Back to list

Date submitted

15 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing to object to the Home Office’s proposal to expand Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre by 240 places, from 160 to 400 places. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000004. I write on behalf of Scottish Detainee Visitors, which provides a visiting service to people detained in Dungavel IRC in South Lanarkshire and, along with our partners. argues for detention reform. We are the only organisation in Scotland that focuses on detention and the only charity to visit people detained in Dungavel every week. As such, we understand the impact of immigration detention on the people affected and have an interest in its use across the UK. People detained by the immigration service are frequently moved around the detention estate, meaning that SDV staff and volunteers support people who have been moved from, or will be moved to, detention centres in other parts of the country, including Campsfield. We object to the expansion on the following grounds: The need for expansion has not been adequately explained The Home Office has not clearly explained why 240 extra detention places are needed, and needed at Campsfield, on Green Belt land. It relies on broad claims about projected demand, immigration enforcement priorities and resilience across the detention estate, but the public cannot properly test the evidence behind those claims. The Home Office should be required to explain: · why existing detention capacity is inadequate; · what alternatives have been considered, and why they have been rejected; · why the expansion has to happen at Campsfield; · why permanent development on Green Belt land is justified. If the need for more detention places has not been properly evidenced, the Home Office has not shown that the harm to the Green Belt is justified. The expansion should not be approved. Humanitarian concerns Immigration detention causes serious harm. There is a large and growing body of academic and policy research supporting this position. Further, as visitors to people in detention, Scottish Detainee Visitors witness every week the impact that it has on the people affected. We see otherwise healthy people deteriorate before our eyes under the strain of indefinite immigration detention and the separation from friends, family and other sources of support that it entails. The impacts are not only on the people who are detained. Couples are broken up and children are separated from their parents. Families, legal representatives, charities like ours, health and advice services, faith groups, local residents and local authorities are often left responding to the consequences of detention. These include distress, release into hardship, homelessness and destitution, safeguarding concerns, destitution, emergency support needs, removal, protest and public concern. The application does not properly address this harm or the wider impact of expanding detention capacity at Campsfield. We understand that the Planning Inspectorate’s decision will focus on material planning considerations, but humanitarian concerns are valid and should be recorded, especially where they reinforce the need for full scrutiny of a development of this scale and sensitivity. This proposal is not ordinary infrastructure. It is a major expansion of a detention centre, where people are deprived of their liberty without time limit and without judicial oversight. It should receive the closest possible scrutiny. Other issues We are also concerned that: · the effect of this proposal on local infrastructure is not fully explored. The proposal more than doubles the capacity of Campsfield and the application does not provide enough evidence about the impact of this on the local area. · the fact that key information has been withheld or redacted, including details of the layout, transport, lighting, landscaping and how the site would operate. This makes it extremely difficult for the public to understand the full impact of the proposal and therefore to respond fully to the consultation. Request for refusal and public inquiry For these reasons, we object to the application and ask that it is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, we ask the Planning Inspectorate to examine the application through a full public inquiry after the consultation closes. A public inquiry would allow the Home Office’s case to be scrutinised and the evidence to be properly tested before any decision is made. Yours faithfully,