Back to list

Date submitted

2 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Subject: Haslar Immigration Removal Centre – Phase 2 Letter of objection I am writing to object to Crown Development Application Crown/2026/0000005 concerning the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre. I am indicating that I would wish to give oral evidence in front of a hearing or public enquiry should that opportunity apply. I wish to complain about all the documents provided being so heavily redacted and I believe unnecessarily so. This has made interrogating them an almost impossible task and consequently being detrimental to the planning process that allows public objection as defined by law. I wish to make the following statement. Please note: all reference to Haslar Immigration Removal Centre are abbreviated to (HIRC). The position of my property is such that it is positioned ████████████ from the actual dwelling to the junction at Dolphin Way ████████████████████████████. My property is mentioned in the air quality report █████████████████████████████████████████████ which will carry all road traffic to HIRC. I would like to emphasis on behalf of myself and my neighbours that HIRC phase 1 work first began in September 2023 and it is nearly September 2026 with still no end in sight. This has basically been 3 years of hell, ever day has been a new challenge and we are all battle weary. Apart from 3 planning applications (demolition of certain buildings, construction of an energy centre and replacement of fencing) all other work has been done under Crown Permitted development. This basically means they can do what they want with nobody to check or police them and boy don’t we know it! Everything I have said here I have either recorded or photo evidence to support it: a. Vehicles parking in the road opposite my property from 0600, slamming doors, making noise getting equipment out of vehicle, changing into working clothing in the road, sounding vehicle horns to announce their arrival. Vehicle blocking drive ways making access and egress dangerous, parking all day outside properties denying owners parking ability. b. There have been numerous instances of dust especially over 3 days in July 2025 when the field of the energy station was first excavated, the weather was dry and the dust produced covered all cars in the vicinity to such an extent that it was not possible to establish what their original colour was. c. Noise, while construction noise is expected the worst noise is from Telehandlers reversing which make the Beep Beep Beep sound which is very intrusive in local properties even with windows closed. d. Illegal unloading and loading on Fort Road, regularly Fort Road, ██████████████████████ has been used as a lorry park and an extension of the defined loading bay which is the private road, Dolphin Way. Engines have been left idling producing fumes and noise; I have filmed many loading and offloading operations in road ███████████████. On one occasion my property suffered minor damage when an Elevated Work Platform was unloaded from a vehicle and subsequently dragged down the phone cable which removed the soffit board from my eaves. On another occasion an excavator was unloaded from a vehicle and the attachment buckets were placed on my block paving. e. I came upon a delivery truck parked with its rear end dangerous sticking out into Fort Road from Dolphin Way. When I took my phone out to take a photo I was approached███████████████████████████████████ in a threatening and intimidating manner and had to consider my own safety. According to the Health and Safety Executive, loading and unloading on public roads is in contrary to the Health and Safety Act as it places an operative in direct danger from approaching vehicles. f. Performing noisy construction work on Saturdays after 13:00 and on Bank Holidays. (All instances have been reported to GBC Environmental Health). g. There have been numerous instances of untaxed and uninsured construction vehicles being used to move loads from Dolphin Way to the first carpark on Fort Road, (when their number plates were checked with DVLA, they can back as SORN) and consequently not allowed on public roads. These are just some of the instances that I (we) have had to endure over the last 3 years and now we are being promised another 2 years of the same. When we approach ████████████████████████, for HIRC phase 1 we are repeatedly told that they are not allowed to talk to us, under direct instruction from the Home Office. (Absolutely no engagement policy with residents) Will this be the same for HIRC Phase 2? Things could have been so much better with proper and regular engagement instead it has been so unprofessional and frustrating for all residents. The basis of my Objection is detailed below: I firmly believe that local planning matters should be handled by the local planning authority who are best placed to authorise planning applications taking into account the protection of local residents, ensure that Local Plans are adhered to and preventing over development. Whilst the Crown Development route to planning may be appropriate in certain circumstances, developments in a residential area within metres of local properties and a protected heritage area is not one of them. The height of the proposed buildings which is 12 metres, within this development is approximately 2.5 times the height of the fence line which is 5.2 metres. There are no other similar type buildings in this area that are comparable and are therefore totally out context with local planning concepts. I would be very grateful if the Planning Inspectorate would take into account various points that I have raised below regarding the HIRC Phase 2 application in their decision making process. 