Back to list

Date submitted

9 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, from 160 to 400 places. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000004. I regularly work with migrants and refugees, many of whom have experience of detention. 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 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. 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. 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, and the expansion should not be approved. I believe it is of the utmost importance that the Home Office clarify which alternatives to this expansion have been considered, and on what grounds these alternatives have been evaluated and deemed unviable so as to justify the proposed harm to Green Belt land. For example, in 2023, UNHCR published findings from two pilots of alternatives to detention (ATDs) in the UK, conducted following the recommendations of the 2018 Shaw Progress Report. As these findings note, it is important to recognise that some so-called alternatives to detention, which focus only on an individual's residence in community, pose comparably high harm to individuals and communities and should be considered forms of detention—for example, electronic monitoring. However, the two alternatives piloted and evaluated, which focused on community-based case management, were assessed to better support asylum seekers' access to services and quality advice and offer better value for money compared with the costs of detaining asylum seekers, without any evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives. The purported need for the proposed expansion cannot be considered properly justified without evidence of the Home Office's consideration and assessment of such alternatives which would not pose serious planning, environmental and human harm. 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. Immigration detention causes significant harm—not only to the individual detained, but to their family and broader community. I have worked closely with multiple individuals for whom detention has been a traumatic experience resulting in severe negative impact on their mental and physical health. For many people seeking asylum, the harmful impact of detention compounds existing complex physical and mental health needs, particularly as a result of surviving serious trauma; many people navigating the immigration and asylum systems also face barriers to accessing support while enduring the long-term uncertainty and fear created by the limbo state of waiting for one's asylum case to be resolved. I believe that these concerns strongly reinforce the need for stronger scrutiny around this proposed expansion. 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 wildlife, ecology, and biodiversity. 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. 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. Sincerely,