Back to list

Date submitted

30 July 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

I object to this proposal, because adding an additional 470 places before the 130 space centre has been reopened or tested clearly risks harm to the local area, and to people involved. I am especially concerned about flood risk, coastal safety, emergency evacuation and climate change. Parts of this coastal site are in Flood Zone 3, meaning there is a high risk of flooding from the sea. With clear ongoing changes to the UK climate, sea level rise, as well as heavier storms and rainfall, is likely, making the lifetime flood risk of this site extremely high. The Coastal Modelling Report prepared for the application gives sea-level rise estimates from a 2017 base year to 2125 of 1.093m under the higher central allowance and 1.467m under the upper end allowance. There are also concerns about surface water flooding, including flooding on the route used to get in and out of the site. Flood risk is of course of concern for any development, but for a secure, locked detention centre, the concern for flood risk must be greater, since those held inside would not be free to leave in cases of severe weather warnings or failures of flood defences. Any application of this kind must demonstrate how detained people, staff, emergency services etc would be kept safe in cases of flood over the course of the lifetime of the application, including taking into account changes to climate, with a genuinely viable plan which I do not believe has been provided here. The Flood Evacuation Management Plan relies on flood warnings, staff action, staged evacuation, transport arrangements, emergency services and coordination with local bodies, which would clearly be themselves under huge pressure in the case of such an extreme flooding event. It acknowledges the possibility of a flooding event so severe that the whole site would be required to evacuate, and that residents may need to be moved to another IRC or holding centre if transport is delayed, but it's unclear how this could be managed, let alone the trauma it would inflict upon people, the pressure it would put on local social services, and how deeply unethical it would be to expose detained people to this level of risk. This problem would be serious enough for a 130 space detention centre - to expand it to 600 spaces is clear impractical and risky. I am also concerned about the scale of the expansion, traffic, parking, healthcare and emergency services, public access to the coast, ecology, heritage, lighting, noise, waste, drainage and local infrastructure. The Home Office has failed to produce clear evidence of why 470 additional detention places are needed at Haslar specifically, or why existing capacity, alternatives to detention, or other estate options would not be sufficient. This is especially important because Haslar has not yet reopened, so there is no current operational evidence showing how the refurbished centre would work in practice. I am also concerned that the Home Office has applied for outline planning permission, with only access being decided at this stage. This means the public is being asked to comment now on whether Haslar should become a 600-bed detention centre before all the practical details are finalised. Some information has also been withheld or treated as sensitive, making it difficult for the public to understand the full impact of the proposal. Immigration detention causes serious harm to people detained there, and the effects are felt by families, communities, legal and advice services, health services and local people. Expanding Haslar would have serious human and community consequences. For these reasons, the application should refused. If it is not refused at this stage, I ask that it is examined through a full public inquiry.