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 not currently local to Oxford, but I have strong connections to the area as a former member of the University. I am currently a a volunteer support worker with migrants, refugees, and people seeking asylum. I object for the reasons that follow: It has not been explained why 240 extra detention places are needed at Campsfield. No evidence has been offered to the public for the Home Office's claims about projected demand. The Home Office needs 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, including harm to Green Belt land. 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. On this basis, the expansion should not be approved. Campsfield is on Green Belt land. This means that it is meant to be protected from unnecessary development. The proposed expansion would undoubtedly make the site more built-up and less open, adding large new accommodation blocks, up to 16 metres tall, compared with the tallest existing building at 9.4 metres. It would also add more parking, fencing, lighting, hardstanding and security infrastructure. The Home Office’s argument that the site should be treated as “grey belt” 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. This has not been clearly shown. Expansion would harm the openness of the Green Belt and further urbanise the Langford Lane / A44 corridor. I am also concerned about the wider Langford Lane Green Belt context, including the remaining open gap between Kidlington and Begbroke. 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. Similar concerns should be considered here, alongside the scale, height and intensity of the proposed Campsfield expansion. The Planning Inspectorate should require the Home Office to show clearly which parts of the site are already developed, which parts remain open, and how the new buildings, fencing, parking, lighting and hardstanding would affect the openness of the Green Belt. Immigration detention causes serious harm to the people held there. The effects of that harm do 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, destitution, emergency support needs, removal, protest and public concern. In my work supporting members of my local community, I see how the harm caused by immigration detention impacts people's lives. The threat of detention causes serious mental health issues and the trauma of being detained continues to impact families as they attempt to rebuild their lives. The application does not properly address this harm or the wider impact of expanding detention capacity at Campsfield. 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. Yours faithfully, Naoise Murphy