Now re-named the Principality of Paddington, the residents this rural Oxfordshire village, ( the population is about 350) recently voted in their own referendum to declare independence, by 285 in favour and 26 against. The referendum was intended to show a decisive statement of local opposition to the government proposal to make them host around 1250 young male immigrants whilst decisions are made about whether or not they can stay in England. As an exercise in the power of local democracy it was decisive. They have made a powerful point.
What is more, if you want to attract lots of media spot light the referendum to leave England was a clever move. It was also a risky move unless you want to reduce the value of residents homes in the village, surely therefore a courageous decision? Vocally drawing widespread attention to the government’s intention to house new temporary visitors in a big new residential complex which few existing Piddington residents welcome is not conventional community conduct. . Equally significant are the objections to the planning application intended to grant a 10 year temporary planning planning permission for these immigrants to be housed in new modular homes on the abandoned military site. There were, the BBC reports, 3177 representations against the application and one in support. Whoa!
But there is another, alarming view. England’s broken planning system is held up by for ridicule by Piddington’s residents. The interviews with local residents make clear the security and safety concerns many local local people hold, reflecting upon the short walk separating the village and the proximity of the new guests….mostly young, male and of course unable to work. Regardless of whether the perceived threats are real or not, perceptions of danger are real and understandable. How many people will be buying houses in Piddington next year? Is this outcome fair to the village?
But where do the government put the immigrants whilst their status is investigated. Hotels are rejected? Abroad is rejected. Where? What a dilemma Angela Rayner faces! . I do not have an instant answer. Nor it seems do the Conservative or Reform spokespersons neither of whom had anything constructive or helpful to offer. So the situation is as I say above, alarming. How are spatial conflicts Piddington’s opposition high lights to be resolved? Many others too are well aware we have a widespread spatial problem, judging by the feedback from two recent LinkedIn comments of mine. One, commenting on ReformUK’s response to the government’s plans to reduce local councillor’s jurisdictions said
‘It is right that local communities have say in decisions which directly impact their areas.After all they live with consequences! But what happens when national policies collide with local resistance to their delivery at local level.? This is the hard reality that has blocked housing progress and sapped national prosperity for decades. Do Reform UKwant this reversal of priorities to continue? In other words, when priorities are in conflict whose interest is paramount.’.
Around the same time, a week or so ago, in response to the government’s decision to grant mayors more powers and councillors less, also in LinkedIn I said
’There is a deeply entrenched governance impasse between national priorities for which the government is responsible and local fears of land use change for which councillors are responsible. Whose wishes are paramount when these objectives come into conflict. For example whose agenda will mayors be delivering when they are in power? In hot house economic growth areas like the Thames Valley local MPs who say their areas are full up will side with their electors. How can any mayor face-down this sort of entrenched opposition to change? If this is the case, how will any regional mayors deliver government policies with the credibility investors will need to plan ahead?’
Is the Piddington conflict only about personal and family saftey fears? After all the permission is limited to ten years.Or once the urgency that goes with immigration issues becomes history, will local opposition to unwelcome male guests be replaced by opposition to land use change? If the military site is then sold, most buyers, in assessing its value will attribute some hope value to it ongoing housing use. So will government valuers responsible for obtaining best value for taxpayers. Is this prospect appealing to Piddington’s residents?
Piddington vividly illustrates the unresolved spatial cinflict. Where do the immigrants go, if not in Piddington. By the same token, where do all the future new homes go? Perhaps Piddington’s residents need financial compensation? After all their homes have dropped in value through no fault of their own, whilst no one else has to bear this loss. But if the precedent of compensation is set in Piddington, why not elsewhere too?
Piddington’s residents have done us all a favour. They have shown how ridiculous and unfair our spatial planning system is today. It is time four the four main political parties to accept not one of them alone can deliver spatial polices which will be trusted and respected by future generations. After nearly two generations of spatial policy failure it is time Westminster’s MPs showed their commitment to long term national prosperity and nationwide fairness. Hopefully Whitehall can find a way.
Ian Campbell
13 November 2026
