Back to list

Date submitted

24 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Formal Objection to Proposed Crown Development for the expansion to Campsfield House I am writing to formally object to the above‑referenced planning application. While I acknowledge the special procedures afforded under Crown Development Rights, these do not remove the applicant’s responsibility to provide transparent, current evidence, nor do they override the duty to safeguard the wellbeing, privacy, and safety of neighbouring residents. Lack of Transparency and Inadequate Consultation: The level of redaction throughout the submitted documents is extraordinary and has made it virtually impossible for residents to understand the true scale, visual impact, and operational consequences of the proposal. Although “national security” is cited, the extent of secrecy applied to structures positioned directly beside residential boundaries is disproportionate and prevents meaningful public participation. The consultation process has also been wholly inadequate. A development of this magnitude demands clear, accessible information and genuine engagement with the community it will permanently affect. The absence of unredacted, up‑to‑date material has deprived me of my right to fairly assess how this proposal will impact my home and daily life. Reliance on Outdated Evidence and Baselines: The surveys, photographic evidence, traffic assessments, and environmental data rely on outdated information that no longer reflects current conditions. Since Phase 1 was completed, traffic congestion, environmental pressures, and local road behaviour have changed significantly. It is procedurally unsound to claim that adding 267 parking spaces will have “little impact” when the data used to justify this statement is years out of date. A proposal of this scale requires fresh, independent traffic impact assessments and updated baseline studies. Without them, neither the public nor decision‑makers have a sound basis for evaluation. Severe Loss of Privacy and Residential Amenity: The proposed two‑storey gatehouse will sit directly opposite my home. For over 30 years, I have had an open, unoverlooked aspect. This building would create a direct, intrusive line of sight into my primary living space. This is not a minor change — it is a profound and unacceptable invasion of privacy. It is also unclear why a gatehouse must be positioned opposite residential properties when other, more suitable areas of the site exist. The associated lighting from the expanded car park will produce glare and light pollution directly into my windows, further eroding the quiet enjoyment of my home. Highway Safety and Traffic Generation: Local roads are already heavily congested. We frequently cannot turn right out of our road due to traffic queues, and this development will make an already difficult situation significantly worse. Phase 1 suffered from severely inadequate directional signage, resulting in heavy‑duty lorries mistakenly entering our private road. Expanding the site without resolving these existing hazards is dangerous and irresponsible. There is also a nursery within 200 metres of the proposed buildings. Without updated traffic flow and speed data, the safety of children, parents, and pedestrians at the proposed crossing cannot be guaranteed. Operational Harm, Night‑Time Noise, and Phase 1 Experience: At the initial public consultation in person, home office officials stated that transfers may occur overnight to “minimise traffic.” This simply shifts the burden onto residents in the form of sleep disturbance and night‑time operational noise — entirely incompatible with a residential setting. My experience during Phase 1 demonstrates exactly what this means in practice. The noise was relentless. Contractors worked seven days a week, including bank holidays, often from before 7:00am. For someone who works from home, this was deeply distressing and wholly unacceptable. The thought of enduring this again, on an even larger scale, is extremely worrying. Conclusion: The completion of Phase 1 has already had a significant negative impact on my mental health. The prospect of a further, more intrusive expansion — without transparency, without current evidence, and without meaningful mitigation — is overwhelming. The cumulative harm from severe loss of privacy, unmitigated traffic impacts, night‑time noise, highway safety risks, and the proximity to a nursery makes this proposal unsustainable in its current form. I strongly urge the Planning Authority and the Planning Inspectorate to refuse this application. The Crown’s objectives must not come at the expense of the wellbeing, safety, and fundamental privacy of long‑standing residents.