Back to list

Date submitted

30 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Re: Application CROWN/2026/0000005 – Expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre, Dolphin Way, Gosport, PO12 2AW Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing as a local resident of Gosport to formally object to the above application by the Home Office to expand Haslar Immigration Removal Centre from 130 to approximately 600 beds. 1. Scale of expansion is not justified and premature The application seeks to more than quadruple capacity on this site before the refurbished 130-bed centre has even reopened or been operationally tested. No case has been demonstrated for why an increase of this magnitude is needed now, rather than assessing the performance, safety and community impact of the existing refurbishment first. Other objectors have referenced Home Office data suggesting a meaningful proportion of IRC capacity nationally is currently unoccupied; I would ask the Inspectorate to require the applicant to publish clear, current occupancy and demand data justifying the need for 470 additional places, rather than relying on assertion. 2. Inadequate and shifting consultation The proposal has changed materially since it was first described to residents — from minor refurbishment, to a commitment that new buildings would be no more than two storeys, to the current proposal for three-storey blocks. This shifting scope, combined with significant redactions in the published application documents, has made it very difficult for residents to understand or meaningfully respond to what is actually being proposed. I do not consider this to meet a reasonable standard of transparent public consultation for a development of national significance, and I would ask the Inspectorate to take this into account when deciding how the application should proceed — including whether a hearing or inquiry, rather than written representations alone, is more appropriate given the scale of public interest. 3. Flood risk and coastal vulnerability The site lies on a low-lying coastal peninsula, and parts of it fall within Flood Zone 3 (high probability of tidal/sea flooding). A four-fold increase in occupancy and the addition of substantial new accommodation and infrastructure significantly raises the number of people, staff and vehicles exposed to this risk. I have not seen a published, site-specific emergency evacuation plan for an occupancy of this scale that properly accounts for a secure detention population (who cannot self-evacuate in the way a normal residential development could), tidal surge, and the likely worsening of these risks over the lifetime of the development due to sea level rise and increased storm frequency. I would ask the Inspectorate to require a full, independently reviewed Flood Risk Assessment and evacuation plan specific to the proposed scale before any permission is considered, and to consult the Environment Agency and the local Lead Local Flood Authority directly on this point if it has not already done so. 4. Local amenity and access impact I am a local resident who regularly uses the surrounding road network and the area more broadly — for recreational activity and visits to nearby facilities. As a frequent user of this area, I have direct concerns about: ● The visual impact of three-storey accommodation blocks, which are out of character with the surrounding area and change the setting of this part of Alverstoke/Gosport for everyone who uses it, not only immediate neighbours. ● A substantial increase in staff, visitor and delivery traffic on local roads that were not designed for this level of use, affecting journey times and road safety for all local road users. This is a particular concern given Gosport's position on a peninsula served by a single main arterial route — the A32 through Fareham — which is already subject to regular, well-documented congestion at pinch points such as the Newgate Lane Flyover and Quay Street Roundabout. Any additional traffic generated by staff shifts, visitor movements, deliveries and contractor vehicles at a site expanded to roughly four times its current scale would add directly to a road network that has no meaningful alternative route in or out of the town. This is not a hypothetical concern: it is precisely the congestion problem that Hampshire County Council and central government have separately committed funding towards addressing (for example, via the Stubbington Bypass scheme), which itself demonstrates that the existing network is already recognised as being at or near capacity. I would ask the Inspectorate to require a proper Transport Assessment that models the cumulative impact of this development on the A32 corridor specifically, rather than assessing traffic impact on a site-by-site basis in isolation from this wider, already-strained network. ● This risk is compounded by the likelihood of drivers seeking to avoid congestion on the A32 by diverting through residential and semi-residential routes such as Newgate Lane, Broom Way and Cherque Way, none of which were designed to carry significant additional through-traffic. This kind of "rat-running" diversion is a well-recognised consequence of congestion on a constrained peninsula road network, and would bring increased traffic volume, noise and safety risk to streets that residents and pedestrians currently use on the assumption that they are lower-traffic, local routes. I would ask the Inspectorate to require the applicant's Transport Assessment to specifically model and address the risk of traffic displacement onto these and other alternative residential routes, rather than assuming all additional traffic will remain on the primary road network, and to set out what traffic management or monitoring measures would be put in place to prevent or mitigate this. ● The proposed amendment to the coastal path to create additional car parking, which directly affects a route I and other residents use for recreation and would set a concerning precedent for encroaching on public coastal access to accommodate site expansion; ● Cumulative disruption from ongoing works at the site, which has already affected the character and usability of the wider area over several years. 5. Security, bail and release arrangements I understand the Home Office has confirmed that Haslar will house a mixture of time-served foreign national offenders and immigration offenders awaiting removal, held on a fully secure basis. Given the direct proximity of the site to residential streets, and given that immigration detainees can, under the relevant legal framework, be granted immigration bail or have their cases resolved while resident at a centre, I would ask the Inspectorate and applicant to confirm publicly: ● What perimeter and operational security measures will apply at the increased capacity, and whether these have been independently assessed as adequate for a population four times the current design size; ● What protocols govern notification to, or engagement with, the local community and police in the event of bail, release, or transfer of individuals from the site; ● Whether any risk assessment has been undertaken on the local impact of these processes at this specific location, given its residential surroundings. This is a request for transparency and appropriate safeguarding conditions, not an assumption about individual cases, but it is a material consideration given the scale of the proposed expansion in a residential setting. 6. Detention expansion is not clearly aligned with stated government policy or evidence UK immigration policy operates on a general presumption of liberty: Home Office guidance is explicit that detention should be used only where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timeframe, not as a general holding measure. I would ask the Inspectorate to require the applicant to demonstrate how a four-fold increase in detention capacity at this site is consistent with that presumption, and with the government's stated policy focus (set out in its November 2025 “Restoring Order and Control” statement) on speeding up removals and appeals for those already detained, rather than simply expanding the number of beds available. I would also ask the applicant to publish current, verifiable data on national IRC occupancy and on the proportion of people leaving detention who are actually removed versus released on immigration bail. If a substantial proportion of those leaving detention nationally are released rather than removed, this raises a legitimate question as to whether expanding detention capacity at Haslar will meaningfully increase removals, or whether it simply increases the number of people detained — with all the associated local impacts set out above — without a proportionate improvement in outcomes. Some objectors, including Amnesty International UK, have raised similar concerns about whether the case for expanding detention capacity generally is well evidenced; I would ask the Inspector to weigh this context, alongside the points above, in assessing whether the stated need for this expansion has been adequately demonstrated. Conclusion For the reasons above — an unjustified and premature scale of expansion, inadequate and shifting consultation, unresolved flood risk, significant adverse local amenity and access impact, insufficient public assurance on security and release arrangements, and a lack of clear alignment with stated government detention policy and evidence — I object to this application in its current form. I would ask that the application not be approved as submitted, and that the Inspectorate consider a hearing or inquiry given the volume and substance of public objection. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Bradley