Back to list

Date submitted

2 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, increasing its capacity from 160 to 400. I am responding as someone who has lived in Oxfordshire all my life and who works with people seeking sanctuary across the county. I care deeply about the character of Oxfordshire, the protection of its Green Belt, and the values of compassion, fairness and public accountability that should underpin decisions of this significance. I object for the following reasons. a) Campsfield is located within the Oxford Green Belt, where development should preserve openness and prevent urban sprawl. The proposed expansion would fundamentally change the scale and character of the site. It would introduce substantial new accommodation blocks of up to sixteen metres in height—far taller than the existing buildings—together with additional parking, fencing, lighting, hardstanding and security infrastructure. Collectively, these changes would make the site significantly more built-up and reduce the openness that Green Belt policy is intended to protect. The Home Office argues that the site should be regarded as "grey belt". However, this name change does not remove the protections afforded by national planning policy, nor does it lessen the requirement to demonstrate that inappropriate development is clearly justified. I am also concerned about the cumulative impact of development along the Langford Lane corridor and the continuing erosion of the open land separating Kidlington and Begbroke. Cherwell District Council has previously recognised the importance of maintaining this gap, and I believe those concerns remain highly relevant. b) The need for expansion has not been demonstrated. Why does Campsfield need another 240 detention places? The Home Office relies on broad assertions about future demand and operational resilience, yet it has not provided sufficient evidence for the public to assess those claims properly. In particular, I do not believe it has adequately explained: • why existing immigration detention capacity is insufficient; • what alternatives to detention have been considered. These questions are fundamental. Without convincing evidence that such a significant expansion is genuinely required, the planning case remains incomplete. c) The application does not provide enough evidence about the impact that a detention centre of this scale would have on the surrounding area. I am concerned about the cumulative effects on roads, traffic, parking, drainage, noise, lighting, biodiversity and local infrastructure. These impacts should be considered alongside the considerable development already taking place around Langford Lane, Oxford Airport, Begbroke Science Park and neighbouring sites. I am particularly concerned that information relating to transport and other operational matters has been heavily redacted. While some information may legitimately be withheld for security reasons, the public should still have enough information to understand the planning implications of a proposal of this scale. d) The surrounding area has been identified for science, technology, research and high-value employment. While the Home Office refers to employment opportunities associated with the development, I do not believe this alone demonstrates that the proposal aligns with the long-term planning vision for the area or with the adopted development plan. The Planning Inspectorate should consider carefully whether this proposal genuinely supports the objectives for this part of Oxfordshire. e) Major elements of the application have been withheld or heavily redacted, including information relating to layout, transport, landscaping, lighting and operational arrangements. I understand that some security-sensitive information may need protection. However, this cannot justify preventing the public from understanding the planning consequences of a proposal that would more than double the size of an immigration detention centre. This concern is particularly important because the application is being considered through the Crown Development process rather than the normal local planning route. That makes openness and transparency all the more essential. This proposal is not ordinary infrastructure. It is a proposal to more than double the size of an immigration detention centre on protected Green Belt land. Immigration detention has profound and often devastating consequences for the people who experience it. Those consequences extend well beyond the barbed wire fence. Families, legal representatives, charities, health services, faith groups, volunteers and local communities are often left responding to the effects of detention, including distress, safeguarding concerns and release into homelessness or destitution. Through my work supporting people seeking sanctuary in Oxfordshire, I have seen how uncertainty and detention affect people's wellbeing and their ability to rebuild their lives. While I understand that this application will ultimately be determined on planning grounds, these wider humanitarian impacts form part of the public interest and reinforce the need for the closest possible scrutiny. For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask the Planning Inspectorate to refuse application CROWN/2026/0000004. If the application is not refused, I ask that it proceeds to a full public inquiry. A public inquiry would allow the Home Office's case to be examined openly and tested rigorously before any decision is made. Yours faithfully,