Edp24: RAF Coltishall refugee plan withdrawal vs. Totton fence dispute
RAF Coltishall’s withdrawn proposal to house 200 Afghan refugees and Phil Edwicker’s Totton fence dispute with Hampshire County Council present two sharply different local flashpoints. edp24 examines which approach—contractor withdrawal or direct local enforcement—produced clearer outcomes for communities, services and officials.
RAF Coltishall: Broadland District Council and BM Trust on the refugee plan withdrawal
Home Office contractors linked to BM Trust told Broadland District Council on Monday morning that they were withdrawing plans to use the former RAF Coltishall officers’ mess to house 200 refugees. BM Trust had sought temporary permission for 12 months to use the Jaguar Buildings near Badersfield for Afghans and their families who had worked with the British following the 2001 invasion. The applicant did not give a reason for the withdrawal, though the applicant had pressed the council for a decision by February; the application was absent from Broadland’s February planning committee agenda and from the following week’s agenda.
Itchin Close: Phil Edwicker and Hampshire County Council over the 2ft fence
Totton resident Phil Edwicker has faced action from Hampshire County Council over a 2ft self-build fence he installed during Covid, which replaced an earlier fence he first put up in 2002. The council said the fence affected the verge and footway, and issued a deadline of March 11 to remove part of it; Mr Edwicker removed three posts on a “temporary basis. ” Neighbour Tim Goodman complained to council planning officers after Mr Edwicker applied successfully in 2023 to extend his home. Mr Edwicker says he believes the fence sits on his land, notes it includes LED lights and stainless steel wires, and has contested the council’s claim that the land belongs to Hampshire Highways Authority.
Edp24 comparison: Broadland’s RAF Coltishall withdrawal vs. Hampshire County Council fence action
Applying the same criteria—official action taken, clarity of reasons, local opposition, and service or safety implications—highlights how scale and jurisdiction changed outcomes.
| Criteria | RAF Coltishall (Broadland/BM Trust) | Itchin Close (Edwicker/Hampshire County Council) |
|---|---|---|
| Official action | Contractor formally withdrew the proposal to house 200 refugees | Council ordered partial removal of a 2ft fence with a March 11 deadline |
| Stated reason | No reason given by the applicant for withdrawal | Council cited encroachment on the verge and footway |
| Local objections | Residents of Badersfield and three parish councils objected; posters appeared in the village | One neighbour, Tim Goodman, complained after a successful 2023 extension application |
| Service/logistics concern | NHS Norfolk and Waveney ICB warned about registering 200 people with GPs at capacity | Council cited impact on verge and footway; Mr Edwicker disputes land ownership |
Both disputes attracted clear local opposition, but they differ on transparency and testability. Broadland’s situation ended with a contractor withdrawal and no stated rationale, leaving service concerns—such as GP registration for 200 people—unresolved. Hampshire’s action produced a specific enforcement deadline, visible physical changes (three posts removed) and a named legal claim about public highway encroachment.
Analysis: The comparison establishes that direct local enforcement yields a more immediately testable outcome than a contractor withdrawing a large-scale proposal without explanation. Broadland’s withdrawal defused a large, contested plan but left community and health-service questions open. Hampshire County Council’s order over a 2ft fence produced a discrete deadline and a measurable physical response.
Finding: Local enforcement over land or highway encroachment produced a testable result by the March 11 deadline, while the RAF Coltishall withdrawal ended the immediate proposal without resolving underlying service or capacity concerns. The next confirmed event that will test this finding is the March 11 deadline for removal at Itchin Close. If Mr Edwicker maintains his temporary removal of three posts through March 11, the comparison suggests that council enforcement delivers faster, observable change, whereas contractor withdrawals can close a controversy administratively without addressing the service pressures residents raised.
