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. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000004. I am writing as a representative of Oxford Student Action for Refugees. We are a local community group concerned with the proposed expansion for the following reasons. We are concerned that the expansion would harm the openness of the Green Belt and further urbanise the Langford Lane / A44 corridor. Campsfield House is on Green Belt land which should be kept open and protected from unnecessary development. On the contrary, the Home Office proposes to build up the existing site significantly. The new accommodation blocks could reach 16 metres from the existing highest block of 9.4 metres. The amount of floorspace on the site would almost triple, increasing from 5,790 sq. m. to 16,337 sq. m. 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. We think similar concerns should be properly considered with the proposed Campsfield expansion. Insufficient information has been provided with regards to layout, landscaping and how the site would operate. We understand that some of this information needs to be withheld for security reasons but, at the same time, without this information, we are unable to understand the truest impact of the proposal on our community and on the local environment. The Planning Inspectorate should not approve a major expansion of a detention centre on Green Belt land without proper public scrutiny. The Home Office’s main argument is that the land should be classified as Grey Belt. This does not mean that the land is no longer Green Belt and the burden of proof remains with the Home Office to demonstrate that the development meets the Grey Belt definition. Instead, it has demonstrably failed to argue that this expansion is a necessary and positive contribution to the local environment. The Home Office has failed to demonstrate the necessity of more than doubling the detention places as opposed to maintaining the existing capacity or opting for alternatives to detention. In March 2026, the Home Office issued a statement of ‘national importance’ which promoted expansion, arguing that “insufficient detention capacity is a critical bottleneck in the immigration system” and that a failure to secure this development would threaten national security. Nowhere does the Home Office explain what drew them to these conclusions. The Home Office overlooks any attempt to consider alternatives to immigration detention or to explain why a significant expansion, rather than a maintenance of detention spaces, is necessary to these ends. In reality, there are many valid researched criticisms of immigration detention including the fact that a substantial proportion of those detained end up being released back into the community, completely undermining the argued need for detention in the first place. Immigration detention actively harms the people held there, and this harm has ramifications beyond the facility’s fence. Community groups (such as Oxford Student Action for Refugees), public services, faith groups, local residents and local authorities are then left to shoulder the consequences of detention, including distress, safeguarding concerns, destitution, emergency support needs, removal, protest and public concern. The Home Office has thus failed to justify the need for, and the human harm of, additional detention spaces, and so by extension has failed to justify the harm this development would cause to protected Green Belt Land. 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. As the Home Office has not shown that more detention spaces are needed, it has not shown that development in the Green Belt is justified. We therefore object to the planning 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 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, Oxford Student Action for Refugees.