CROWN/2026/0000004 Hannah Graham
- Date submitted
- 13 July 2026
- Submitted by
- Interested party
I am responding to this consultation as a member of the public concerned about green belt protection, accountability, and the use of public money to fund dangerous and unnecessary immigration detention. I object because tripling the floor space and enormously increasing the height/impact of a site on green belt land is clearly inappropriate. In order to justify the use of so-called "grey belt" land, the Home Office must demonstrate there's a clear unmet need, which I do not believe it is the case that any such need is sufficient to outweigh the damage that would be done by this expansion. Whilst I understand that this planning process cannot concern itself with migration policy, the longstanding public evidence of the harm done by immigration and of the positive impact of alternatives to detention are relevant here because they undermine the case that 240 more detention places are sufficiently needed to justify building on the green belt. The UNHCR's 2023 Alternatives to Detention pilot, for example, provides clear evidence of cheaper, better value alternatives to detention which allow people access to the support they need without any reduction in compliance with Home Office directives. Hence there is clear evidence that more immigration detention beds are not needed, and the public is far better served with alternatives to detention. Around 56% of people held in immigration detention are released back into the community in the UK: it's clear, therefore, that these are people who could safely be in the community and are eventually released into it, undermining the case that immigration detention spaces are necessary. Whilst this planning process will not be determined based on the harm by immigration detention, the public record of objections to this application should also note the huge humanitarian concerns raised by the expansion of detention. These include trauma, fear, family separation, lack of access to legal support, and the destitution often faced by people on their release from detention, when they may have lost their homes and any sense of stability. The application also conflicts with local planning priorities. The area around Langford Lane, London Oxford Airport, Oxford Technology Park and Begbroke Science Park is identified for high-value employment and economic growth: this should mean scientific advancement, technology, business creation, innovation etc. Detention jobs are not such jobs. These are jobs with a high stress rate and high turnover. They involve treating other people in inherently dehumanising ways, and hence are often also dehumanising to the staff involved. They are not highly skilled roles and the number of jobs created by the expansion would be limited to the finite numbers needed to staff the centre, they would not drive wider prosperity for the area. For all of these reasons, this application should be refused. If it is not refused, a public inquiry by the Planning Inspectorate would be the most appropriate way for evidence to be properly scrutinsed, this is an important development and a plan of major public significance which cannot be properly addressed by written submissions alone. The public should also be provided with proper details of layout, design, lighting, transport, drainage, landscape and visual impact, and how the site would operate. Much of this information is currently redacted which means the public are not able to properly assess this plan. In particular, information about transport must be provided: traffic, access, parking and construction traffic are central planning issues, especially in an area already experiencing significant pressures from developments. This is not an ordinary planning application, it does not seek to create infrastructure for the community but a tool of harm to vulnerable people: it deserves thorough scrutiny.