Home News Gallery Planning About Us Links Media

	Lawful operation | Resources & local services | Residents

	TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 IN THE MATTER OF Proposal by the Home Office for an Asylum Seekers’ Accommodation Centre on part of “A” Site, Piddington, Bicester STATEMENT OF SUBMISSIONS Bicester Refugee Support and Asylum Welcome 1. Bicester Refugee Support and Asylum Welcome will make joint submissions. We oppose the application and submit that the Inspector should recommend to the First Secretary of State that outline planning permission be refused. 2. Asylum Welcome is Oxfordshire's principal refugee organisation providing advice and support to refugees, asylum seekers and detainees across the county. It was started in 1996 by Oxford residents following the opening of Campsfield detention Centre. It has 400 members and volunteers and benefits from the support of local churches, grant making bodies and the National Lottery. Its work includes providing an advice service, visitors to detainees at Campsfield, work with families in the community and a programme with young people. It is a charity and a company limited by guarantee. Bicester Refugee Support was formed by local residents to oppose the planned accommodation centre solely on humanitarian grounds. It aims to promote the positive contribution of refugees and to offer help and support to asylum seekers if such a centre is built. 3. While acknowledging the need to welcome asylum seekers to the UK and to accommodate them safely, we will submit that the proposed accommodation centre is, by its design and by its location, incapable of meeting the needs of asylum seekers. Its operation would place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and applicable Human Rights and refugee conventions. Therefore the need for the development has not been demonstrated. There can be no proper need for a development that cannot be operated lawfully. 4. We will submit that the Inspector should consider the proposal on the basis that any accommodation centre will be built and operated so as to comply, as nearly as may be, with applicable laws and with published Home Office policies. That is, one cannot assess the impact of the proposal on local resources and the environment without knowing the type and level of services necessary to comply with existing obligations and policies. 5. We will submit that those housed in any accommodation centre built in accordance with the proposal will be “residents” or for all legal purposes except (subject to possible amendments to the pending legislation) the obligation to provide education. Therefore the residents of the accommodation centre will be entitled to receive from the District and County Councils and from other local providers all those services which are by statute made available to other district residents. It follows that the proper basis on which to consider the proposal is as a high density residential development to be assessed against the housing provisions of the Cherwell Local Plan, the Oxfordshire Structural Plan and applicable national and regional planning policies. Lawful operation of an Accommodation Centre at Piddington 6. We will submit that although the Home Office describes the proposal as a ‘trial’, its effects on the future lives of those housed in any accommodation centre will be permanent. The residents will have no second chance if the trial fails. 7. Potential residents of the centre have rights including freedom from arbitrary detention, freedom of association and freedom of religious practice under the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They are also entitled to equality of access to services. We will submit that because of the impact on exercise of such rights of the remote location of the site and the limits on availability of transport, the operation of the proposed accommodation centre would be unlawful. 8. We will submit that provision for human rights, including freedom of movement and assembly, and equality of access to services cannot be satisfied unless the financial provision for residents allows them to participate fully. We will lead evidence of the costs of, at least, transport and telecommunications facilities and submit that whatever services may be provided on site, the proposed accommodation centre cannot operate lawfully because residents will be denied effective participation in those services due to their poverty. 9. If legislation is passed which purports to exclude school-aged residents of the proposed accommodation centre from mainstream schools, then we will submit that operation of the centre on that basis would so breach the right of residents to equal access to education, as to render operation of the centre unlawful. 10. There can be no legitimate planning need for a facility which could not operate lawfully. Resources and local services 11. The proposal contains no detailed information regarding the operation of the proposed accommodation centre, and the Home Office has refused to provide such detailed information to Parliament or to the local community, claiming it to be commercially confidential. In order to assess the impact of the proposal on the environment and on local services, the Inspector must either require the Home Office to provide detailed information, or else make assumptions about the operation of the accommodation centre and about the services to be offered there. 12. We will submit that the Inspector should assess the proposal on the basis that it will be so operated as to as nearly as possible comply with the Human Rights Act, applicable international conventions, and published government policy on the care and settlement of asylum seekers and refugees. Because of the levels of staffing, access and transport required to supply such services an accommodation centre so operated would have significant adverse impact on the environment and local services, so that the proposal should be rejected. 13. The Home Office intends to provide unspecified educational facilities on site, indicating that these will be inspected by Ofsted and will be required to meet national standards. Notwithstanding our submission that such provision will make operation of any centre unlawful, we will submit that supplying childhood and adult education implies levels of staffing, access (with accompanying car and public transport use), interpretation and translation services, IT and communications resources and (particularly for adult education) transport to off-site classes which will increase the impact of the proposal on local services and the local environment. We will submit a model for the provision of education to the children expected to be accommodated at the site which will permit the Inspector to estimate the minimum necessary level of staffing and access required to meet this commitment. We will address problems of recruitment of teachers, including bilingual and special needs teachers, in Oxfordshire so far as it is relevant to the assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on local services. 