Back to list

Date submitted

24 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 am responding as an Oxford resident concerned about the planned expansion of Campsfield. I object for the following reasons. Green Belt harm Campsfield is built on Green Belt land, an area that is meant to be kept 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. I am concerned that all these elements would affect and harm the openness of the Green Belt, going against its intended purposes. I also worry that increasing development would cause significant environmental damage. The Home Office has claimed that the site should be treated as “grey belt”, arguing that Green Belt restrictions should apply differently here. However, this does not mean that the land has stopped being Green Belt, nor that the development should be automatically 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. I am also concerned about the wider Langford Lane Green Belt context, including the remaining open gap between Kidlington and Begbroke. Cherwell District Council has previously raised concerns about nearby Green Belt development in the Langford Lane / A44 area, including concerns about unrestricted sprawl and the coalescence of Kidlington and Begbroke. I think similar concerns should be properly considered here, alongside the scale, height and intensity of the proposed Campsfield expansion. The Planning Inspectorate should carefully assess the implications that the expansion could have on the Green Belt land, as well as require the Home Office to show clearly which parts of the site are already developed, which parts remain open, and how the new buildings, fencing, parking, lighting and hardstanding would affect the openness of the Green Belt. The need for expansion has not been properly shown The Home Office has claimed that the expansion of Campsfield is necessary for national interest. However, this has not been sufficiently justified. The statement in fact 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. There is data suggesting that many IRC across the UK are not at full capacity. By the end of March 2026, there were 651 unused spaces in IRCs. Further, evidence shows that a significant number of people detained do not meet the criteria for incarceration, and are released back into the community - going against the stated aims of detention. These elements seem to contradict the claim that expanding Campsfield is an urgent and necessary course of action. It is important to fully justify development projects - particularly if harmful and avoidable. The Home Office should explain why Campsfield in particular should be expanded, and why other alternatives to detention - which would be less costly and harmful - are not being considered. This matters because the Home Office is relying on claimed need to justify development that would otherwise cause serious planning harm, including harm to Green Belt land. 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. Harms of detention Lastly, the Planning Inspectorate should consider the human dimension of the expansion. Detention causes serious and long-lasting damage, inflicting physical and mental harms, causing traumas, and tearing families and communities apart. Many people also continue to suffer after their release, being destabilised and without adequate support. This has been extensively emphasised in Sir Stephen Shaw’s 2016 and 2018 Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons, which illustrates the ways in which detention is a harmful and costly practice. In the past, there have been, within Campsfield, multiple cases of mass hunger strikes, self harm, and even suicides due to the harsh conditions in the IRC. Inquiries into detention centres (such as the Brook House Public Inquiry and the Report on conditions and treatment at Harmondsworth IRC) have also revealed the frequent mistreatment and abuse of detainees, and the degrading, dehumanising, and poor standards of these places. I understand that the Planning Inspectorate’s decision will focus on material planning considerations, but this representation is also part of the public record. Humanitarian concerns are relevant, valid and should be recorded. The Planning Inspectorate should consider that the expansion is not merely a planning issue, but also has important and damaging repercussions on people’s lives. Request for refusal and public inquiry For these reasons, I object to the application, and ask that it is refused. If not refused, I ask that the Planning Inspectorate carries out a full public inquiry to examine the application after the consultation closes. A public inquiry would allow the Home Office’s case to be scrutinised in public and the evidence to be properly tested before any decision is made. Yours faithfully, Rebecca Valerio 24 July 2026