Updated argument based on 2026 Labour Proposal 

The former RAF Linton-on-Ouse site is once again being considered for use as an asylum accommodation centre. Having previously engaged with this issue, I am writing to urge you to use your influence to ensure this site is permanently removed from consideration.

This proposal is fundamentally flawed, both in its logistics and its suitability. The arguments that led to the abandonment of this plan under previous administrations remain as valid today as they were then: it is the wrong plan in the wrong place.

Infrastructure and Economic Viability

The village of Linton-on-Ouse is a small community of approximately 800 residents. The local infrastructure is entirely incapable of supporting a transient population of 1200+  people (150% increase).  Upgrading the power supply to meet the requirements of such a facility would necessitate multi-million-pound investment. Similarly, Yorkshire Water has explicitly stated that the current network cannot accommodate this level of demand.

Fiscal Irresponsibility: 

Millions of pounds in taxpayer money were already wasted during the previous attempt to develop this site. Both major parties previously reached a logical consensus: the site is not economically viable. The infrastructure has only deteriorated since that time, meaning the cost to bring the site to a functional standard would be even higher today. In addition, the multi million pound compensation package awarded to SERCO last time round only adds to the astronomical costs of this project. There is no evidence that using military sites is a cheaper alternative than hotels, but there is clear evidence purporting to the fact warehousing asylum seekers in isolated areas is in clear contradiction to asylum policy and guidance.

The government were quoted in excess of £30 million to simply get the power and water switched back on. The water system needs a full refit after lead flooded the pipes whilst pressure testing was undertaken.

The own Home Office Fact sheet says the site would be operational for 3 years only.

 Factor in running costs, the cost of refurbishing the site, the cost building upgrades (failed fire safety regs previously) cost of recruitment, then this represents a very poor return on investment and value for money assessment.

The "Spirit of Dispersal" and Policy Contradiction

The Home Office’s own policy of dispersal is intended to spread the responsibility of hosting asylum seekers across diverse areas with the infrastructure to support them, thereby minimizing the impact on any single community and fostering social cohesion. By forcing a population of 1,200+ into a village of 800, the Home Office is violating the very spirit of its own dispersal policy. Rather than a managed integration, this is a forced concentration that overwhelms the host environment. This approach is not dispersal; it is the creation of an isolated, unsustainable enclave that serves neither the asylum seekers—who are cut off from essential services—nor the local community

Given the site’s proximity—less than 500 meters from the local primary school and under 200 meters from our only play park—this poses a severe safeguarding concern. Furthermore, the Home Office recently advised Asylum Seekers would not be placed near schools.

Violation of Operational Due Diligence

Home Office guidance on asylum accommodation requires sites to be "adequate" and "fit for purpose." By selecting a site that lacks the necessary security, connectivity, and utility capacity, the current proposal fails to meet the Home Office’s own standard of suitability. Furthermore, there has been a systematic failure to consult with local authorities, North Yorkshire Police, or the Fire Service. This lack of engagement directly contradicts the necessity for transparent risk assessment and collaborative planning, leaving our local emergency services to manage a crisis for which they are neither funded nor prepared.

Humanitarian and Ethical Considerations

A centre of this nature does not serve the needs of the community, nor does it provide a humane environment for asylum seekers. As previously argued by the Labour Party, the site’s extreme isolation, lack of local amenities, and the poor condition of the existing buildings are not conducive to the fair or dignified treatment of vulnerable people. Concentrating such a large number of individuals in a location with no public transport links or support services creates a situation that is logistically untenable and ethically questionable. Indeed, The current Prime Minster Kier Starmer objected on record in 2022 against such plans and using Linton on Ouse for such purposes. Ironically, he said at the government at the time should consult local authorities and the community, yet his administration have done neither.

Proportionality and Site Location

The village has a population of c700. The proposal of an open door centre for 1200-1500 adult males is materially disproportionate. This is compounded further due to the proximity of the site to the village. In all other military sites being used for such purposes, the site is situated out of the fabric of the village, or in a much larger conurbation.  This base does not sit on the "fringes" of our community; it is located directly in the heart of our village. This is not a detached, self-contained military compound; it is an installation integrated into the residential fabric of a small community. There is no shop and limited transport links, therefore it's likely the village will bear the full impact. It also means staffing the centre will be a challenge, with limited commuter options - a very prevalent issue in 2022.

