Back to list

Date submitted

29 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I wish to object to the IRC Phase 2 development based on the following. Firstly, the internment of circa 600 inmates on such a small site will have profound implications on the lives of those living in the adjacent area. Indeed, this will significantly change the character of the area such that the lives of those living locally will be blighted. Already there is a significant reduction in the ability of people to sell and move house even at much reduced prices. Many of those living in the area moved into their houses when the IRC was operating at 170 inmates and were willing to accept the IRC locally because activity was low and acceptable. 600 inmates is a gross overloading of the site. As far as I am aware no other IRC location is located so close to a residential area. The intended 12m (3 floor building) on the site will make it visible from a significant distance and blight the skyline for all in the area. Once again making the IRC dominate the location and a reminder to all that convicted criminals are just over the garden fence. A site like the IRC should blend into the community, not be a focal point. The activity required to build phase 2 will have significant and long-lasting impact on the local community. Those living locally have already been subject to a lack of communication from the Home Office, dust, dirt, inconsiderate subcontractors parking irresponsibly, verbal abuse, excessive noise outside of authorised hours and unidentifiable substances settling on cars and inside of houses when windows are opened. If the performance of the phase 1 contractor is anything to go by phase 2 will be a total nightmare for residents. There are many areas where the construction process has already broken considerate guidelines such as ineffective dust barriers. The proposed access in Fort Road will breach the requirement to 8m clear of homes and what will happen to the access to the sea wall? Finally, once the IRC is completed it is anticipated that there will be a constant movement of significant traffic in the local area to support the 450 staff working in 3 shifts, visitors to the inmates as well as solicitors, charity workers and councillors. All of which will be looking for car parking which will not be supported by meagre parking currently planned. All of this on roads designed to support only residential traffic. I note that there will be additional transport facilities planned such as shuttle services, but reality tells us that people will not get out of their cars and are consistently walking shy. In conclusion, the move from phase 1 to phase 2 of the IRC is ill considered and irresponsible in relation to the impact on the local area and the local community. It is wholly inappropriate for this area at the proposed scale and should not proceed.