Back to list

Date submitted

6 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Sir or Madam, I am writing to object to the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre to a total capacity of 600 people. My objection is not about the people who may be held at the centre. It is about the size of the development, the pressure it would put on Gosport’s infrastructure, and the lack of any clear benefit to the local area. The proposal would increase the centre from the planned 130 places to 600, with around 400 staff, several large accommodation buildings, more than 300 parking spaces and hundreds of vehicle movements every day. This is a very large development for a part of Gosport that already has limited road access, poor public transport and growing pressure from other developments around Haslar. Roads and transport Haslar is a peninsula with only a small number of practical routes in and out. The surrounding roads are already busy, particularly at peak times, and there is very little scope to widen them or create completely new access routes. The application estimates around 774 vehicle movements on an average day. This would include staff cars, contractors, deliveries, taxis, escort vehicles and service traffic. A travel plan or possible shuttle bus does not solve the basic problem. The roads themselves have limited capacity, and public transport in the area is not good enough to prevent the development from being heavily dependent on cars. There does not appear to be a properly funded and guaranteed plan to improve local roads or public transport before the expansion takes place. Pressure on local services The applicant says that some healthcare would be provided inside the centre, but this does not mean there would be no effect on local services. People at the centre would still need hospital appointments, emergency treatment, dental care and specialist services. A centre of this size would also place extra demands on the police, ambulance service, fire service, utilities, waste services and the local road network. Gosport’s health services are already under pressure. It is not enough to assume that hospitals and emergency services will simply absorb this extra demand. There also needs to be clear evidence that the drainage, sewerage, water and electricity infrastructure can support a development of this size. Any necessary upgrades should be agreed, funded and completed before the centre is allowed to expand. Little benefit to the local economy The applicant refers to new jobs, but there is no guarantee that these jobs would go to people living in Gosport. There are no clear commitments showing: • how many local residents would be employed; • how much work would go to Gosport businesses; • how many staff would travel into the borough from elsewhere; • how much money would actually be spent in the local economy; or • what the wider cost to local services would be. The people accommodated at the centre would not be free to visit local shops, cafés or businesses, so the development would not support the local economy in the same way as housing, tourism, leisure or mixed-use development. The site could potentially have been used for housing, employment, tourism or heritage-led regeneration. Those uses could have provided a much wider and longer-lasting benefit to the area. Simply stating that the development would create jobs is not enough. The applicant should show what the real net benefit would be after taking account of the pressure on infrastructure and the loss of other opportunities. Effect on the wider Haslar area Haslar is already seeing major redevelopment, including work at the former hospital and Fort Blockhouse. These developments will bring more residents, visitors and traffic to the peninsula. The effects of this immigration centre expansion need to be considered alongside all of that other development, rather than in isolation. A large secure centre with high fencing, lighting, large buildings, hundreds of parking spaces and round-the-clock activity does not fit comfortably with the wider plans for residential, heritage, leisure and visitor-led regeneration. There is a real risk that it could damage the appeal of the area, affect nearby residents and discourage other investment. Size and appearance The proposed accommodation blocks would be up to three storeys high and around 12 metres tall. These would be large and prominent buildings in an area containing historic structures and lower buildings. The effect of the buildings, fencing, security lighting, plant, traffic and constant activity needs to be considered as a whole. This is not a minor extension. It would completely change the scale and character of the site. Flooding and emergency access The site is in a coastal location where flooding and access during an emergency need to be taken seriously. Evacuating a secure centre containing 600 people would be far more complicated than evacuating a normal residential site. It would require vehicles, staff, security arrangements and support from the emergency services. The applicant should be required to show that the whole site could be safely evacuated during a serious flood or other emergency, including if local roads were congested or partly blocked. Expansion before the first phase has been tested The first 130-bed phase has not yet operated long enough to show its real effect on the local area. It would be sensible to allow that first phase to operate and then properly measure traffic levels, demand on services, noise, emergency call-outs and other effects before considering such a major increase. Approving an expansion to 600 places before the impact of the first phase is known seems premature. Conclusion I believe this application should be refused because the applicant has not shown that: • the local road network can cope with the extra traffic; • public transport can be improved enough to reduce car use; • local health and emergency services can manage the extra demand; • water, drainage, sewerage and other utilities have enough capacity; • the development would bring a genuine economic benefit to Gosport; • local jobs and contracts would be guaranteed; • the proposal would not harm the wider regeneration of Haslar; • the size and appearance of the buildings are suitable; or • the site could be safely evacuated during a flood or emergency. If the application is not refused, I believe a decision should at least be delayed until the first phase has been operating for a reasonable period and proper evidence is available. Any transport, utility or service improvements needed for the expansion should be fully funded by the applicant and completed before the additional accommodation is brought into use. Please record this as a formal objection to application CROWN/2026/0000005.