Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to submit a formal objection to the proposed redevelopment and expansion of the Haslar site into a 600 bed Immigration Removal Centre (IRC). My objection is based on significant concerns relating to public safety, operational suitability, community impact, and long term strategic planning for Gosport. This objection is made in good faith and reflects the practical realities of the proposal rather than any ideological position. Gosport has historically supported strong immigration control measures; however, the specific location, scale, and operational risks associated with this IRC make it unsuitable for our community. 1. Operational Unsuitability of the Site 1.1 Location and Transport Risks The Haslar peninsula is not an appropriate location for an IRC. Unlike Brook House, Colnbrook, Harmondsworth, Tinsley House, Yarl’s Wood, and Dungavel House, the Haslar site is not situated near a major international airport, making detainee transfers significantly more complex. The 8.5–9.1-mile route to the M27 passes through dense urban areas with multiple choke points. This creates opportunities for organised interference with detainee transport, particularly when moving high risk individuals such as convicted terrorists. The risk increases with every additional mile travelled. 1.2 Lack of Local Policing Infrastructure Gosport currently has no police station, severely limiting rapid response capability. When the new police station is commissioned, staffing levels will not be sufficient to support added risks. An IRC of this scale would require: • Escorts for high risk detainees • Riot control support • Protest management • Emergency response during fires, escapes, or disturbances This represents an unacceptable strain on Hampshire Constabulary. 2. Community Safety and Security Risks 2.1 Densification and Riot Potential The previous IRC (150–200 detainees) experienced riots. The proposed expansion to 600 detainees, combined with reduced recreational space, significantly increases the likelihood of unrest, non compliance, and large scale disturbances. 2.2 Fire and Flood Risk The site lies within a government identified flood zone. Recent extreme tides demonstrate that actual risk may exceed official predictions. Flood events could trigger unrest or escape attempts. High density accommodation also increases fire spread risk and may impede fire service access. In a major fire, staff may lose control, increasing the likelihood of detainee breakout. 2.3 Electronic Countermeasure Interference Anti drone countermeasures may disrupt: • GNSS signals used by small vessels using the small boat channel nearby • Wi Fi and home security systems used by residents in nearby housing. This poses safety and quality of life concerns for residents. 2.4 Privacy Concerns Phase 2 buildings will overlook nearby homes and gardens. This is particularly concerning given that some detainees are convicted of sexual offences.. 3. Environmental and Residential Impact 3.1 Noise and Lighting Pollution High intensity security lighting and continuous noise from PA systems, staff activity, and detainee recreation areas will significantly degrade the living environment for nearby residents. 3.2 Traffic Congestion An IRC of this scale will generate substantial traffic from staff, legal representatives, visitors, contractors, and service providers. This is in addition to major housing developments already planned or underway. 3.3 Decline in Property Values Evidence from HM Land Registry and current listings shows a clear downward trend in Fort Road property values since the IRC proposal became public. This undermines long term financial planning for families, particularly those relying on property value to fund future care needs. 4. Strategic Planning Concerns 4.1 Loss of Prime Waterfront Land Gosport is one of the most deprived towns in the UK. The Haslar site is a valuable waterfront location that could support regeneration, tourism, or community facilities. Allocating it to a high security detention centre represents a missed opportunity for long term economic development. 4.2 Mission Creep Once Phase 2 is built, capacity could be increased further through additional buildings or doubling up rooms with bunk beds. This risk is significant and long term. 4.3 Healthcare Capacity Gosport and Fareham already face shortages in GP and dental provision. QA Hospital is overstretched. Adding 600 detainees will worsen access to urgent and routine care for residents. Conclusion For the reasons outlined above—operational unsuitability, public safety risks, environmental impact, and long term strategic concerns—I respectfully request that Home Office discontinues the proposed Haslar IRC development. The proposal poses significant and avoidable risks to the community and undermines Gosport’s future regeneration potential. I urge the Council to consider alternative uses for this important waterfront site that would benefit residents and support long term economic growth. Thank you for considering this objection.