Back to list

Date submitted

2 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Re: CROWN/2026/0000005 I am writing to you to express my concerns and object about the planning request for Haslar Immigration Removal Centre, Gosport, Hampshire and its expansion. My name is Stevie Waight, I am a resident of Hampshire who lives ██████████████████████ and spends a lot of time at various locations along this coastal line for bird watch and walking routes along the England Coastal Path. I also work for an organisation that supports survivors of Trafficking and Modern Slavery and do not believe that an expansion of Haslar IRC is beneficial or necessary, the Home Office have not clearly explained as to why a further 470 beds are needed, why their current detention bed numbers are not enough and what alternatives have been considered, including alternatives to detention. They have also not explained why they are asking to expand before the refurbished unit has opened and been tested in practise. Other points to my objection also include: Ecology - The Solent is a vital and thriving eco system for a variety of birds and wildlife including Dark Bellied Geese, Brent Geese, Black tailed Godwits, Lapwings and much more. There have already been concerns and objections across the water at Portsmouth about plans for housing developments along the coastline due to the huge impact this would have on protected wildlife and their environment. I believe that these same concerns expressed for these developments apply to the Haslar expansion. The Home Office's documents rely on mitigation and off-site compensation, but these vital natural habitats once lost, cannot be replaced or compensated for. Moving or compensating for habitat loss is not the same as avoiding harm in the first place. This detention centre would not only be causing harm to the people detained inside them but also reshape the land and disrupt eco-systems around them. I am also concerned about drainage, surface water flooding and sewage adding further damage to our Solent waters/Gosport coastline which is already a huge issue and concern within our local waters. With the increase of vehicles not only during the expansion build but once the site is operational with vehicles consistently coming in and out and the local area being a high flood risk area, there will also be an increase in 'road runoff' making its way into our Solent waters. The road runoff toxins will come from tyre and break wear particles, hydrocarbons residue from petrol, diesel and oil spills and microplastics embedded in vehicle tyres. Road runoff is the third most damaging source of water pollution in the UK and accounts for roughly 18% of all water quality failures in the UK. Flood risks - I have already covered my concern around road runoff going into the Solent waters which is increased through the flood risk. Parts of this site are a flood zone 3, which means there is a high risk of flooding from the sea. As Haslar is a locked detention centre, people detained there would not be free to leave if there was a flood warning, severe weather, a failure of flood defence or another emergency. I am concerned about flooding from heavy rain known as surface water flooding which is known to overwhelms drains. The Home Office Flood Risk Assessment says there are areas in the north of this site where surface water could collect, and that the route used to get in and out of the site has a high risk of surface water flooding. The Home Office has produced a Flood Evacuation Management Plan. It also says that, in an extreme flooding event, the whole site would be required to evacuate. It shows that evacuation is a serious issue that would depend on flood warnings, staff action, transport arrangements, emergency services and coordination with local bodies. I am hugely concerned and do not believe that the Home Office have fully considered all the risks appropriately. I am also concerned of the trauma that flooding would trigger in the people detained there, especially those who have had to make dangerous crossing across the seas and who many of them cannot swim. Flooding and rising waters as well as severe water days such as heavy rain would hugely impact their mental health and increase their risk of trauma and its symptoms it would produce. I question whether those arrangements for evacuation or pre-evacuation management plans are realistic and safe for a locked 600-bed detention centre on a coastal site affected by climate change. For these reasons, I object to the application and ask that it is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, I ask the Planning Inspectorate to examine the application through a full public inquiry after the consultation closes. This application raises serious questions about flood risk, coastal safety, climate change, emergency evacuation, the scale of the proposed expansion, local infrastructure, healthcare and emergency services, public access to the coast, ecology, heritage, waste, the evidence for the expansion, the harm caused by detention, and the impact of missing or withheld information. These issues should not be decided through written representations alone. A public inquiry would allow the Home Office’s case to be scrutinised in public and the evidence to be properly tested before any decision is made. Yours faithfully,