Back to list

Date submitted

24 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I work in an office round the corner from Campsfield House IRC and wish to object to the expansion development proposed (the reference number: CROWN/2026/0000004). I oppose this as a local person who has grave concerns about the serious and lasting harm to detained individuals, when they are separated from support networks, hold limited freedom and agency, lack legal advice and sufficient health care provision, all whilst being held in detention for an unlimited period of time. This affects the individuals, often vulnerable people who have recently been through traumatic experiences, during their detention, and continues to affect them even after release. The impacts of detentions therefore affect local communities, with charities, volunteers, faith groups, and other community responses, left responding to the traumatising experiences these individuals have faced. To increase the capacity of Campsfield House only seeks to increase these negative outcomes, and the affect on local people. Asylum Welcome and local faith groups are fantastic at supporting local refugees and asylum seekers, but they are already stretched and lack capacity and vital funding to expand their provision. I have been involved with asylum seeker and refugee support, and see the alarming impact that people's experiences have on their community integration and wellbeing. I have also seen how the Homes for Ukraine scheme and Community Sponsorship has been hugely successful for supporting community integration and community cohesion, whereas holding large numbers of people based on their immigration status often causes community concern and poor outcomes for detained individuals. My colleague was a chaplain at Campsfield before it closed in 2019, and has told me how individuals who were subject to torture by the Taliban were being held indefinitely, and individuals that had lived in the UK their whole life and run local businesses were also being held, unable to get the support they needed and separated from family. People were distressed, many were on hunger strike because of conditions and lack of support, and some even took their own lives. I think that detention harm should be part of the public record. Morally and ethically, I cannot see this expansion as humanely justifiable. As someone who is part of local faith groups, the holding and treatment of people in detention centres like Campsfield is in high opposition of my values of humanity dignity, and care and compassion for the most vulnerable. I believe it is an abuse of the Home Office's power. "How a society treats its most vulnerable is always the measure of its humanity." From a planning perspective, Campsfield House is on Green Belt land, which is intended to prevent urban sprawl, and harm to the natural area. I deeply care about the environmental impacts of expanding this site, removing green space, and increasing light, sound, and traffic pollution. It will also contribute to decreased rain absorption and therefore affect local drainage. I'm already aware that Kidlington's traffic is going to increase due to the new Oxford City Football club stadium being built nearby. Some of the proposed developments are for buildings that are taller than others already in the area. The Campsfield site is not a 'grey belt' area of land, although the Home Office is trying to argue it is - there has yet to be proof that the site meets the grey belt definition, proof that the expansion does not undermine the wider Green belt, and that the harm to the Green Belt is justified. There is already sufficient pressure from nearby development, including businesses, the science park, airport-related, and housing development. I travel to work via Langford Lane, which is already congested in both directions and the tarmac has been affected by the traffic - more traffic will only make this worse. This suggests that there will be a cumulative impact of this combined with the Campsfield House expansion. The Home Office is yet to sufficiently show that more detention places are needed - ie that there is an unmet need. This indicates that the damage to the Green Belt is not justified. Public information does not provide answers why 240 extra places are needed at Campsfield (more than doubling the existing number of places). The Home Office have not yet explained why Campsfield is the right location, and what alternatives have been considered. This matters because the proposed developments rely on claims that this is justified expansion. Additionally, important information has been withheld or redacted from plans, which means local people and community groups are unable to understand the real impact of the proposals, such as on information about the layout, design, lighting, transport, drainage, visual impact, and how the site will operate. 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. My strong feeling is that the Home Office should be seeking to process asylum seekers and others subject to immigration controls more efficiently so that people are not needing to be held in centres like Campsfield, especially not for extended periods of time. People should be supported in communities, not detained together in a large site, for unlimited periods. Recently, my partners met someone who was working for an agency and had been working in food provision temporarily for Campsfield House. They spoke negatively of the people in the detention centre, and were not local to the Oxford area. They had been staying a city centre hotel in order to work at Campsfield House. This does not support the argument that jobs for local people are being created, if local people are not being employed even before the site's expansion. Additionally, these are not going to be high-value employment opportunities, but I anticipate many jobs will be paid minimum wage, and not be a pleasant working environment. The Home Office should not be allowed to rely on job creation as a justification for the site's expansion because it does not fit with the local economic strategy. I therefore implore the planning committee to deny the application. If it is not refused at this stage, I believe it should be examined through a full public enquiry once the consultation closes. With thanks for your consideration, ██████ 24/07/26