Labour, however, argues that the problems developed over several years and cannot be resolved immediately.

Ministers say that improving the asylum system requires better cooperation with international partners, more efficient decision-making and action against criminal smuggling networks.

The disagreement reflects a wider national debate about how Britain should manage immigration while maintaining its humanitarian and legal responsibilities.

Conclusion

Labour’s reported £150 million asylum accommodation proposal has raised serious questions about public spending, local consultation and the management of Britain’s immigration system.

For villagers, the most immediate concerns involve the future of their community, the capacity of local services and the lack of clear information about the proposed arrangements.

For the government, the challenge is to demonstrate that asylum accommodation can be managed responsibly without placing unreasonable pressure on local communities or wasting taxpayers’ money.

People seeking asylum deserve safe and appropriate accommodation, while existing residents deserve transparency, proper consultation and reassurance that their local services will receive adequate support.

These responsibilities should not be treated as competing interests.

Ultimately, the success of any asylum accommodation plan will depend on how effectively the government balances public finances, humanitarian obligations and the needs of the communities involved.

Labour must provide clear answers before expecting residents to accept such a significant change to their local area.