Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I write to object to planning application CROWN/2026/0000005. My objections are on the following planning and community-impact grounds: Overdevelopment of the site: • The proposed development scale appears excessive for the location and local infrastructure. There is insufficient evidence that local transport, parking, utilities and public services can accommodate the increased demand. • Please provide a full assessment of traffic, parking and public and National Health Service capacity and clear justification for the proposed development location and inmate density. Public safety and vetting procedures: • The application does not set out robust, transparent security and safeguarding arrangements. • For public confidence, please provide details of background-check and risk-management procedures to demonstrate how residents and neighbours will be protected. This should include liaison arrangements with relevant policing and safeguarding agencies. Further negative impact on Social and Economy: Walking along Gosport High Street and Stoke Road makes the area’s economic decline clear. The scale and proposed use of this development are a major concern because they would add further, measurable economic pressure to the immediate area. The development is likely to harm the town centre’s commercial viability and place additional strain on health services and community facilities. • Suppressed Property Market: Residents living next to the site have already reported a freeze in the local housing market. The uncertainty and three-storey scale of the project have caused a sharp drop in prospective buyers, leaving neighbours feeling like "prisoners in their own homes" because they cannot sell. • Deterrence of Private Investment: Turning a prominent coastal zone into one of Europe's largest detention facilities signals a shift away from residential-friendly regeneration. This deters private developers and lowers long-term property values across Haslar and Gosport. • Impact on the Waterfront Economy: The application includes amending the public coastal path to build a car park. This encroaches on open seafront space, which harms local tourism and recreation—key drivers of the Gosport economy. • Please provide an independent social-impact assessment should be provided, together with proposed mitigation measures and community benefits. Safety, Security, and Incident Response Pressures: The tripling of the facility's capacity to 600 beds presents distinct public safety and policing challenges: • Escapes and Absconding Risks: Factsheets acknowledge the facility will hold foreign national offenders and individuals at a high risk of absconding. Any failure in secure perimeter fencing places a direct threat on the doorstep of neighbouring homes. • Internal Incidents and Emergency Strain: Large-scale detention centres historically require external emergency intervention during internal unrest, medical crises, or fires. Because Gosport sits on a peninsula with restricted road access via the A32, deploying police and ambulance services to the IRC will drain resources away from everyday local emergencies. • Protests and Public Disorder: Expanding the facility to this size inevitably draws large-scale public demonstrations and counter-protests. Managing these crowds along Dolphin Way creates a volatile security environment for nearby families. • Government-led developments: These should deliver clear benefits to the local area. Please explain how this proposal will improve Gosport and its community, • Provide a detailed justification showing how it will address the concerns raised above, including pressure on services, public safety, the local economy, and community wellbeing. Suitability of alternative facilities: The application fails to provide clear evidence that the proposed site is the most appropriate facility type for the intended use. Knowingly entering the UK without legal authorisation is a criminal offence and as such clearly demonstrate criminal intent. These individuals will have incomplete or unknown background criminal history and behavioural risk. • The government must demonstrate how these risks will be fully assessed, controlled, and managed before the site is approved. • A more secure facility, such as a Category B setting rather than Category C, should be considered necessary unless and until full vetting and risk assessments have been completed. • Please provide a clear justification for the chosen facility type and explain why an alternative, purpose-built or more secure facility and location have not been fully considered. Strategic priorities and local investment: • Gosport and Portsmouth have significant local needs and a proud history of national service. I do not believe this proposal aligns with strategic priorities for economic regeneration, defence-linked investments, and long-term community resilience. • A clear statement is required on how the development supports, rather than undermines, local regeneration goal. Summary: For the reasons set out above, I object to planning application CROWN/2026/0000005. The proposal represents an excessive and poorly justified development that would place unacceptable pressure on Gosport’s already strained infrastructure, public services, local economy, housing market, community facilities, emergency-response capacity, and overall community wellbeing. The application fails to demonstrate that the site is suitable for the proposed use, that the scale of development is appropriate, or that the serious risks associated with security, safeguarding, vetting, absconding, public disorder, traffic, parking, and emergency-service demand have been properly assessed or mitigated. It also fails to provide convincing evidence that alternative, more secure, purpose-built, or more suitable locations have been fully considered. Gosport requires investment that strengthens the town, national identity, supports regeneration, protects residents, and improves local services. This proposal appears to do the opposite. It risks imposing further economic, social, and operational burdens on a community that is already under significant pressure, without demonstrating any clear or measurable benefit to the local area. I therefore urge that this application be refused unless and until the applicant provides full, transparent, evidence-based justification addressing all concerns raised, including site suitability, security arrangements, public safety, service capacity, economic impact, social impact, emergency planning, and why alternative facilities have not been pursued. Put simply, the Government should address the root cause, not impose the consequences on Gosport. "Sublata causa, tollitur effectus". Yours faithfully, Additional public domain documentation requested: • A clear statement is required on how the development supports, rather than undermines, local regeneration goal • A clear justification for the chosen facility type and explain why an alternative, purpose-built or more secure facility and location have not been fully considered • A detailed justification showing how it will address the additional pressure on public and national services, public safety, the local economy, and community wellbeing. • An independent social-impact assessment should be provided, together with proposed mitigation measures and community benefits. • Details of background-check and risk-management procedures to demonstrate how local residents and neighbours will be protected. This should include liaison arrangements with relevant policing and safeguarding agencies. • A full assessment of traffic, parking and public and National Health Service capacity and clear justification for the proposed development location and density