Back to list

Date submitted

6 August 2026

Submitted by

Interested party

Subject: Objection to Haslar IRC expansion, CROWN/2026/0000005 Dear Planning Inspectorate, I am writing to object to the proposed expansion of Haslar Immigration Removal Centre. The application reference is CROWN/2026/0000005. I object because the proposal would expand Haslar into a 600-bed detention centre, adding up to 470 additional detention places before the refurbished 130-bed centre has even reopened or been tested in practice. I am especially concerned about flood risk, coastal safety, in conjunction with climate change and the recent heat waves. Haslar is a coastal site next to the Solent, and parts of the site are in Flood Zone 3, meaning there is a high risk of flooding from the sea. Climate change makes this more serious because flood risk is likely to increase over the lifetime of the development through sea level rise, heavier rainfall, storms and pressure on coastal defences. Especially when through heat waves big areas of land dry out, they are then in the future less resilient to floodings, heavy rain and storms. 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. This is not an ordinary building. It would be a locked, secure detention centre. People detained at Haslar would not be free to leave if there was a flood warning, severe weather, a heatwave or a failure of flood defences or another emergency. The Planning Inspectorate should not approve this application unless there is clear evidence that detained people, staff, visitors, emergency services and escort vehicles would be safe for the lifetime of the development, including in future climate conditions. The fact that the Home Office has produced a Flood Evacuation Management Plan does not remove this concern. It shows that flood evacuation is a serious operational issue. The plan relies on flood warnings, staff action, staged evacuation, transport arrangements, emergency services and coordination with local bodies. It also says that, in an extreme flooding event, 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. 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, but especially the surveillance aspect of this project. Immigration removal centers are normally places of increased high-tech surveillance for inside and outside the center. I oppose the presence of an Immigration center as it would harm through surveillance the surrounding area as well as the people inside. The Home Office has not clearly shown 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, I ask that the application is refused. If it is not refused at this stage, I ask that it is examined through a full public inquiry. I do not wish to attend a hearing in the event that one is scheduled. Yours faithfully, Katharina Diebold 06/08/2026