Residents fume as local population to TREBLE under plans to house asylum seekers at former military base

Village residents are outraged over Labour's proposals to house 1,250 asylum seekers at a disused military base on their doorstep.

The Home Office last month announced its intention to use former RAF Barnham, on the Suffolk-Norfolk border, as accommodation for single male migrants as part of efforts to close all asylum hotels by 2029.

Only 580 residents call the quaint village of Barnham home – renowned for its thatched cottages and going without even a local pub or shop.

Locals have warned that the proposed influx of migrant men would triple their community's size overnight, sparking fears about increased antisocial behaviour, threats to women and children, and plummeting property values.

TRENDING

Stories

Videos

Your Say

Two large-scale protests have already taken place outside the base's entrance gates in objection to the proposal.

Callum Banthorpe, a 23-year-old who bought his first home in the village for £180,000 in January, expressed deep concern about the lack of local infrastructure to support surging numbers.

He said: "We have not got the infrastructure here for a sudden influx of 1,250 people."

Mr Banthorpe also said that he might have reconsidered his purchase had he known about the plans beforehand.

Residents noted the absence of any formal consultation process – simply informed of the scheme with wheels already firmly on the tracks.

"If I wanted to put a shed in my garden I would probably have to get planning permission, while it seems that the Government can just force through plans to move in more than a thousand people if it wants," Mr Banthorpe added.

Another resident, speaking anonymously, questioned "who would want to live beside a camp housing hundreds of unvetted young men".

Local business owners also voiced similar apprehensions about the scheme's viability.

A groundworker called Rocky, who operates PRD Groundworks directly opposite the former base, expressed concern about the proximity to schools.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Labour weighs up emergency laws to kick Rochdale grooming gang leader out of Britain
• Grooming gang victims warn early release of abusers may leave them at ‘direct danger’ of retaliation
• Migrant care workers still bringing dozens of family members to UK despite clampdown

He said: "It's on the doorstep of local schools and I worry that children will be put in danger", adding that residents on the camp would not be properly vetted.

He also highlighted contradictions in official assessments, with the site previously deemed unsuitable for development due to ground contamination.

Another business owner, who wished to remain anonymous, raised concerns about the area's large military population, given its proximity to RAF Honington.

He claimed service personnel living locally with their families were "petrified" by the prospect, yet had been told not to speak publicly on the matter.

Around 500 demonstrators gathered at the camp's main gates on Sunday, carrying Union Jacks and England flags, with some travelling from as far as Essex to join the protest.

Suffolk County Council's ruling Reform leader Michael Hadwen addressed an earlier rally, describing the scheme as "entirely unacceptable", highlighting its potential impact on "a small village with a small rural primary school".

Protesters have since set up a permanent presence outside the entrance, erecting flags and signs on surrounding fences.

Tensions also flared at a Thetford Town Council meeting last week, where seven police officers and private security staff were deployed after some 250 residents attempted to gain entry to a venue with a capacity of only 120.

West Suffolk Council voted unanimously last week to oppose the RAF Barnham proposal, citing concerns over "security, impact on services and the community as well as the suitability of putting a large number of people in a location without adequate facilities".

John Bauer, chairman of Barnham Parish Council, said: "If this were a conventional housing development for 1,250 people, it would require extensive consultation, transport assessment, environmental review and infrastructure planning."

Councillors expressed frustration at being kept uninformed by the Home Office, with one describing the lack of communication as "annoying and disrespectful".

A West Suffolk Council spokesman confirmed the Government could bypass local planning processes by granting itself consent for the scheme.

Our Standards: The GB News Editorial Charter