West Suffolk Council unanimously passed a motion opposing the Home Office's proposal to use RAF Barnham as asylum accommodation. The council stated that the site is unsuitable due to its rural setting, limited infrastructure, and potential impact on local services and communities, and resolved to engage with the Home Office to present an evidence-based case against the proposal.

Proposed Use of RAF Barnham as Asylum Accommodation

The council debated and unanimously resolved to oppose the Home Office's proposal to use RAF Barnham as asylum accommodation. The motion, proposed by Councillor Cliff Waterman, Leader of the Council, and seconded by Councillor Andrew Smith, Chair of the Development Control Committee and Conservative Group Chair and Deputy Leader, outlined the council's concerns regarding the suitability of the site.

The council noted that RAF Barnham is a rural location with limited infrastructure, including a lack of shops and limited public transport, which would create practical issues for both the existing community and any asylum seekers housed there. Councillor John Bower, Chair of RAF Barnham Parish Council, spoke during public participation, highlighting that the proposed accommodation for up to 1,250 single adult males would more than double the village's population of 584 residents. He expressed concerns about the lack of formal consultation with local representatives and the disproportionate scale of the proposal compared to other former military sites used for similar purposes. Residents also raised concerns about the impact on local services, including the RAF Barnham Primary School, and the potential for even a small number of incidents to have a disproportionate impact on a small village.

Councillor Martin Robinson from Suffolk County Council questioned whether the £4.4 million annual funding expected from the government would be used to establish a discretionary fund for local residents needing dental access, travel assistance, or emergency support. Councillor Waterman responded that any funding from central government for this purpose is ring-fenced and cannot be used in the way suggested.

The debate saw numerous councillors express their support for the motion, emphasizing that their opposition was not to asylum seekers themselves but to the specific location and the lack of consultation. Councillor Julia Wakelam acknowledged the government's high-handed approach and total failure to consult, while Councillor Dylan Roques stated that RAF Barnham simply isn't fit for accommodation for anyone, let alone asylum seekers. Councillor Beccy Hopfensperger, Leader of the Conservative Group, stressed that the debate was about the suitability of the location, not about people seeking asylum, and highlighted concerns about the site's proximity to the primary school and its location within a Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation buffer zone. Councillor Joe Mason raised several unanswered questions for the Home Office regarding capacity, healthcare provision, impact assessments, transport, and support for local authorities.

The council resolved to:

1. Clearly state that RAF Barnham is not a suitable location for the Home Office proposal, citing its rural setting, limited local infrastructure, constrained transport links, and the likely impact on local services and communities.
2. Engage urgently and constructively with the Home Office to present a strong and robust evidence-based case against the use of RAF Barnham for this purpose.
3. Work with local communities to ensure their concerns are heard and represented accurately, while making it clear that the Council will not support or amplify divisive language, discrimination, or hostility.

The motion was passed unanimously by all councillors present.