Back to list

Date submitted

9 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I am writing on behalf of Leeds Asylum Seekers’ Support Network to object to the proposed expansion of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000004. LASSN is a Leeds-based charity working with people seeking asylum and refugees. We provide accommodation, hosting, English at Home, Welcome and Connect support, volunteer-led befriending, information, and practical help. We are not based near Campsfield and do not claim local planning knowledge of the site. Our objection is based on what we know directly from our work with people affected by the asylum and immigration system. We understand that the proposal would increase capacity at Campsfield from 160 to 400 places, adding 240 additional detention places. This is not a minor operational change. It is a major expansion of a detention centre, with significant human and community consequences. LASSN objects because the Home Office has not, in our view, shown that this expansion is necessary, proportionate, or justified. From our direct experience, immigration detention causes serious harm. People who have been detained, or who live with the threat of detention, often experience fear, distress, loss of trust, disrupted support, worsening mental health, and increased isolation. Detention can separate people from the communities, advice, health care, legal support and informal relationships that help them stay safe, understand their situation, and make good decisions. These effects do not end when someone leaves detention. Community organisations like LASSN, alongside advice services, health services, faith groups, volunteers, families and friends, are often left trying to support people after they have been harmed by the system. That support can include helping people reconnect with services, find somewhere safe to stay, rebuild confidence, access legal or health advice, and manage the practical and emotional consequences of detention. For that reason, the proposed expansion should not be treated as ordinary infrastructure. It would increase the capacity of a system that has serious consequences for individuals, families, communities and local services. We recognise that the Planning Inspectorate will consider this application through a planning process. For LASSN, the key planning issue is whether the Home Office has properly evidenced the need for an expansion of this scale and sensitivity. In our view, it has not. Before any expansion is considered, the Home Office should be required to explain clearly: why existing detention capacity is not sufficient; why 240 additional places are needed at Campsfield specifically; what alternatives to detention have been considered; why community-based alternatives would not be sufficient; how the human and community impact of detention has been assessed; how people released from detention will be supported safely and appropriately; what additional pressure may fall on health, advice, legal, voluntary and community services as a result of expanded detention capacity. This matters because claimed need appears to be central to the justification for the development. If the need for 240 additional detention places has not been properly evidenced, then the wider harms of the proposal have not been justified either. LASSN’s work demonstrates the value of community-based support: accommodation, trusted relationships, English language support, practical information, volunteering, and connection to local services. These forms of support help people stay safe, rebuild confidence, understand their rights and responsibilities, and participate in community life. Expanding detention moves in the opposite direction: away from support, away from trust, and away from the relationships that help people remain stable and connected. We are also concerned about public scrutiny. We understand that some information has been withheld or redacted because of security concerns. We recognise that some operational information may need to be protected. However, where a major expansion of a detention centre is proposed, the public must have enough information to understand the likely impact and to respond meaningfully. This is especially important because the Crown Development route means the decision will not be made through the ordinary local planning process. Where local democratic decision-making is reduced, the need for transparency and public scrutiny becomes greater, not less. LASSN’s concern is therefore not only that detention causes harm. It is that the Home Office is seeking approval for a major expansion of a harmful and high-impact system without, in our view, providing sufficient public evidence that the expansion is necessary, proportionate, or preferable to community-based alternatives. For these reasons, LASSN asks that the application is refused. If the application is not refused at this stage, we ask that it is examined through a full public inquiry. A proposal of this scale and sensitivity should not be decided through written representations alone. The Home Office’s case should be tested in public, including the claimed need for additional detention places, the alternatives considered, the level of public information provided, and the wider human and community impact of expanding immigration detention. Yours faithfully, █████████ Director Leeds Asylum Seekers’ Support Network