1. Because of the unique position of my property being just █████████ from HIRC vehicle access road, the junction of Dolphin Way. I believe that I am qualified more than most to comment on the highly redacted travel plan and the volume of traffic. From the information available I estimate there will be over 300 vehicle movements daily over the junction of Dolphin Way. This will include staff parking for 40 vehicles which will turn over twice daily between 0630 to 0830 and 1700 to 1900. There will 4 heavy goods vehicle deliveries, each hour for 8 hours daily and 4 light good vehicles, each hour for 8 hours daily. Due to redactions I really do not know what the true daily figure of vehicle movements will be; however there will also be mini bus trips from Gosport Ferry to Dolphin way and return, 4 each hour for 8 hours daily. It is unknown how many resident movements there will be daily and nightly. Basically all these traffic movements every day which will be 365 days a year. Absolutely no consideration has been made in respect of my property being ██████████████ away and the disruption it will mean to my life going forward. This includes disrupted sleeping patterns, air and noise pollutions affecting my health and wellbeing, as previously stated this will be 365 days a year, 24/7 and there will be no respite at weekends and no recovery time. The air quality report lists my property as a receptor at risk, however the risk is only slightly raised (Just as long as all the mentioned mitigations are in place and actually carried out). The Author who carried out this Air Quality report did so from a desk, nobody came to my property to examine who was being exposed, for example age and current health issues. If young children inhabit the dwelling, then it is recognised that with continuous noise and vibration disruption this can cause behaviour and learning difficulties. We cannot sell our properties ████████████ and move because nobody will buy them and why should we, like everyone else we have invested money into our properties and we need to sell them for the market value to be able to move on somewhere else. The Applicant (Home Office) have a duty care to ensure the wellbeing of local residents but do everything humanly possible to avoid this responsibility. 2. There are 4 buildings that are approximately 12 metres high and this is 2.5 times the height of the current fence line, which is 5.2 metres high. 3. The design could be described as bleak modern and hard facing whilst all other buildings in the phase 1 heritage area is in keeping with the historical heritage of the local area. 4. The height and design of the buildings are totally out of character for the area and set a precedent as there is nothing similar in the locality. 5. The 4 buildings will be visible from Southsea esplanade and vessels approach from the sea. 6. These 4 building will be end on to the seafront and will be visible to the King when his majesty conducts the next Spithead Review. 7. The height and design of these buildings will impact local residents and affect their quality of life; additionally there will be an impact on visitors to the area. 8. Please note: that the closest residential properties to these buildings is approximately 20 metres and these building will tower over local residential properties with overlooking issues. I note that the applicant has failed to address this issue within the supporting documentation regarding overlooking issues. 9. These proposed buildings are close to HIRC phase 1 which is a Gosport Borough Council declared “Heritage Area” and to suggest the height and design of these buildings and a 20 metre buffer zone will have very little impact on this area is just perverse. (Design and Access Statement, page 22) 10. Design and Access Statement, page 22, “Further more the proposed development should be sensitively integrated with the surrounding landscape to ensure a gradual transition to adjacent green spaces to minimise visual impacts on nearby residential and heritage receptors” so how does this reduce impact when these 4 buildings are 3 storey’s high (12 metres) and projecting into the sky. 11. Design and Access Statement, page 23, Please note: The Dining Hall building is only 20 metres away from the nearest residential inhabited build, ████████████████. 12. Design and Access Statement, page 25, this is the Construction and Operation – Site Access Strategy. This is just one page in whole document (and all other documents provided) that refer to the actual construction process regarding construction site layout. The drawing shows the access point for all construction vehicles. This access point is the entrance on Fort Road that is adjacent to a residential property – . The measured distance from the actual property to construction access road is just 8 metres. I recommend that as a condition of planning permission being granted, that the applicant in conjunction with Gosport Borough Council and Environmental Heath conduct a Risk Assessment to determine the best way to protect the inhabitants of this residential property. From noise and vibration from all the heavy construction vehicles that will transit through the access way. which is as previously stated only 8 metres from the inhabited building. This body or work should have already been completed by the applicant. This property should have been a receptor for the Noise Assessment, Air Quality and Environmental statement regarding its vulnerable position and the fact that this has not happened is a big oversight by the applicant. It may be appropriate for the applicant to move the construct gate to a more suitable location. (Please note: At 12:45pm on 29-07-2026, the current contractor for phase 1, █████████████████████used this access gate without planning permission as construction vehicle access point for a concrete mixing vehicle. We the local residents pushed back hard on this and subsequently █████████████████████████████ retreated from this position and we intend to do the same in future to protect this residential) Please note: 1ST Horizon, Air Quality Assessment (REF: 8607-R03) REV E – Date 05-05-2026 - 7 – Mitigation on Page 24 - Table - Trackout Mitigation 45 – Access gate to be located at least 10 metres where possible Page 22 to page 24 – 45 Mitigations – who checks to ensure that these are being done? And who do we complain to when they are not being done? 13. Design and Access Statement, page 32, shows a stylised view of just how close the residential property is and the access road which emphasises the close proximity they are to each other just 8 metres. 