Suffolk County Council voted 39 to 13 on 8 October to explore an advisory referendum on 6 May 2027 on housing asylum seekers, prompted by the RAF Barnham plan.
Suffolk County Council has voted to explore holding a county-wide referendum on housing asylum seekers. The motion passed on Thursday 8 October by 39 votes to 13, with 13 abstentions (votes at council, 8 October 2026).
The trigger is the Home Office plan to use RAF Barnham, about ten miles north of Bury St Edmunds and just south of Thetford, as accommodation for asylum seekers.
The resolution is one sentence long. The council resolves to “explore the holding of a referendum on Thursday 6 May 2027 on the issue of housing asylum seekers in the county of Suffolk”. It does not commit the council to holding one, set a question, name a legal power or give a cost.
What the motion says
The motion was proposed by Councillor Philip Faircloth-Mutton and seconded by Councillor Tristan Gale, both of the Reform UK group that runs the council. The council’s own vote record carries the full text. Its case rests on these claims:
- 205,000 people arrived in the UK by small boat between 2018 and June 2026, and 781 arrived on 23 September 2026, the highest single day this year
- the Home Office factsheet says the Barnham site would be used for a minimum of ten years
- it “has been widely reported” that up to 1,250 people would be housed there at any one time
- at a meeting with Norfolk County Council’s leadership on 5 August, Home Office officials said those accommodated would have arrived by boat, would all be men, mostly single and young, and that there is “no maximum cap” on numbers at the site
Those are the motion’s assertions, not the council’s findings. The council has not published a note of the 5 August meeting, and the 1,250 figure does not appear in the Home Office factsheet on the site.
The motion calls the decision “extraordinary” and frames the poll as a question of whether “local authorities and communities in the county of Suffolk should have a greater role in decisions regarding the accommodation for asylum seekers”. Any referendum would be advisory. A county council cannot bind the Home Office or the planning minister with a local vote.
How each group voted
The vote was recorded by name. It split almost entirely along party lines:
- Reform UK: 38 for. Two of the group’s 40 councillors are not recorded as voting.
- Green: 12 against. One member is not recorded.
- Conservative: all 9 abstained.
- Labour: all 3 abstained.
- Liberal Democrat: 1 against. The group’s other member is not recorded.
- Independents: one for, one abstained.
The county councillor for Brandon, whose division includes Barnham, Councillor Tim Kent, voted for the motion.
What the Home Office has actually said about Barnham
The government’s own factsheet on the site is more guarded than the motion. Updated on 9 September, it says (MoD Barnham factsheet):
- the site is no longer in active use by the Ministry of Defence and is being considered for asylum accommodation
- if it is found suitable, it would house single adult men aged 18 to 65 who have applied for asylum, for “a minimum of 10 years”
- numbers would build up in phases, “starting with smaller numbers at first”. The factsheet gives no capacity figure
- feasibility work “could take several months to complete” and no opening date is set
- the Home Office has made an Urgent Crown Development application to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will take the planning decision. No final decision has been made
Barnham was one of three former military sites named in a ministerial statement on 29 June, alongside Bicester in Oxfordshire and Linton-on-Ouse in North Yorkshire. Together the three “could eventually provide accommodation for around 3,750 asylum seekers”, subject to feasibility work, planning permission and approvals (West Suffolk Council’s Barnham page).
Where West Suffolk Council already stands
The district council got there first, and by a different route. At an extraordinary meeting on 1 July, West Suffolk councillors unanimously backed a motion from the leader, Councillor Cliff Waterman, seconded by Barnham’s ward member, Councillor Andrew Smith (motion COU/WS/26/014).
That motion says RAF Barnham “is the wrong site for a facility of this nature and scale”, citing the village’s rural setting, limited infrastructure, constrained transport links and the likely impact on local services. It also commits the council to a debate that “does not use divisive, inflammatory or discriminatory language” and says its position is “not in hostility towards people seeking asylum”.
In July the district council went further, writing to the minister that the Habitats Regulations should rule out the development whatever planning powers are used. The camp sits within the Breckland Special Protection Area and Special Area of Conservation and their buffer zones, which support a major stone curlew breeding population (West Suffolk Council).
So the district council’s objection is about the site. The county council’s motion is about asking the whole county a question.
What it means for you
- Nothing changes at Barnham because of this vote. The planning decision sits with the housing ministry under the Urgent Crown Development route, and the Home Office says no final decision has been taken.
- There is no referendum yet. The council has agreed only to explore one. The officers’ work on whether it can be held, how, and at what cost has not been published. We will report the figures when they appear.
- If it happens, the date is Thursday 6 May 2027. That is the first Thursday in May, the normal local election day.
- The vote would be advisory. The motion itself calls it an “advisory referendum”, and nothing in it would bind the government.
- The district council’s consultation role stands. West Suffolk Council is a consultee on the Urgent Crown Development application, not the decision-maker, and says a public consultation will follow. Its Barnham page is where the dates will appear.
Everything above comes from the county council’s published vote record, the district council’s published papers and the Home Office factsheet. For how the district’s planning process normally works, see our planning news page.
Have your say