An immigration charity boss has cast doubt on whether an asylum accommodation centre would ever be built on the outskirts of Bicester.

Keith Best, chief executive of the Immigration Advisory Service, claims the Treasury will not foot the bill for the multi-million-pound project.

The move came after a High Court judge threw out a bid by Cherwell District Council to overturn Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's decision to push ahead with the centre. The council claimed the process was legally flawed.

Mr Best said he believed the centre would never be built as the Government was now talking about overseas processing centres. But the Home Office denies it and said the centre would go ahead and an unspecified amount had been set aside.

Mr Best said: "I still take the view that not a single centre will ever be built because the Treasury will not allow the Home Office to have the money to build such a speculative project when the Home Office has already shown it is incapable of controlling its spending on asylum."

In a separate move, North Oxfordshire MP Tony Baldry called on Cherwell council to appeal against the High Court decision.

He said: "No organisation involved in the day-to-day welfare of asylum seekers, from the Red Cross to the Refugee Council, nor an independent planning inquiry believe that this is the right policy and this decision raises serious questions over the democracy of planning policy.

"This means the Government can put two fingers up to any decision at any public inquiry that they don't like."

Mr Baldry's call was backed by Bicester Action Group, which was set up to fight the plan. Co-founder Dionne Arrowsmith said: "If there is any chance that the council can take this further then it has got to.

"The longer the council can draw this out, the better, and the closer we get to an election. If Cherwell can hang on by the skin of its teeth then it should.

"But it's we, as the people, who have got to keep the issue in the public domain."

Cherwell's leader George Reynolds said the council was disappointed by the outcome of the High Court hearing.

He said: "We have always felt that the process and decision-making were flawed. We will now be studying the written judgment very carefully to assess whether there are grounds for further appeal."