Back to list

Date submitted

23 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 the Advocacy Officer at Refugee and Migrant Justice (RMJ), a legal action charity that provides legal representation for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants in the UK. We (RMJ) object for the following reasons. The need for expansion has not been properly shown The Home Office has not clearly explained why 240 extra detention places are needed at Campsfield specifically. 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 IRC capacity is not enough; • what alternatives have been considered; • why the expansion has to happen at Campsfield; • why permanent development on Green Belt land is justified. 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. We are not aware of any transparent, evidenced case for why detention capacity needs to grow, either nationally or at this specific site. Decisions of this scale should not be based on assertions of need that the public and affected communities cannot scrutinise or test. Redacted and withheld information Important information has been withheld or redacted. This includes material about layout, design, lighting, transport, drainage, landscape and visual impact, and how the site would operate. Some security-sensitive information may need to be protected, but the public still needs enough information to understand the planning impacts. The Planning Inspectorate should not approve a major expansion of a detention centre on Green Belt land without proper public scrutiny. The withholding of key information makes it harder for local people, community groups and public bodies to understand the real impact of the proposal. This is especially serious because the Home Office is using the Crown Development route, which removes the decision from ordinary local determination by Cherwell District Council. We are particularly concerned that the Home Office is both the applicant and the body seeking to limit what information the public can see, while using the Crown Development route to bypass local determination. This combination makes independent scrutiny more important, not less, and reinforces our view that withheld information should not be accepted at face value. Public scrutiny and human impact Immigration detention causes serious harm to the people held there. The effects of that harm do not stop at the perimeter fence. Families, legal representatives, community groups, health and advice services, faith groups, local residents and local authorities are often left responding to the consequences of detention, including distress, release into hardship, safeguarding concerns, destitution, emergency support needs, removal, protest and public concern. Detention also rarely serves its purpose, with more than half of people detained under immigration powers ultimately released back into the community anyway. The application does not properly address this harm or the wider impact of expanding detention capacity at Campsfield. 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 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, and it should receive the closest possible scrutiny. Request for refusal and public inquiry For these reasons, I object to the application and ask that it is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, I ask the Planning Inspectorate to examine the application through a full public inquiry after the consultation closes. This application raises serious questions about Green Belt harm, the scale and height of the new buildings, local infrastructure, the evidence for the expansion, and the impact of withholding parts of the application from public view. These issues should not be decided through written representations alone. 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,