Back to list

Date submitted

28 June 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Good evening, I am writing in response to the Government's planning application to expand Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre (CROWN/2026/0000004) In 2025, despite opposition from communities, local authorities and MPs, the government reopened Campsfield House, near Kidlington, as an immigration removal centre for up to 160 men. And despite the opposition at that time, the Home Office has now applied for planning permission to expand the facility to 400 places. The system of using detention centres such as Campsfield seems inhumane. It incarcerates people who have not been tried or found guilty or any crime. Seeking asylum is not in itself a crime but is a human right under international law. Welfare standards at the detention centre have been notoriously poor and evidence shows how it has impacted the mental health of detainees, most of who will have gone through extreme trauma before arriving in the UK. As well as considerations on grounds of humanity, there are clear planning reasons why the application should be refused. 1. The new University Technology Park extends right up to the fences of the detention centre. It seems inappropriate to have these adjacent uses, particularly given the height of the fences of the centre. 2. Development has been allowed in this green-belt area specifically for high-value employment. By no stretch of the imagination do jobs at Campsfield meet this criteria. They are generally low level security jobs provided by contractors such as Mitie who do not have a reputation for good employment practices. 3. The application documents say the land proposed for the expansion has been previously developed - it has not. 4. The application documents have redactions in relation to floor plans and the traffic assessment. This impedes the ability for the public to fully scrutinise and respond adequately to the proposals. We can only assume that there will be considerable traffic generation, presumably at all hours as detainees are brought in. 5. The visual impact of the development with its high walls would seem inappropriate to the area. 6. Despite the huge significance of the proposed development and the fact that all relevant local elected councils, including the planning authority Cherwell, have made it quite clear that Oxfordshire people do not want this expansion, there has been no public inquiry, I urge you to reject this planning application. Regards, Caroline Raine