14. The Home Office intends to provide healthcare services to residents through discrete facilities housed on site. We will submit that supplying health care services, including dental care and mental health care, to national NHS standards implies levels of staffing, access (with accompanying car and public transport use) and interpretation and translation services which will increase the impact of the proposal on local services and the local environment. We will submit a model for the provision of health services to 750 asylum seekers which will permit the Inspector to estimate the minimum necessary level of staffing and access required to meet this commitment. We will address problems of recruitment of health professionals in Oxfordshire so far as it is relevant to the assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on local services. 15. The Home Office has stated that “[the accommodation centre] would be open and it is hoped that the local community will come in freely and make contact and see for themselves that the centres are well run and providing a good service. The centres will be open to all refugee organisations and the Government wants to provide a decent living environment and to encourage relationships to be built.” The Minister for Immigration has said that she hopes to see local people use the centre facilities and “see it as a community resource”. The requirement of free access by residents to community facilities and by members of the community to facilities on the site implies levels of staffing and of transport which will increase the adverse impact of the proposal on local services and the local environment. 16. Those housed in any accommodation centre would be entitled to demand such levels of policing in and around their community as is reasonably necessary to ensure their safety. We will submit that provision for community safety, both of the community within any accommodation centre and of surrounding communities, implies levels of access, staffing and security which would adversely effect local services and increase environmental impact. We will address the difficulty in recruiting appropriately trained police officers and community safety officers in Oxfordshire in so far as it is relevant to an assessment of the impact of the proposal on local services. 17. We will specifically address the community safety requirements of children and of women within any accommodation centre. 18. The Home Office has stated that high-quality legal advice will be available on site. We will submit that compliance with this commitment implies levels of access (with accompanying car and public transport use), communications facility and interpretation and translation services which will increase the impact of the proposal on local services and the local environment. We will submit a model for the provision of legal advice to 750 asylum seekers which will permit the minimum necessary level of staffing and access required to meet this commitment. 19. Asylum seekers have the same right as any other member of the community to select the lawyer of their choice. The Home Office cannot lawfully restrict that freedom and cannot so operate an accommodation centre as to force asylum seekers to accept the services of a particular provider. We will submit that the exercise of this right will involve residents travelling to major cities where expert legal advisers are located, or advisers travelling to the site, with implications for car and public transport needs which will increase the impact of the proposal on local services and the local environment. 20. Each of the requirements for service provision at the proposed accommodation centre, including health, education, legal advice, “purposeful activity”, policing and community safety and integration with the local community, implies the provision of interpretation and translation services. We will submit that the level and quality of services required cannot be provided in the proposed location, or cannot be provided without severe adverse impact on existing provision for interpretation and translation services in Oxfordshire. 21. Each of the requirements for service provision at the accommodation centre, including health, education, legal advice, “purposeful activity”, policing and community safety and integration with the local community, implies the use of transport. In addition, we will submit that the proposal overlooks transport requirements: * to attend appeal hearings. * to obtain legal advice beyond that provided on-site. * by visitors to the accommodation centre, or by residents to friends and family members e.g. when one member of a family is receiving in-patient treatment in hospital. 22. Each of the requirements for service provision at the accommodation centre, including health, education, legal advice, “purposeful activity”, policing and community safety and integration with the local community, implies the provision of communications facilities, including at least telephones, facsimile machines and internet access. We will provide evidence to allow the inspector to assess the minimum acceptable level of such provision, and will submit that without such provision the proposed accommodation centre would operate unlawfully. 23. When assessed on the basis of the levels of service and activity required to supply the needs identified in paragraphs X to 21, the proposal is contrary to Oxfordshire Structural Plan Policy EN1, which provides that ‘The nature, size, location or cumulative effects of a development should not have an unacceptable environmental impact.’ 24. When assessed on the basis of these levels of activity, the proposal is contrary to Oxfordshire Structural Plan Policy E3 which provides that ‘the provision of land for employment-generating development will be restrained and limited to activities which do not give rise to excessive or inappropriate traffic.’ Residents 25. The Home Office and the County Council both accept that persons housed at the accommodation centre will be entitled to access social services and mental health provision on the same basis as other Oxfordshire residents, and that the County Council will owe to them the same duties as it owes to other residents. We will submit that for all other purposes (possibly excepting provision of education) those housed at any accommodation centre will be residents, and that therefore the proper basis on which to assess the proposal is as a high density housing development. 26. Assessed as a housing development, the proposal is contrary to development principles 3, 11 and 12 of RPG9 which seek to promote developments which reduce reliance on the private car. 27. Assessed as a housing development, or on any other basis, the proposal is contrary to Oxfordshire Structure Plan Policy G2 which seeks to promote developments by reference to their scale, location and design reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of walking, cycling and public transport and telecommunications as alternatives to the car. 28. Assessed as a housing development, the proposal is contrary to Cherwell Local Plan policy H1which limits the sites at which residential development will be permitted. 29. Assessed as a housing development, the proposal is contrary to Cherwell Local Plan Policy H18, which provides that ‘planning permission will only be granted for the construction of new dwellings beyond the built-up limits of settlements… when (i) it is essential for agriculture or other existing undertakings…’. We will submit that the proposal does not form part of any existing undertaking. Bicester Refugee Support and Asylum Welcome 04 November 2002
	Lawful operation | Resources & local services | Residents Back to the top See also: Inquiry News

Home | News | Gallery | Planning | About Us | Links | Media © BRS 2002-09 | E&OE |