Back to list

Date submitted

19 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Relevant application reference: CROWN/2026/0000004 I object to the expansion of Campsfield Detention Centre. I am concerned about both the irreparable harms caused by immigration detention, and the encroachment upon Green Belt land. Immigration detention causes serious harm to detainees, and their families, communities, and local health and legal services are left with the consequences and to pick up the pieces. Detainees are often incarcerated for excessively long periods of time, only for most to be released back into the community, with their dignity, health, and safety compromised for no justifiable reason. This has been proven by multiple reports over the years, as multiple third-party reports as well as the 'AIUK [Amnesty International UK] response to consultation on extension of Campsfield immigration removal centre' (2026) has shown. This arbitrary and needless suffering is both wasteful of government resources and unacceptable on humanitarian grounds, and definitely does not justify the idea that expansion of detention practices and sites as 'nationally important'—which means the proposed developments surrounding Campsfield should not be allowed to go through via the Crown Development Route. 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. In addition, Campsfield is on Green Belt land, which is meant to be protected from unnecessary development, a protection that the expansion of Campsfield would violate. I am concerned that the expansion would harm the openness of the Green Belt and further urbanise the Langford Lane / A44 corridor. Local Green Belt land plays such an important role in sustaining a sense of place, but also in contributing to climate resilience, maintaining biodiversity, and even storing carbon, all of which is increasingly important in a world threatened by climate change (an issue particularly relevant given the recent wildfires and heatwaves in the UK.) The Home Office must properly show why expansion of Campsfield is necessary in order to justify erosion of Green Belt land, or the development can not and must not go forward. 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. 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. I am unlikely to be able to attend a hearing.