Back to list

Date submitted

24 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I am writing to strongly 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 writing as someone who lived in Oxford for 5 years, during this time I was involved with local community groups and had friends involved in supporting migrants in Oxford. Migrants make Oxford what it is, and are invaluable in our community. I was devastated by the reopening of Campsfield, and I am extremely concerned about the proposed expansion. Not only are detention centres cruel and dehumanising they are also unecessary and ineffective. Further, this expansion of Campsfield is proposed on Green Belt land and the power to make decisions about what happens in their own town has been taken away from the local council. Green Belt and environmental harm: The Campsfield site is on Green Belt land. Green Belt land is meant to stay open and protected from unnecessary development. The proposed expansion would be adding large new housing blocks, up to 16 metres tall, more parking, fencing, lighting, hardstanding and security infrastructure. This would make the site more built-up and less open. The Home Office’s main argument is that the site should be treated as “grey belt”, but grey belt is a category within the Green Belt, and it does not mean the land has stopped being Green Belt, and it does not mean development should automatically be 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 have studied Biology for a number of years and I care deeply about protecting our local environment and feel strongly that a development like this just cannot be justified. I am worried about the impact on the local biodiversity and wildlife, and it is particularly concerning that information has been redacted, especially around traffic, access, parking, how the expansion would affect the local road network and local infrastructure, drainage, lighting and landscape. These things will also all impact the local environment and biodiversity, so why are they not public? I understand security-sensitive information may need to be protected, but the public still needs enough information to understand the planning impacts. The expansion is not necessary and detention centres are extremely damaging to people: 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. 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. Immigration detention causes serious harm to the people held there. People are held in dehumanising conditions, with an unknown timeline about when and where they will be sent next and the restriction of basic human rights. I believe detention centres should not exist. They cause huge amounts of harm to peoples health and mental wellbeing that is just not necessary, why are we allowed to treat other human beings like this, regardless of how they entered this country. The harm of these detention centres does 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, emergency support needs, removal, protest and public concern. The application does not properly address this harm or the wider impact of expanding detention capacity at Campsfield. I understand this is not on the surface a planning related issues but this is an important aspect that must be considered when proposing such a huge and costly (for the tax payer) project. 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, the impact of withholding parts of the application from public view, and a lack of analysis of the actual need for expansion and the potential harm it will cause to both people and the environment. 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. If a hearing is scheduled I will likely not be able to attend.