Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I have lived near the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre since 2002. When the facility operated prior to its closure, it had very little impact on the local community. I am not opposed in principle to the site being brought back into use for immigration purposes, and I recognise the national need for such facilities. However, any future use must be proportionate to the site’s physical constraints, environmental sensitivity, and its extremely close relationship with surrounding residential homes. A facility of around 130 beds, similar to its historic scale, would be a realistic and acceptable solution. This level of occupancy has previously operated without significant impact on residents and aligns with what the peninsula can safely and sustainably support. A return to this scale—designed with proper consideration for the local area—would allow the site to function effectively without overwhelming the neighbourhood. The current proposal for 600 beds is wholly disproportionate. It represents a dramatic and unjustified intensification of a narrow, environmentally sensitive peninsula bounded by the seawall on one side and residential homes—some directly against the boundary fence and others only around ten metres away—on the other. I live on Fort Road and am already experiencing significant disruption from ongoing construction works, even before any expansion has been approved. In October, the Home Office held what was advertised as a “meeting” with residents. In reality, it was a drop‑in session showing artist impressions of two‑storey buildings. The Crown application now reveals that the accommodation blocks will be three storeys high, with additional height added for flood‑protection mitigation. This is a material and substantial change in scale that was not disclosed to residents. The increased height will intensify visual intrusion, overshadowing, and loss of privacy for nearby homes. This lack of transparency typifies the approach taken throughout the process. The Home Office has not meaningfully engaged with residents, despite repeated concerns raised about the plans and contractor behaviour on site. Environmental Impacts – Significant and Unacceptable The environmental impacts of the proposed expansion are severe and fundamentally incompatible with the peninsula’s constraints. Ecology and Coastal Sensitivity The site sits within an ecologically sensitive coastal environment. A 600‑bed, 24‑hour facility will introduce continuous noise, lighting, and human activity that will disrupt local wildlife and degrade the coastal fringe. The Biodiversity Net Gain assessment is incomplete at outline stage, meaning ecological claims cannot be verified. Flood Risk and Climate Vulnerability The need to raise building heights for flood‑protection measures demonstrates the site’s inherent vulnerability. Increasing building mass to address flood risk only worsens visual and environmental impacts. Additional hard‑surfacing will increase runoff and reduce natural resilience in an area with limited capacity to absorb further development. Lighting Impact The proposal includes substantial increases in lighting across the entire site. Continuous 24‑hour illumination will cause significant light spill into homes on Fort Road and surrounding streets, eroding residential amenity and disrupting coastal ecology. Noise and Air Quality A facility of this scale will generate constant noise from vehicle movements, staff operations, servicing, and emergency responses. Air quality will deteriorate due to increased traffic, construction emissions, and operational activity. The modelling presented does not reflect the true scale of vehicle movements associated with a 600‑bed facility. Construction Impacts Construction activity has already caused disruption and visible damage to local roads. Multi‑year construction will generate noise, dust, vibration, and congestion, with no detailed mitigation plan provided. These environmental impacts are not minor or manageable—they are structural and unavoidable consequences of attempting to place a 600‑bed detention facility on a narrow, constrained peninsula. A smaller‑scale facility of around 130 beds would significantly reduce these impacts and align with the site’s environmental limitations. Transport, Access, and Parking – Infrastructure Cannot Support Expansion Even with the acquisition of the western car park, there will be insufficient parking for staff, visitors, contractors, and legal representatives. Other IRCs nationally are not situated so close to residential homes, nor on such constrained access routes. The Haslar peninsula has limited access: - Haslar Bridge is a single‑lane, traffic‑light‑controlled crossing. - Alternative routes pass through narrow residential roads. - Heavy construction traffic has already caused visible damage, including the collapsing of the road surface west of the Institute of Naval Medicine. The transport network simply cannot support the scale of development proposed. Transparency and Redacted Information The planning application contains redacted sections, which is deeply concerning. If environmental, traffic, lighting, and local‑services assessments have been properly carried out, there should be no need for redaction. Transparency is essential, particularly when the proposal is being progressed under Crown development rules that limit local democratic oversight. Emergency Response and Local Services There are serious unanswered questions about emergency response. Given the site’s location, what arrangements are in place should an incident occur within the centre? Where would a rapid‑response team come from? Would this responsibility fall on the already‑pressured local police force? The Home Office have been contacted about this issue and to date have not provided a response. Gosport already faces a well‑documented shortage of GP provision. Local practices have struggled for years to recruit new doctors. Any additional reliance on local healthcare services from the IRC will place further pressure on an already overstretched system. Heritage Impact – Significant Historical Importance The Haslar peninsula has significant historical importance, containing former military, naval, and medical buildings that contribute to Gosport’s unique heritage character. Any development on this site must therefore be sympathetic, preserve the historic setting, and comply with the Gosport Borough Council Local Plan, which places strong emphasis on protecting heritage assets and ensuring development respects established character. The proposed three‑storey accommodation blocks, increased massing, and expanded infrastructure risk causing substantial harm to the setting of these historic structures. It is unclear whether the full heritage impact has been properly assessed or whether the relevant heritage authorities have been consulted. Proceeding with a development of this scale without robust heritage evaluation is inconsistent with both national planning policy and the Local Plan’s requirements for safeguarding Gosport’s historic environment. Conclusion – The Proposal is Unsound and Should Be Refused For all these reasons—overdevelopment, severe environmental harm, inadequate transport infrastructure, insufficient parking, lack of transparency, heritage concerns, pressure on local services, and the absence of genuine community engagement—the proposed expansion is wholly inappropriate for this location. A smaller‑scale facility of around 130 beds, which was the historic operating capacity of Haslar IRC and which previously functioned without causing pressure or issues for the local area, would be a far more suitable, proportionate, and sustainable approach. This scale respects the peninsula’s constraints, the surrounding residential community, and the environmental and heritage sensitivities of the site. Given the scale of the proposal, the significant impacts on the local community, and the lack of meaningful engagement to date, I request to attend the hearing so that local residents’ concerns can be properly represented and heard. The Planning Inspectorate cannot be satisfied that the development will avoid unacceptable harm. The application should therefore be refused.