Hi everyone. We need your help in writing some formal objections to MPs and Councillors outside of the constituency.
Using the following template, please copy / paste and send them to the following people
- Alex Norris MP (Labour) Minister of State for Border Security and Asylum in the Home office.
- David Skaith (Labour) York and North Yorkshire region Mayor.
- Jo Coles (Labour) Deputy Mayor for Fire & Policing York & North Yorkshire combined authority.
- Luke Charters MP (Labour) York Outer
- Rachael Maskell MP (Labour) York Central
- Alec Shelbrooke MP (Conservative) Wetherby & Easingwold
- Kevin Hollinrake MP Conservative Party Chairman (was of course our MP in 2022)
- Mal Taylor (NYC Cllr and fully supportive as he was in 2022)
- Cllr Carl Les, Leader of Conservative controlled NYC (was also a member of Hambleton District Council in 2022 and would lead any legal challenge)
Template
Subject: Urgent: Reconsideration of the Linton-on-Ouse RAF Site for Asylum Accommodation
Dear [Name of Recipient],
I am writing to you regarding the deeply concerning reports that 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. Northern Powergrid has previously confirmed that 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.
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.
Proportionality and Site Location
The village has a population of c800. The proposal of an open door centre for 1200 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. Linton On Ouse's site is in the epicentre of a small village, with the entrance being onto the only main street. 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
The site was being lined up for housing, and given the current house building climate, this would have been a welcome addition locally and nationally. Understandably, this proposal has seen all discussions cease impacting local and national housebuilding.
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, peaceful 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. 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.
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 advocate for a strategy that prioritizes sustainable, viable, and humane solutions rather than reverting to a plan that has already been deemed unfit for purpose.
I look forward to hearing your position on this critical matter.
Yours sincerely,