Back to list

Date submitted

23 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Objection to Campsfield House IRC expansion, CROWN/2026/0000004 Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing to 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 responding as a concerned community member. I am highly concerned about the welfare of migrants, as someone who is involved in migrant support, who is a mental health advocate, and who cares about people. I am also concerned about the misuse of green belt land, which is essential to the wellbeing of everybody in the UK. To explain further, I object for the following reasons. Green Belt harm Campsfield is on Green Belt land. Green Belt land is meant to stay open and protected from unnecessary development. The proposed expansion would add 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. 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”. Grey belt is a category within the Green Belt. 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 am concerned that the 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. I think similar concerns should be properly 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. I have recently watched the People's Emergency Briefing, which details the imminent threat to the UK from all aspects of climate change. It is very clear that we must use our green land carefully, restoring and rewilding it. The UK is in the top ten most nature-depleted countries, and we depend on nature for clean air, sustenance, pollination, biodiversity, mental and physical wellbeing, and much, much more. To destroy this land further, especially during this time of crisis, is criminal. The need for expansion has not been properly shown 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, 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. The expansion should not be approved. Local infrastructure and environmental impact The application does not provide enough evidence about the impact of a much larger detention centre on the local area. I am concerned about the effect on roads, traffic, access, parking, sewage and drainage, flood risk, emergency services, wildlife, biodiversity, and landscape, again, considering that we are in a climate crisis. The UK's own security experts have recently named ecological collapse an urgent national security threat. This plan will accelerate that threat. The Planning Inspectorate should consider these impacts alongside other planned and permitted development in the area, not look at Campsfield in isolation. The local area is already facing major development pressures, including housing, business and innovation development, and other large projects. The redaction of transport information is especially concerning because traffic, access, parking and construction traffic are central planning issues. The public needs enough information to understand how the expansion would affect the local road network and local infrastructure. Redacted and withheld information Important information has been withheld or redacted. This includes material about layout, design, lighting, transport, drainage, landscape and visual impact, and how the site would operate. Some security-sensitive information may need to be protected, but the public still needs enough information to understand the planning impacts. The Planning Inspectorate should not approve a major expansion of a detention centre on Green Belt land without proper public scrutiny. The withholding of key information makes it harder for local people, community groups and public bodies to understand the real impact of the proposal. 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. Public scrutiny and human impact 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. 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. I have volunteered in mental health support for several years, following my own experience caring for people with mental health difficulties. When I hear testimonies about how detention centres impact the wellbeing of migrants trapped there, I can't believe that such a system is legal. Many migrants have faced indescribable trauma trying to reach a safer country, to which there are limited safe routes. To think that they have reached such a safe place, to then be thrown into a prison with inadequate food, comforts, privacy, communication, community, access to family or nature, is absolutely devastating. Migrants describe feeling depressed and suicidal - and many act on it. We cannot continue to let this happen, cannot expand a detention centre to trap and torture more people. 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, and the impact of withholding parts of the application from public view. 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. Yours faithfully, Ellie Wright 23/07/2026