Back to list

Date submitted

23 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing to object to the proposed expansion of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, as someone concerned with the use of Green Belt land, especially for such inhumane and horrific purposes. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000004. I object to this proposal because it would more than double the size of Campsfield, from 160 to 400 places, on Green Belt land. I am concerned that the expansion would make the site more built-up, harm the openness of the Green Belt, and add pressure to local roads, services and infrastructure. Campsfield is on Green Belt land. Green Belt land is meant to stay open and protected from unnecessary development. The proposed expansion would add large new accommodation blocks, up to 16 metres tall, compared with the tallest existing building at 9.4 metres. It would also add more parking, fencing, lighting, hardstanding and security infrastructure. This would make the site more built-up and less open. The Home Office’s main argument is that the site should be treated as “grey belt”. Grey belt is a category within the Green Belt. It does not mean the land has stopped being Green Belt, and it does not mean development should automatically be allowed. The Home Office still has to meet the relevant planning tests, including showing that there is a clear need for this type of development. The Home Office has not clearly shown why 240 additional detention places are needed at Campsfield specifically, or why existing capacity, alternatives to detention, or other estate options would not be sufficient. This is especially important because the proposal would involve permanent development on protected land. Because the site is on Green Belt land, this failure to show need is especially serious. If the Home Office has not proved that more detention places are needed, it has not shown that the harm to protected land is justified. I am also concerned that key information has been withheld or redacted, including information about layout, transport, lighting, landscaping and how the site would operate. This makes it difficult for the public to understand the real impact of the proposal. Immigration detention causes serious harm to people detained there, and the effects are felt by families, communities, legal and advice services, health services and local people. Expanding Campsfield would have serious human and community consequences. For these reasons, I ask that the application is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, I ask that it is examined through a full public inquiry. Yours faithfully, Griff Ferris