Back to list

Date submitted

4 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

█████████████████████████████████████████████████ 4 August 2026 Planning Inspectorate c/o QUADIENT 69 Buckingham Avenue Slough SL1 4PN Re: Written Representation objecting to Crown Development Application CROWN/2026/0000005 — Expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre, Dolphin Way, Gosport Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing as a resident of Alverstoke, Gosport, to formally object to the above application for the expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre to 600 beds. I set out below my main concerns: the scale and height of the proposed buildings, traffic and parking impact, flood risk, and pressure on local NHS services. Scale and height The application proposes four three-storey accommodation blocks up to approximately 12 metres in height, some as close as 24 metres to the historic single- and two-storey barracks buildings. This is a significant departure from what residents were originally shown at early engagement events, where buildings were said to be no taller than the existing site. Buildings of this scale, immediately adjacent to the Haslar Barracks Conservation Area, would be visually overbearing and out of keeping with the surrounding historic and residential character of the peninsula. Traffic and parking While the site itself would not generate traffic directly past my own home, I am seriously concerned about the impact on Stokes Bay Road and through Clayhall, ███████████████████████████████████████. This corridor already experiences heavy congestion and poor availability of on-street parking, and the application's own estimate of around 774 average daily vehicle movements would add substantially to that pressure. I do not consider that the published Transport Assessment adequately demonstrates that this corridor, or the wider Gosport highway network, can absorb this level of additional traffic, particularly as it appears to rely in part on a bus service for which no operator, funding or timetable has yet been confirmed. Flood risk Flood risk is a matter of direct personal experience for me: my home was flooded during Storm Pierrick in 2024. I am acutely aware of how quickly conditions on this part of the Gosport peninsula can deteriorate, and how limited the routes off the peninsula already are in poor weather. A significant proportion of this site sits within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and the applicant's own Flood Risk Assessment identifies a need to raise floor levels by as much as 1.27 metres. I do not believe the application adequately demonstrates that up to 600 detained people — who would not be free to evacuate independently — could be safely and reliably evacuated in a genuine flood event. Given my own experience of flooding in this area, I consider this a serious and inadequately addressed risk. Pressure on NHS services Community healthcare in this part of Gosport, including my own household, is provided by a single group, Willow Group. That service already works under significant pressure. A facility accommodating up to 600 people, even with on-site provision, would still be expected to generate demand on local emergency and hospital services — the application itself acknowledges that a proportion of detained people will require treatment at local hospitals, which sits uneasily alongside claims elsewhere in the Planning Statement that off-site care would only be needed in exceptional circumstances. Gosport has no ambulance station of its own and already faces difficulty recruiting GPs. I do not believe the application has properly assessed the additional burden this would place on services that local residents, including myself, already rely on. Conclusion For the reasons set out above, I object to Crown Development Application CROWN/2026/0000005. I ask that the Inspector give full weight to the cumulative impact on this part of Gosport — a peninsula with genuinely constrained road access, a documented flood history, and healthcare services already stretched — and that planning permission be refused, or at minimum that the application be subject to a full public inquiry so that these matters can be properly tested. Yours faithfully, Christopher Blake