Back to list

Date submitted

22 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

CROWN/ 2026/0000004 reference. I believe it is the duty of government to make a coherent and evidence-based case for building and running new detention facilities. I believe that it has not done so in this application. Detaining people in immigration and detention centres is inhumane, costly, and under productive. The majority of people who are detained are later let out on bail. Caging people up leads to deterioration in their mental health and well being. Extensive evidence, which has been accepted by successive governments, demonstrates that immigration detention harms people’s mental health, that the harm grows with the length of detention, and contnues well after their release. When Campsfield was previously used, it 4 led to hunger strikes, breakouts, disturbances, arson and suicides (including under Mite, the same company that has been re-appointed to run the centre). Inhumane conditons have repeatedly been found by inspectors in all other existing immigration detention centres, some of them also managed by Mi e. 5 If suffering recurs at Campsfield its stain will again damage the area as a whole and the people living and working there. The area will be the site of frequent public protests. The government’s own data (latest March 2026 ) on returns and on the use of detention capacity offers no support for the government's case for removing a 'roadblock' to its policy. There were 651 places empty (out of 2356 actual beds, more than a quarter) in the IRC ‘estate’ in March 2026. On investigation of the area I believe that the expansion of Campsfield House conflicts with local and national visions of this area as part of a thriving science, innovaion and business district within the Oxford-Cambridge corridor. The land adjoining Langford Lane was released from the Green Belt in the Cherwell District Local Plan Partial Review 2020. The raionale for the Review was to focus on facilitating high-value employment and economic growth, particularly through the development of the Oxford Technology Park. This area, often referred to in the context of the Cherwell Local Plan Partial Review, has seen significant, yet controversial, development on former Green Belt land near the airport and Begbroke Science Park, aimed at aligning with the district’s housing and job needs. The Campsfield expansion would be sited in the heart of this area designated for high-value employment in the digital, life sciences, and engineering sectors. That is not the type of employment that would be offered by a high security custodial institution like this. There is much in the noise coming from government about new opportunities in technology and innovation. The presence of a detention camp in this high value area seems to contradict this ambition. There will be extra demand on local health infrastructure such as GP's and hospitals. Has consideration been given to the extra strain on existing utility services- I believe that this information has been 'hidden' from the public. In short the use of any detention centre is appalling, the expansion of this process is a blight on the British sense of compassion. It very much sounds like a sop to the Far Right. Babs Gwynne