Back to list

Date submitted

12 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

As a local County and District Councillor for Kidlington, I strongly object to the proposed expansion of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre through the provision of an additional 240 detention places. This proposal conflicts with the development plan, undermines the strategic planning vision for the area, fails to demonstrate a proven operational need, and would have significant adverse impacts on the future economic, transport and environmental objectives for North Oxford. It also raises serious concerns regarding the social consequences of expanding a form of detention that has been shown to cause significant harm while offering limited public benefit. In detail my objections fall into 7 main categories as follows : 1. Failure to Demonstrate Need The application provides no convincing evidence that additional immigration detention capacity is required. Government statistics show substantial unused capacity within the existing immigration detention estate, calling into question the justification for constructing a further 240 places at Campsfield. Furthermore, a significant proportion of those leaving detention are released into the community rather than removed from the UK, raising legitimate questions about the effectiveness and necessity of expanding detention capacity. Without robust evidence of operational need, little weight should be attached to the claimed national importance of this proposal. 2. Conflict with the Adopted Planning Strategy The site occupies a strategically important location within Oxfordshire's principal innovation and employment corridor, adjacent to Begbroke Innovation District, Oxford Technology Park and the Langford Lane employment area. The Cherwell Local Plan identifies this area for research, technology, innovation and high-value employment. Expanding a secure immigration detention facility is fundamentally incompatible with that long-term vision and conflicts directly with Policies SLE1 and Kidlington 1. Rather than supporting economic growth, the proposal risks discouraging inward investment by introducing a controversial custodial use into an area specifically intended to attract internationally competitive businesses. 3. Conflict with National Planning Policy The National Planning Policy Framework requires planning decisions to support sustainable development, productivity and economic growth. This proposal neither contributes to the area's economic strategy nor represents the type of development envisaged for one of Oxfordshire's key innovation districts. Instead, it sterilises strategically important land for a use that offers limited economic benefit while potentially damaging the reputation and attractiveness of the surrounding employment area. 4. Transport and Infrastructure The cumulative impacts of this proposal have not been properly assessed alongside the substantial growth already planned in the surrounding area, including major housing developments, the expansion of Begbroke Innovation District, Oxford Technology Park and the proposed Oxford United Stadium. The additional staff, contractor, visitor and operational traffic generated by the enlarged facility conflicts with the objectives of the Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan, which seeks to reduce unnecessary vehicle movements, encourage sustainable travel and support employment-led growth. 5. Inadequate Information Significant elements of the application, including operational information and parts of the transport assessment, remain heavily redacted. This prevents local authorities, consultees and residents from properly assessing the proposal and undermines meaningful public participation in the planning process. Planning permission should not be granted where essential information required to assess impacts has not been made available. 6. Human Impacts and Limited Public Benefit While this application concerns land use rather than immigration policy, the planning system must still consider whether the public benefits of the development outweigh its adverse impacts. The Government has not demonstrated that expanding detention at Campsfield is either necessary or the most effective means of managing asylum and immigration cases. At the same time, the United Kingdom continues to provide very limited safe and legal routes for many people seeking asylum. Consequently, many individuals detained in facilities such as Campsfield have fled war, persecution or exploitation and have had little realistic alternative to the journeys that brought them here. Independent reviews commissioned by successive Governments have consistently found that immigration detention can cause severe harm to mental and physical health. Prolonged detention has been associated with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, self-harm and a deterioration in physical wellbeing, particularly among individuals who have already experienced significant trauma. As a country with a proud heritage of providing sanctuary to people in the circumstances, we should not be expanding these sorts of facilities. Moreover Oxford and Oxfordshire have been declared areas of sanctuary. This facility runs contrary to those aspirations. The previous operation of Campsfield House demonstrated these concerns in practice. During its years as an Immigration Removal Centre the facility experienced repeated disturbances, hunger strikes, acts of self-harm, fires, escapes and sustained protests both inside and outside the centre. It became the focus of long-running community concern and was ultimately closed in 2018 after years of controversy. The application provides little evidence that the underlying causes of those problems have been addressed or that similar issues will not arise again. Expanding the facility increases the likelihood of continued protest activity, operational disruption and adverse impacts on neighbouring businesses, residents and the wider community. These significant social harms substantially reduce the weight that should be attached to the claimed public benefits of the proposal, particularly when community-based alternatives to detention have previously been shown to be both more effective and more humane. 7. Strong Local Opposition This proposal continues to attract exceptionally broad and sustained opposition from local councils, community organisations, residents and elected representatives. Cherwell District Council, Oxfordshire County Council, Oxford City Council, parish councils, the local Member of Parliament and councillors from across the area have all expressed opposition to the reopening and expansion of Campsfield. That widespread and enduring opposition reflects the incompatibility of this proposal with the future vision for the area. Conclusion For all of these reasons, the proposed expansion : • Conflicts with Policies Kidlington 1, SLE1, ESD1, ESD13 and ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan • Conflicts with the Oxfordshire Local Transport and Connectivity Plan • Conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework's objectives for sustainable development, economic growth, design and sustainable transport • Fails to demonstrate a clear operational need • Is supported by insufficient information to enable a proper planning assessment • Would facilitate the unnecessary expansion of a form of detention whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated, whose human costs are well documented, and whose previous operation at Campsfield resulted in significant harm, controversy and disruption. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Secretary of State refuse planning permission for the proposed expansion of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre. Should the Secretary of State not be minded to refuse the application, I request that it be referred to a full public inquiry before any determination is made. I would request the opportunity to speak at any such inquiry.