14. None of the accompanying documents mention HIRC unique position in the Immigration Removal Estates that HIRC is the only one that is situated in the middle of a Residential Area, with inhabited buildings in closed proximity (20 metres from the Dining Hall Building). Apart from Oxford that is in the middle of an Industrial Estate all other IRC’s are in rural areas, situated well away from inhabited dwellings and residential areas. This makes HIRC unsuitable for this expansion. 15. The noise assessment does not take into account the noise and vibration impact of the backup generators that are mandated to be tested for 2 hours monthly. 16. The noise assessment does not mention phase 2 and the multiple HAVC units which will produce 65 dBA at 60metres away, so significate noise disruption at night time. Please note that the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends no more than 30 dBA for undisturbed sleep and this issue needs to be addressed. 17. Multiple air conditioning units, HAVC, on the roofs of the accommodation block buildings will create significant noise levels of approximately 80 – 90 dBA which is equivalent to the noise of a lawn mower at 3 metres away. 18. Car parking: The applicant in the provided and heavily redacted supporting documentation has indicated that when construction has concluded and the immigration removal centre will have 414 employees. However there are only 259 car parking spaces in the Sea Wall Carpark and 35 to 43 along Dolphin way. So where are the remaining 112 going to park? The Answer is local roads blocking local roads obstructing local residents. 19. With reference to the travel plan, annex b vehicle tracking along Dolphin Way, it appears that HGV will deliver inside the main gate and will have to reverse out on completion. There is no provision for the protection of pedestrians who may be travelling the King Charles III coastal route. Residents walking their dogs or enjoying the coastal front. Additionally there is no provision for local fishermen and their vehicles who fish from the seawall, perhaps the applicant could confirm a safety provision will be provided for them. Further to this, the Design and Access Statement, page 19 gives no indication of pedestrian movement in Dolphin Way, just vehicle movements. 20. The pavement along Dolphin Way only runs to the main gate and there is only a very narrow pavement provision after this making it dangerous for pedestrians especially taking into account the number of parked vehicle. I believe that the whole issue of the safety of pedestrians on Dolphin Way should be referred back to the Health and Safety Executive for comment and recommendations. 21. The provision of a Traffic Order for double yellow lines at the junction of Dolphin Way and Fort Road and H block at the emergency gate is very necessary and welcome. However I believe that this should be taken further with double yellow lines at the junction leading to Haslar Sea Wall car park. Vehicles have historically parked here making visibility difficult and egress from the cark park unsafe. Please see the Design and Access Statement, page 15 and photo “D”. 22. With reference to the Haslar IRC Design and Access Statement dated May 2026, towards the end of the document there are endless pages of spin regarding clever landscaping etc. however the fact that these 4 buildings at 12 metres high are visible above the fence line is given no mention. 23. All reports submitted by the applicant are biased in favour of the applicant and are spun to give a favourable outcome to support the planning application and the author is paid to present the report in this way. For example in the air quality report, yes there is an increase risk, but of course it is still below acceptable levels. The applicant has effectively increased the risk by undertaking certain activities but in doing so it is still okay and the truth is hidden with waffle. All the unnecessary redaction further adds to the cynicism. 24. With reference to the ENGAGEMENT REPORT, dated May 2026 - Design & Heritage Community Feedback: “A significant concern among residents and the local MP is the height of the proposed three-storey house blocks. Many felt the proposed scale is excessive and intrusive compared to the existing IRC refurbishment, which is generally well-received. The increased height raises fears of overlooking into domestic properties, as the buildings would be taller than the perimeter fence, thus allowing IRC residents to see into gardens and homes. Whilst some residents acknowledged the indicative site layout kept buildings away from their properties, the overall sentiment was negative”. Correct the sentiment was negative and still is negative with the current Design and Access Statement. This concludes my letter of objection and I thank the planning inspectorate for the provision and opportunity to make this planning objection and subsequent comments. Yours sincerely