Piddington’s parish council chairman has pledged a legal challenge to government plans to house up to 1,256 detained male asylum seekers at a former military site near the Oxfordshire village.

Tim McNally said ministers should “absolutely” expect a challenge after Housing Secretary Angela Rayner approved planning permission for the MoD Bicester development. Opponents have six weeks to contest the decision.

The Home Office secured permission through a fast-track route for projects considered urgently needed and of national importance. But planning approval does not settle whether the accommodation will open: the department says a final decision to proceed remains outstanding.

McNally also said the village intended to invoke the proposed Hillsborough Law to seek transparency from public officials. Once passed, the legislation would introduce a legally enforceable duty of candour, requiring public officials and authorities to act transparently during investigations and inquiries. His stated intention does not establish how it could apply to this planning dispute.

Local opposition has already taken several forms. Piddington held a symbolic vote to leave the UK in September, in a campaign led by McNally. Last month, the group Wrong Plan Wrong Site appealed for a judicial review of the proposals.

Defence minister Luke Pollard acknowledged strong feeling around Bicester, particularly in Piddington. He said the Home Office would continue engaging with the community to understand concerns and mitigate them, stressing that further stages remained before the scheme was settled.

The Home Office presents former military sites as part of its effort to close all asylum hotels and distribute accommodation more fairly across the country. It said more than £1bn had been saved in accommodation costs since the election.

The department says alternative sites are designed to be self-contained, with round-the-clock security and CCTV to minimise their impact on neighbouring communities. It previously described the proposed accommodation as basic and safe.

The immediate distinction is between permission and implementation: opponents now face a six-week challenge window, while ministers have yet to decide whether to use the site.