Conflicts with Housebuilding Ambitions and Andy Burnhams political campaign 

Andy Burnham built his campaign on "Manchesterism"—promising that Whitehall would stop steamrolling the regions. Yet, one of his first moves could be letting the Home Office seize RAF Linton-on-Ouse for an isolated, high-density institutional camp, completely overriding our local authority. This site is North Yorkshire’s premier rural development asset. Our Metro Mayor, David Skaith, wants to unlock it as a Mayoral Development Zone (MDZ) to bring Green-tech hubs & enterprise zones, Local job creation & business start-ups, Balanced, community-led infrastructure

Burnham's Rhetoric: Pledged to deliver "good growth in every postcode and hope in every heart."

Reality - At risk of wiping out North Yorkshire’s premier rural development asset. RAF Linton-on-Ouse is a massive economic engine waiting to be unlocked. Turning it into an isolated, institutionalized camp eliminates any hope of sustainable commercial investment, green-tech hubs, or local job creation. Since the announcement, we’ve seen instant economic regression: property sales falling through, local business investments paused, and new regional developments put at risk. 

Burnham's Rhetoric: Believes regions should control their own economic destinies and spatial frameworks.

Reality: Our Metro Mayor wants to use this site for a balanced, community-led Mayoral Development Zone (MDZ). This master plan would integrate small-scale commercial spaces, rural business start-ups, and infrastructure. Overriding our local Combined Authority to impose a top-down federal project completely undermines the concept of devolution. If regional mayors don't have the final say on their own key development assets, devolution is dead on arrival.

Burnham's Rhetoric: Heavily opposes the outsourcing of public assets to multi-billion-pound private entities, advocating for public services and assets to remain under local, accountable control.

Reality: The current plan hands a massive, multi-million-pound blank check to private outsourcing giants like Serco. Ask him why his government is enrichment-funding private contractors instead of letting our Combined Authority partner with regional builders, local apprentices, and community trusts to regenerate the base. Remind him of the millions in taxpayer money already wasted on site costs and contractor compensation during the failed 2022 attempt.

Burnham's Rhetoric: Burnham is a vocal champion of "Housing First"—the principle that long-term, secure, and dignified housing is the foundation of a stable society, rather than temporary emergency warehousing.

Reality: The hypocrisy of locking up prime land for high-density, temporary institutional use when Mayor Skaith’s MDZ vision includes permanent, affordable rural housing for local families. We need proportionate and permanent solutions that build communities, not isolated, high-density emergency infrastructure that derails local housing strategies.

Burnham's Rhetoric: Frequently warns that starved budgets have left local authorities and regional services on the brink of collapse.

Reality: While central government covers initial setup, the long-term operational strains—rural policing, community safety, fire services, and overstretched local NHS infrastructure—fall directly on North Yorkshire's public purse. Our Deputy Mayor for Policing, Jo Coles, has already warned that local services cannot absorb this strain.

Legal Precedent and Community Impact

The local authority has a clear track record of challenging the legality of this proposal, and they have maintained that they are prepared to pursue similar legal action again. Re-igniting this dispute ignores the settled precedent that the site is unsuitable for large-scale, disproportionate asylum centres. Furthermore, the social impact on a small, rural village of 800 people cannot be overstated. Placing a facility of this magnitude in such an isolated location will inevitably overwhelm local resources, disrupt community cohesion, and lead to significant, avoidable local tension.

Policing, Safeguarding, and Community Safety

The previous proposal failed on the fundamental grounds of public safety, and these risks remain entirely unaddressed. In the prior attempt, the Home Office failed to consult with local authorities, the police, or the fire service, and provided no adequate safeguarding plan to protect either the asylum seekers or the local population. The site is physically insecure, with no effective barrier to prevent unrestricted movement.  Any policing or fire plan / coverage will divert limited resources from other communities.

 We are not talking about a difference in political opinion; we are talking about a proven, systemic failure of planning. I ask you to consider the evidence that led to the previous cancellation of this project. Nothing has changed in the landscape of Linton-on-Ouse to suggest that this outcome would be any different today

I urge you to stand up for the constituents of this area and immediately cease reverting to a plan that has already been deemed unfit for purpose.