The government wants to move the refugees to Badersfield in buildings which were previously part of RAF Coltishall.
However, first Broadland District Council must approve a change of use for the site.
No date has yet been set for a decision but the EDP has learned that BM Trust, the Home Office contractor behind the scheme, has been piling pressure on the authority to speed up the process.
The proposal to house the refugees, who are all Afghans, has already met with resistance from locals and the pressure coming from the company will further increase unease in the village.
Villagers claim the area is unsuitable because of a lack of facilities.
Jaguar House on the former RAF Coltishall base (Image: Sonya Duncan)
Ministers themselves have been under mounting pressure in recent months to find suitable accommodation for migrants, following widespread protests.
Unlike those currently housed in hotels – which have been the focus for the demonstrations – the migrants intended for Badersfield are not asylum seekers.
Rather, they are Afghans who worked with the British following the invasion of their country in 2001, and their families, who have been given permission to relocate and resettle in the UK.
They are currently being housed at other Ministry of Defence sites around the country and would be provided accommodation at the Norfolk site for nine months to allow time to find them settled accommodation.
Under the plans, lodged by BM Trust in September, the migrants would be housed at Jaguar House – the former RAF Coltishall officers’ mess – and other surrounding buildings.
The initial deadline for a decision was last month but the council sought to extend it because it needed more information and some parish councils requested longer to respond.
While BM Trust agreed to an extension until March next year, it is pushing for a quicker decision.
In documents lodged with the council, Mark Philpot, managing director of the applicant’s planning consultants One, said: “Due to the timeframe pressures of delivering this accommodation, it is imperative that the application be determined no later than the February committee.”
A spokesman for Broadland District Council, which is run by a coalition of the Lib Dems, Labour and the Greens, said the authority would not be pressured into a decision.
He said: “The planning authority will only take the application to planning committee when the application is in a position to be heard at committee and outstanding points have been sufficiently addressed.”
Those outstanding points include a requirement for clearer floor plans and other information to address consultee comments.
Dan Roper (Image: Dan Roper)
Dan Roper, Liberal Democrat cabinet member for planning at Broadland, previously said: “As much as the government would like a quick decision, they will have to be realistic.
“It will be considered carefully and we will not be rushed by the government on this.”
‘SITE NOT SUITABLE’
The proposal has triggered opposition, including in nearby Badersfield, where some villagers put up posters against the plans.
Posters were put up in Badersfield protesting about the plans (Image: Submitted)
Buxton with Lamas Parish Council, which covers part of Badersfield, has lodged an objection, citing a number of reasons.
Those include that Jaguar House is “not fit for purpose”, the local infrastructure, such as sewers, would not be able to cope with hundreds more people and the rural setting makes “transportation and mobility difficult”.
A spokeswoman said: “The parish council noted that these people should be supported by the British government, but that this is the wrong location.”
Badersfield (Image: Antony Kelly)
Horstead with Stanninghall Parish Council also objected, saying the site was not suitable.
The parish council highlighted a lack of amenities, limited transport links and how isolation would affect the health and wellbeing of the refugees housed there.
North Norfolk District Council has also been consulted, with the site just to east of the east of the application site.
The Liberal Democrat-run council has not objected, saying it “understands the significant pressure faced by the government in identifying and securing temporary accommodation”.
But the authority did highlight how Badersfield is in a “highly rural location”, with only “very basic community facilities”.
They said the Afghan families would have “very little independence” and would have to rely on services provided by the operator of the accommodation.
The council said it wanted to “understand what service levels the BM Trust will be required to provide through their contract with government in order that Afghan refugee families placed in this accommodation are properly supported in building their future lives.”