Back to list

Date submitted

5 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Objection to the Proposed Expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre, Gosport I wish to formally object to the proposed expansion of the Haslar Immigration Removal Centre. Whilst I recognise that immigration policy is a matter for central government, this planning application must be assessed against established planning law, national planning policy and the impact on the local community. In my view, the proposal fails to satisfy several important planning considerations. 1. Inadequate consideration of local infrastructure The proposed increase in capacity represents a substantial intensification of the site’s use. There appears to be insufficient evidence that local highways, emergency services, healthcare provision and other public services can accommodate the increased operational demands generated by a significantly larger facility. The applicant should be required to demonstrate, through robust evidence, that existing infrastructure has sufficient capacity. 2. Harm to residential amenity The increase in building height, scale and occupancy has the potential to cause significant harm to neighbouring residents through loss of privacy, overlooking, increased lighting, noise and general disturbance. The National Planning Policy Framework requires development to provide a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users. This proposal raises serious concerns that this requirement has not been met. 3. Visual impact and heritage considerations The site lies within the historic Haslar Barracks area and includes designated heritage assets. Any substantial increase in building mass or height must preserve or enhance the character and significance of the conservation area and surrounding historic environment. The applicant should demonstrate that any harm is clearly outweighed by public benefits, as required by planning legislation. 4. Environmental assessment Given the scale of the proposed expansion, it is essential that cumulative impacts are fully assessed, including traffic, construction impacts, biodiversity, drainage, air quality, lighting and noise. If these assessments are incomplete or insufficiently robust, the application should not proceed until the necessary information has been provided. 5. Consultation and procedural fairness Many local residents have expressed concern regarding the adequacy and timing of public engagement. Planning decisions should be transparent and based upon meaningful consultation. Where local communities have not been given sufficient opportunity to understand or comment upon material changes to the proposal, there is a risk that the principles of procedural fairness have not been satisfied. Previous council meetings also recorded residents’ concerns about delays in communication and engagement from the Home Office. 6. Prematurity of outline approval This application seeks outline permission while reserving many detailed matters. Given the scale, sensitivity and potential impact of the development, it is difficult for residents and decision-makers to fully assess the consequences without detailed designs. Important matters should not be deferred where they are fundamental to determining whether the development is acceptable. 7. Compliance with planning policy The Planning Inspectorate should be satisfied that the proposal complies with the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 where applicable, environmental legislation, and the adopted local development plan. Where significant uncertainty exists regarding impacts on neighbouring residents or heritage assets, the precautionary approach should apply. Conclusion This objection is based upon planning considerations rather than immigration policy. Until the applicant can demonstrate that the development will not result in unacceptable impacts on local infrastructure, residential amenity, heritage assets, environmental quality and the wider community, planning permission should be refused. Alternatively, the application should be subject to much greater scrutiny, including full consideration of all reserved matters before any approval is granted.