Fury as Asylum Seekers at Former RAF Base Could “Cost More Than £500 a Night Each”
Britain’s debate over asylum accommodation has entered another controversial phase after residents opposing plans for a former RAF base in North Yorkshire claimed that housing asylum seekers there could cost taxpayers more than £500 per person per night. The proposal concerns RAF Linton-on-Ouse, a former military site that the Government has identified as a potential location for more than 1,200 asylum seekers.
The figures have caused anger among local residents and campaigners, particularly because the Government has repeatedly promised to reduce the use of expensive asylum hotels. However, it is important to understand exactly what the £500 figure represents. It is not a confirmed Government estimate. Instead, it is a calculation made by the Linton-on-Ouse Action Group using projected costs from another former military site, RAF Scampton, as a comparison.
Nevertheless, the controversy raises an important question: can converting former military bases into asylum accommodation really provide better value for taxpayers than the hotel system it is intended to replace?
The Government’s argument is straightforward. Britain has spent billions of pounds accommodating asylum seekers in hotels, and ministers want to end that system. The Home Office has therefore proposed using basic accommodation at former military facilities as an alternative. The policy is intended to reduce the long-term cost of the asylum system while also distributing asylum accommodation more evenly around the country.
The proposal for Linton-on-Ouse is part of a wider programme. Three former military sites—Linton-on-Ouse, RAF Barnham in Suffolk and MoD Bicester in Oxfordshire—have been identified for potential accommodation for a combined total of around 3,750 asylum seekers. Existing sites at RAF Crowborough in Sussex and RAF Wethersfield in Essex are also due to be expanded.
For local residents, however, the proposal has created serious concerns.
Linton-on-Ouse is a relatively small village. Campaigners say that placing more than 1,200 asylum seekers there would dramatically change the size and character of the community. They argue that the number of people arriving could be around twice the adult population of the village, creating pressure on local services and raising questions about policing, healthcare, transport and safeguarding.
The location of the site is particularly important. A primary school, nursery and children’s play area are reportedly located within approximately a mile of the former base. Local residents have therefore expressed concerns about how the arrival of a large population of asylum seekers could affect the surrounding community.
Such concerns should not automatically be dismissed as hostility towards migrants. Residents have a legitimate interest in how major changes to their local area are planned and managed. If a village is suddenly expected to accommodate a population many times larger than its existing size, the Government has a responsibility to explain how local infrastructure will cope.
At the same time, concerns about a large asylum centre should not be used to portray asylum seekers as inherently dangerous. People seeking asylum are individuals whose circumstances vary considerably. Some may have fled war or persecution, while others may ultimately be found not to qualify for protection. Their cases need to be assessed individually and according to the law.
The financial argument is nevertheless at the centre of the controversy.
The Linton-on-Ouse Action Group based its calculation on National Audit Office figures relating to RAF Scampton, another former military base that was previously proposed as an asylum centre. The Scampton project was ultimately abandoned after the Government concluded that it did not represent value for money. According to published figures, the projected cost was around £403.4 million.
Using those figures, campaigners calculated that the Linton-on-Ouse project could cost £408.40 per person per night if the site reached capacity at the fastest assumed rate. Under a slower timetable, they estimated a figure of £527.81 per person per night. Their overall projection suggested that the project could cost more than £400 million over three years.
These calculations have attracted significant attention because they appear to contradict the Government’s central argument for replacing hotels with military accommodation.
Current Government figures cited in reporting put the cost of hotel accommodation at approximately £145 per asylum seeker per night. Conventional dispersal accommodation is considerably cheaper, at around £23.25 per person per night. If the campaigners’ calculation were accurate, the proposed military site would therefore appear extraordinarily expensive.
But the comparison requires caution.
The £500 figure is not a daily bill that the Government has agreed to pay for every person staying at Linton-on-Ouse. It is an estimated average derived from total projected programme costs, including the costs of preparing and operating the site, divided over the expected number of occupants and nights. The figure can therefore be heavily influenced by the speed at which the site becomes operational and reaches full capacity.
This distinction is crucial.
If a former military base requires major investment in electricity, water, sewage systems, buildings, security and other infrastructure before it can accommodate people, those initial costs may be extremely high. If the site takes a long time to fill, the cost per resident can look particularly large when those fixed costs are spread across a relatively small number of occupants.
The Government has therefore rejected the campaigners’ calculations as a reliable representation of the eventual cost. A Government source said the figures were not recognised and emphasised that discussions about Linton-on-Ouse remained at an early stage. The Government has also pointed to the existing RAF Wethersfield site, where reported costs are around £135 per person per night, with RAF Crowborough said to be at a similar level.
This leaves taxpayers with an important unanswered question: what will Linton-on-Ouse actually cost?
