Taxpayers could be hit with £270million bill for asylum centre in Yorkshire village

And campaign group Linton Action has warned the site could cost taxpayers as much as £270.9million despite potentially operating as an asylum centre for a reduced term of just two years.

In an open letter to Chancellor John Healey, the group claims North Yorkshire's Deputy Mayor for Policing, Fire and Crime, Jo Coles, indicated RAF Linton-on-Ouse may have to be returned to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by July 2029.

With a six-month decommissioning period also potentially required, campaigners say the centre could therefore operate for only around 23 months.

The group's £270m figure, which they are keen to stress is from their own estimations and not Home Office official figures, has been calculated over a shortened 23-month tenancy, equivalent to between £443 and £853 per occupied bed, depending on occupancy assumptions.

This is compared with a hotel benchmark of £144.98.

Linton Action Group spokesperson Professor Olga Matthias told GB News: "It is an estimate, but it's based off existing facilities of that ilk, so RAF Wethersfield springs to mind, because that's already operational," Prof Matthias told the People's Channel.

"It's based on the fact that you've got all the set-up costs, all the decommissioning costs, you've then got a projected cost of about £240 a night, assuming full occupancy.

"Now, looking at all the bases that have been used so far... they operate on between 30-50 per cent occupancy, and so if it is projected at £240 a night, when you drop that to 50 per cent occupancy, that shoots up that first figure [per night, per bed]."

Plans had been drawn up under Boris Johnson's Conservative Government in 2022, but these fell through after the MoD withdrew its permission to utilise the former RAF base, which shut down in 2019.

One major concern was utility supply, which could be a costly expenditure to the taxpayer to revamp the existing systems after multiple years of abandonment.

The Government pledged in their manifesto "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds," while former Chancellor Rachel Reeves vowed this would be complete by 2029, saving the taxpayer £1billion.

But the group's letter noted the National Audit Office's (NAO) 2024 investigation found that the early large-sites programme was expected to cost £46million more than hotels. It also recorded £2.9million in fruitless expenditure on the abandoned 2022 RAF Linton-on-Ouse proposal.

"The full costs at RAF Linton-on-Ouse must be counted," the letter reads. "Any business case must include capital works, water, sewage and electricity infrastructure, security, transport, healthcare, policing, emergency services, maintenance, decommissioning and site restoration - not merely accommodation contracts."

Prof Matthias accused the Government of "frequent contradictions" in promising taxpayer savings, before leaning on a manifesto pledge.

"Over the last few months, various news outlets have questioned various ministers [on the cost of asylum centres], saying it's projected to cost more," she told GB News. "There are NAO reports going back to 2005 that state it is much more expensive to put asylum seekers in these former military bases.

"When the Government is challenged on that particular point, they say, 'Well, it is not about the cost, it is a manifesto promise - we said we would get them out of hotels'. So they are aware that it costs more."

William Yarwood, campaigns director at the TaxPayers' Alliance, said that taxpayers are being "hammered by the eye-watering cost of illegal migration."

"Paying hundreds of pounds per bed, per night on accommodation for people who shouldn't be here in the first place is an outrageous waste," he stated.

"The Home Office must end this recklessness and take decisive action to stop the boats once and for all."

The group's letter asks Mr Healey how the plans can represent value for money if the Home Office has less than three years to use the base.

And, while recognising the Government's plans to end the use of migrant hotels, "replacing one expensive accommodation model with another potentially more costly one is not in the taxpayers' best interests," the letter says.

Robert Bates, Research Director at the Centre for Migration Control, said: "The Home Office has clearly made no real assessment of the fiscal costs associated with creating an asylum centre at Linton-on-Ouse, and is now in the ludicrous position of being wedded to an accommodation plan that would cost far more than hotels.

"The heavy-handed approach of Whitehall officials is damaging local communities across the country, such as this tight-knit village, and it is the taxpayer who will be forced to stump up an exorbitant amount of money for the plan.

"This government does not have a plan to end the asylum chaos; to end the spiralling bill that it inflicts on this country, or to keep the people of Britain safe."

Astonishingly, Prof Matthias also revealed to GB News that neither the campaign group nor the village has had any contact from the Government since it announced it was reviving the plans four months ago.

Sir Alec Shelbrooke, Conservative MP for Wetherby and Easingwold, continues to work diligently, but has been deferred to the civil service. He told GB News earlier this summer the "only people supporting this plan are the Labour Government".

In response to the letter, the Home Office said: "The government is closing every asylum hotel, saving taxpayers over £1bn on asylum support since the election.

"We are working to fairly house asylum seekers across the country, moving asylum seekers into alternative accommodation, including former military sites which are designed to be self-contained to reduce impact on the local community.

"As part of the process, we engage with local authorities and police forces to ensure the safety and security of those in the surrounding area."