2 Establishing effective communication
with the local community and other interested parties
10. The Home Office did not engage with, or seek
to gain the confidence of, the local community or its elected
representatives at an early stage in its site selection or planning
considerations. In part, this reflected the Department's view
that the facility was necessary in the interests of the country
to deal with the rise in the number of asylum applicants needing
accommodation while their claims were being processed, and as
an alternative to dispersing applicants around the country. Lobby
groups, the local community and others voiced their concerns during
the local planning inquiry, claiming that Bicester's rural location
and its poor public transport links made it unsuitable.[13]
11. Previous Home Office experience in seeking
planning approval for approved premises (formerly known as 'bail
hostels') has been that local communities do not welcome controversial
schemes, resulting in delay and increased costs. This had been
the case, for example, with the Silverlands residential sex offender
treatment centre, as well as with new probation and drug treatment
hostels. A more prudent approach would have been to model a range
of scenarios, based on discussion with the local community, to
get a clearer appreciation of risk.[14]
12. The Home Office and its advisors were aware
of the strength of feeling against the accommodation centre from
national and local refugee groups and other interested parties.
Their disquiet was clear from their representations during consideration
of the legislation which provided for the pilot, but the Home
Office did not reflect this in the business case. The
Department acknowledged that it had not anticipated that the local
council and the local community would appeal against the planning
application beyond the decision of the Secretary of State for
Local Government and the Regions. Appeals to the High Court and
to the Court of Appeal added a further 15 months to the planning
process, with the prospect of further local opposition to the
request for detailed planning approval.[15]
13. The Home Office still owns the Bicester site
and has yet to take a decision on its future use. Some 30 months
after the cancellation, the Department is still interested in
the site as a possible secure detention centre, which it considers
to be the most successful element of its asylum policy. The Department
told us that, in drawing up its long term strategy for detention
centres, it has decided to build other centres before considering
whether it needs to use the Bicester site. Having spent many years
going through the planning process, local residents are concerned
at the prospect of another delay before the Department's intentions
for the site are finalised and made public.[16]
13 Qq 66-67, 107; C&AG's Report, Main Report, para
9 Back
14
Q 65; C&AG's Report, Executive Summary, para 6 Back
15
Qq 39, 41, 108, 141 Back
16
Qq 20-21, 48-50, 146-148 Back
|
