Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am a local Gosport resident writing to object to the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre (IRC). Application ref CROWN/2026/0000005. I have several reasons for objecting to this proposal: 1) Land use. Gosport is located on a peninsular, with limited transport routes in and out. There is no train service and in some areas bus services are very limited, so most people rely on cars. The one road route in and out is already majorly congested. Construction traffic relating to building work for the expansion will add to this congestion and have a significant impact on local residents travelling in/out of the town. It will impact parking and public access to the town and coast. With Gosport being largely residential and house building increasing, there are limited green spaces for local residents to enjoy and the expansion of the IRC will take up an area of coastline which could be better used for leisure activities for local residents. The expansion will involve more and taller buildings, car parking, high fences, lighting, all taking up space on a beautiful area along the England Coastal Path. The proposed plan involves changes to the coastal path. It will impact on public access to that area of coastline, which is an important amenity for local residents to enjoy, with views across the Solent, a feeling of openness, enjoyment of wildlife, access to Historic buildings and Heritage sites like Fort Monckton. The additional lighting, noise and loss of habitat will affect migrating birds and other wildlife in a sensitive coastal ecosystem. There has been no clear information about waste disposal from the site and how this will impact an already densely populated area. 2) Flood risk, safety and impact of climate change. Haslar is located on the coastline and there is a high risk of flooding from the sea. This risk will be heightened by climate change and sea level rises. Already other building projects along that coastline, such as the development of Fort Gilkicker were impacted by weather and flood risk. As a local resident, I was informed that my property was too high a risk of surface water runoff for a small insurance company to insure. Haslar IRC will be a secure detention centre operating 24 hours a day, where detainees are locked in. This causes me concerns over the safe evacuation of people inside were there to be an adverse weather situation involving flooding, particularly from ingress by the sea. Given the extent of the expansion house 600 people, this is a long term project and needs to consider future environmental impacts on the safety of those locked inside. There has not been adequate evidence provided to explain the need for an expansion on this scale, with this level of infrastructure at this coastal location and it is being proposed before the initial 130 bed facility has been operated in practice. 3) General living conditions for detainees. I do not agree that people who come to the UK to seek asylum and arrive by irregular means should face indefinite detention for administrative purposes. I work for a refugee charity and many of the people seeking asylum have suffered imprisonment or torture in their home country and seek safety and asylum to escape this. The UK signed the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and this allows for people to arrive in a country by irregular means. The UK should not be criminalising and imprisoning people who do this as it is in contravention to the agreement we signed. In UK criminal law, people convicted of offences are given fixed term sentences, whereas detainees at immigration removal centres are imprisoned indefinitely without a trial. This is inhumane and a form of torture in itself. It is solely carried out to the benefit of the Home Office while carrying out administrative checks as over half of the people detained were then released into the community. It would be more beneficial for people seeking asylum and to the local community to have people integrated and contributing to their new community, sharing their wealth of experience and culture. For these reasons I object to the application and ask that it is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, then I ask the Planning Inspectorate to examine the application through a full Public Enquiry after the consultation closes. This application raises serious questions about impact on local amenities, greenspace and the environmental. Also the scale of expansion on local infrastructure and safety of evacuation with risk of flooding as well as the harm caused by detention to people in a vulnerable situation. A Public Enquiry would allow the case of the Home Office to be scrutinised in public and the evidence to be tested before any decision is made. I would like to attend any hearing please, in the event one is scheduled. Yours faithfully, ████████████████████████████████