Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I am a long‑term resident of █████████ and have lived close to the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre for many years. During the period when the IRC previously operated at around 130 beds, the centre had a minimal impact on the neighbourhood. The scale was manageable, the activity was contained, and the facility coexisted with the surrounding homes without creating pressure on local services or infrastructure. I therefore recognise that an immigration facility can operate here successfully and responsibly when kept within appropriate limits. The current proposal for 600 beds, however, is far beyond what this peninsula can reasonably accommodate. The site is physically constrained, bordered by the seawall on one side and residential properties on the other. Some homes sit directly against the boundary fence, and others are only a short distance away. This proximity makes the proposed intensification particularly unsuitable. Residents were shown images of two‑storey buildings at the Home Office’s drop‑in session in October. The planning documents now reveal three‑storey blocks, raised further to incorporate flood‑protection measures. This represents a significant increase in height and massing that was not communicated to the community. The change will have a direct and detrimental effect on nearby homes, including increased overlooking, loss of privacy, and a much more imposing built form. The peninsula is environmentally sensitive. Increasing the scale of development to this extent will intensify noise, lighting, and activity around the clock. The proposed lighting strategy alone will have a substantial impact on residential amenity and local ecology. Additional hard‑surfacing and building mass will reduce natural resilience and increase runoff, with no clear long‑term mitigation strategy presented. Access to the site is already restricted. Haslar Bridge is a single‑lane, signal‑controlled crossing, and alternative routes pass through narrow residential streets. Heavy construction traffic has already caused deterioration to the road surface near the Institute of Naval Medicine. A facility of this size will generate far more staff, visitor, contractor, and service‑vehicle movements than the local road network can support. Even with the recently acquired car park, the number of parking spaces falls well short of what would be required for a 600‑bed operation. Gosport has faced longstanding challenges in GP recruitment and healthcare capacity. A development of this scale will inevitably place additional pressure on already stretched local services. The planning documents do not provide reassurance that this impact has been fully assessed or addressed. The Haslar peninsula is an area of significant historical importance, containing former naval, military, and medical buildings that contribute to Gosport’s heritage. Any development here must be sympathetic to its historic character and comply with the Gosport Borough Council Local Plan, which emphasises the protection of heritage assets and the need for development to respect local context. The proposed height, massing, and intensity of use do not align with these requirements. It is concerning that sections of the planning submission have been redacted. For a development of this scale, full transparency is essential. Redaction undermines confidence that environmental, traffic, lighting, and service‑impact assessments have been carried out thoroughly and impartially. The application does not clearly explain how emergency response arrangements will operate for a 600‑bed facility. It is unclear whether local police resources would be expected to respond to incidents, and whether this has been factored into operational planning. The proposed expansion to 600 beds is not compatible with the physical, environmental, heritage, and infrastructure constraints of the Haslar peninsula. The site has previously operated effectively at around 130 beds, without causing disruption or pressure on the local area. That scale is far more appropriate and sustainable for this location. For these reasons, I object to the proposed development and request that the Planning Inspectorate refuse the application. I also wish to state clearly that I would like to attend a hearing regarding this application.