Back to list

Date submitted

6 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I wish to object to the Home Office’s proposal to expand Haslar Immigration Removal Centre in Gosport. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000005. As a local resident I am opposed to the proposal for the following reasons. Healthcare and emergency services The Home Office’s own assessment accepts that access to secondary care within the local area is part of healthcare provision at the IRC. This means Haslar would not be completely self-contained. A 600-bed detention centre could create demand on local NHS services, emergency services and secure transport arrangements, including planned hospital appointments, emergency escorts, ambulance use, hospital care, mental health crisis support, medication issues and other urgent healthcare needs. The Planning Inspectorate should require clear evidence about what this would mean for services in Gosport and the surrounding area, including whether local NHS bodies, ambulance services, police, fire and rescue services have confirmed that they can safely manage the additional demand. I am concerned about the effect on already stretched services for local people. We struggle to see a GP and NHS dental provision is virtually non existent. Hospital services at the Queen Alexandra are at breaking point. When I used A&E two years ago the average waiting time was 4 to 5 hours. We cannot cope with any further demands on the service. Local infrastructure, public access and environmental impact A 600-bed detention centre would not just affect the land inside the secure boundary. It could also affect roads, traffic, parking, construction movements, emergency access, public access to the coast, wildlife, ecology, biodiversity, landscape, heritage and the character of the area. The expansion would involve more buildings, fencing, lighting, CCTV, hardstanding, internal roads and operational activity. The application site also includes field areas, car parking, grassed land and land near the coast. The proposal includes changes to the England Coastal Path. Public access to the coast is important. The Planning Inspectorate should carefully consider whether the expansion would affect the safety, openness, accessibility and character of this part of the coast, as well as the experience of nearby residents and people using the area. Flood risk, coastal safety and climate change Haslar is a coastal site next to the Solent. The Flood Risk Assessment says the site is partly in Flood Zone 3, is over 1 hectare, and is at risk of surface water flooding. It also says the proposed IRC expansion is classed as a “more vulnerable” use. This matters because Haslar would be 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 defences or another emergency. The Home Office has produced a Flood Evacuation Management Plan and relies on measures such as raised floor levels, flood-resilient construction, flood warnings, staged evacuation procedures and drainage systems. But the existence of an evacuation plan does not remove the planning concern. It shows that flood evacuation is a serious operational issue. The Flood Evacuation Management Plan says Haslar would have capacity for 600 beds and that, in some circumstances, residents may need to be evacuated in stages, with people moved to another IRC or holding centre. The Planning Inspectorate should require clear evidence that these arrangements would be realistic and sufficient for a locked 600-bed detention centre, including during coastal flooding, surface water flooding, storms, sea level rise, flood defence failure and emergency evacuation. This should include evidence about detained people, staff, visitors, emergency services, escort vehicles, transport providers and the local road network. An emergency evacuation in a flood situation could put local people in a serious risk of danger and the risk of detainees escaping into the community. I feel that the local community will be under a threat of danger from the inmates of this centre. These people will have one objective - to escape. 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 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.