The Government should provide a detailed financial assessment before the project proceeds. Such an assessment should include the purchase or preparation of the site, infrastructure upgrades, staffing, security, healthcare, transportation, maintenance and eventual closure or restoration costs.
Transparency is particularly important because taxpayers have already spent substantial sums on asylum accommodation.
The Government says that using military sites can save hundreds of millions of pounds compared with continuing to use hotels. Ministers argue that basic accommodation is more appropriate for asylum seekers who are waiting for decisions on their applications and that ending the hotel system will reduce long-term costs.
There is also a geographical argument.
Asylum accommodation has not been distributed equally across Britain. Some towns and cities have accommodated large numbers of asylum seekers in hotels and other facilities, while other parts of the country have had considerably fewer. Supporters of the military-site strategy argue that wealthier and less heavily affected communities should “play their part” rather than leaving the burden concentrated in poorer areas.
Prime Minister Andy Burnham has supported the principle that asylum accommodation should be distributed more evenly. His position reflects a broader argument about fairness: if Britain has a national asylum system, its costs and responsibilities should not fall disproportionately on particular communities.
However, spreading accommodation more widely does not automatically solve the practical problems.
A remote military base may be cheaper in some circumstances, but it can also isolate residents from essential services. Refugee organisations have argued that remote barracks can create difficulties for people who need healthcare, legal assistance, education and community support. Critics also argue that concentrating large numbers of asylum seekers in isolated facilities can make integration more difficult.
There is therefore a conflict between two objectives: reducing costs and providing suitable accommodation.
The Government wants to avoid expensive hotels. Residents want their communities protected from excessive pressure. Asylum seekers need accommodation that meets basic standards and allows access to necessary services.
A successful policy must address all three concerns.
The controversy also demonstrates why immigration policy cannot be reduced to simple slogans. Some critics will see the proposed camp as evidence that Britain has lost control of its borders. Others will argue that asylum seekers are being unfairly blamed for failures created by government policy.
Both perspectives can contain elements of truth.
The asylum system itself determines how quickly applications are processed, how accommodation is provided and how people without a legal right to remain are removed. If decisions take too long, the accommodation bill grows. If there are insufficient suitable properties, hotels may become necessary. If large sites require enormous infrastructure investment, apparent savings may disappear.
The long-term solution therefore cannot simply be moving people from hotels to military bases. Britain also needs a faster, fairer and more efficient asylum system.
Applications should be processed as quickly as possible while maintaining proper legal safeguards. People who qualify for protection should be given a clear route towards rebuilding their lives. Those who do not qualify should have their cases resolved efficiently and, where legally possible, returned to their countries of origin.
Local communities should also be involved before major accommodation decisions are made. Residents need accurate information about numbers, timescales, security arrangements and the services available. Consultation cannot guarantee that everyone will agree, but it can help prevent communities from feeling that decisions have been imposed upon them.
The £500-a-night claim has therefore become a symbol of a much larger argument about Britain’s asylum system.
If the figure ultimately proves close to the real cost, the Government will face serious questions about why such an expensive scheme was approved. If the figure is significantly overstated because it is based on assumptions that do not apply to Linton-on-Ouse, ministers will need to publish their own transparent calculations to demonstrate why.
Either way, taxpayers deserve clear answers.
The controversy should also be separated from the question of whether asylum seekers deserve humane treatment. They do. Providing people with basic accommodation while their claims are considered is not incompatible with controlling immigration or protecting public finances.
The real issue is whether the system is being managed efficiently.
Britain cannot afford an asylum policy in which billions of pounds are spent without clear evidence of value for money. At the same time, cost-cutting should not result in unsafe or unsuitable accommodation for vulnerable people.
Linton-on-Ouse therefore represents a difficult test for the Government.
It must demonstrate that its plan can reduce the reliance on hotels without creating an even more expensive alternative. It must listen to local residents without encouraging hostility towards asylum seekers. And it must provide taxpayers with convincing evidence that the policy represents good value.
The headline figure of “more than £500 a night” is certainly striking, but it should be treated as a campaigners’ estimate rather than an established fact. What matters now is whether the Government can prove, with independently verifiable figures, what the proposed scheme will actually cost.
Until then, the anger surrounding Linton-on-Ouse is unlikely to disappear.
For residents, the issue is about the future of their village. For asylum seekers, it is about where they will live while their cases are considered. For taxpayers, it is about whether hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent wisely.
All three concerns deserve to be taken seriously.
The ultimate test of the policy will not be the strength of the headlines but the quality of the evidence. If the Government can demonstrate that the former RAF base provides secure accommodation at a reasonable cost, the plan may prove defensible. If the numbers fail to add up, ministers will have to reconsider.
Either way, Britain needs an asylum system that is humane, controlled, transparent and financially sustainable. Linton-on-Ouse is now becoming a test of whether the Government can achieve all four.