Back to list

Date submitted

31 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing to object to the Home Office’s proposal to expand Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in Gosport. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000005. Haslar has not yet reopened. The Home Office says the refurbished centre would hold up to 130 people, with reopening expected in 2027. The current application seeks permission to add up to 470 more detention places, taking Haslar to a 600-bed detention centre. I am responding as a concerned citizen, worried about rising attacks on migrant communities and the proliferation of inhumane detention centres. I object for the following reasons: Public scrutiny and missing information There are two problems with public scrutiny in this application. First, the Home Office has applied for outline planning permission, with only access being decided at this stage. This means the Planning Inspectorate is being asked to decide whether the expansion should be allowed in principle, and how people and vehicles would get in and out of the site. Other important details may be dealt with later, including the final layout of the buildings, what the buildings would look like, landscaping, and the detailed size and design of the development. This means people are being asked to comment now on whether Haslar should become a 600-bed detention centre, before all the practical details are finalised. Second, some important information is not being made available for full public consideration because it has been treated as official sensitive information. This includes information about site layout, development parameters, elevations and sections, floor plans, roof plans, landscaping, lighting, accommodation blocks, the Care and Separation Unit, the dining hall, flood evacuation, coastal modelling, ecology and biodiversity, transport and travel planning, local community impact, heritage, and landscape and visual impact. Some security-sensitive information may need to be protected. But the public still needs enough information to understand the planning impacts. This is especially important because, if outline permission is granted now, the basic principle of expanding Haslar into a much larger detention centre would already have been accepted. Later stages would usually focus on the details of how the expansion is built, rather than reopening the question of whether the expansion should happen at all. The flood and coastal modelling also contains assumptions and limitations. The Coastal Modelling Report states that outputs are only as good as the data inputted, that the model is a simplified representation of the existing ground levels, that roughness values involve modeller preference, and that future climate-change allowances could change and require the model to be revised [1st Horizon, Haslar IRC, Gosport Coastal Modelling Report, Rev E, 17 April 2026, section 8.0]. The Planning Inspectorate should not treat modelling as resolving the risk unless the underlying assumptions and limitations are properly tested. Without enough clear public information, it is very difficult for people to understand what a 600-bed detention centre at Haslar would mean in practice, or to respond properly. The application should not be approved unless the public has enough information to scrutinise the proposal and its impacts. I do not see how this detention centre expansion can go ahead without the public, myself included, having all the information to make an informed decision. Human impact and detention harm 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 Haslar. 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 locked detention centre on a coastal site, and it should receive the closest possible scrutiny. Detention centres are a deeply inhumane type of infrastructure and I do not feel comfortable knowing that this is what the Planning Inspectorate is spending their time on. There are also issues related to the local environment and the damage it could cause. This detention centre offers no benefits to the local community while directly harming our most vulnerable. 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 flood risk, coastal safety, climate change, emergency evacuation, the scale of the proposed expansion, local infrastructure, healthcare and emergency services, public access to the coast, ecology, heritage, waste, the evidence for the expansion, the harm caused by detention, and the impact of missing or withheld information. 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. I will not be able to attend a hearing in the event that one is scheduled. Yours faithfully,