Calls for public inquiry over expansion at Campsfield immigration centre
The scheme would take capacity up to four hundred beds, and is being decided by the Planning Inspectorate rather than local councillors
A “demand” to “refuse” plans to more than double a controversial Oxfordshire immigration removal centre, or carry out a “public inquiry” is being made as an application progresses.
Proposals to expand Campsfield House, a Home Office detention facility near Kiddlington, to hold up to 400 men are currently being assessed by the Government Planning Inspectorate.
Campsfield reopened in 2025 with 160 beds following a period of closure which came after a review of detainees’ welfare and years of protest, including hunger strikes.
The plans are going through the Crown Development route, which effectively bypasses the local planning authority due to their “national importance”.
The consultation period is over, and human rights campaigners are continuing to call for the refusal of the plan and an inquiry to ensure “proper scrutiny” if it is approved.
An inquiry is a court-like legal process used to evaluate major controversial development plans.
Coalition to Close Campsfield spokesperson Bill MacKeith said: “The Crown Development route used by government to impose the expansion of Campsfield to 400 places (and Haslar in Gosport to 600) is unacceptable.
“We demand that the Planning Inspectorate rejects the application.
“Failing that, it should refer the matter to a public inquiry for proper scrutiny.”
Speaking for the same campaign group, Liz Peretz explained an inquiry “really gives the opportunity” for input from “the people of Oxfordshire who live in the area where the detention centre is going to be”, adding it is the “least we could expect”.
The call for a public inquiry has been made repeatedly in representations made during the Campsfield planning process.
There have been around 260 submissions to the Planning Inspectorate – two of these were in support of the plans, seven were neutral responses from national or non-Oxfordshire organisations, including consultees like Sport England.
Individual objections made by residents, workers at the adjacent Oxford Technology Park and scholars, along with those representing political groups and human rights organisations, called for this measure.
This includes a joint statement from Right to Remain and the coalition, which lists reasons the groups beleive plans should “be determined through a full public inquiry”.
It said: “Planning Inspectorate guidance provides that an inquiry is appropriate where there is a clearly explained need for evidence to be tested through formal questioning, where the issues are complex, or where an appeal has generated substantial local interest warranting an inquiry rather than a hearing.”
The statement says “those conditions are met”, saying “evidence is complex, disputed, and likely to involve technical material on Green Belt policy, transport, infrastructure, landscape, ecology, operational need, capacity, and site layout”.
It adds: “Local opposition also includes opposition from the parish, district, city and county councils, the local MP, and a Cherwell District Council motion opposing the reopening and expansion of Campsfield.
“Taken together, these factors demonstrate substantial local interest and support the need for an inquiry rather than a less formal procedure.”
A Home Office spokesperson said: “The public rightly expect that we seek to remove those with no right to be here, that’s why this government has recently expanded capacity at our immigration removal centres.
“We have increased removals by 41 per cent since the election, and small boat returns are at record highs.
“Detention for the purpose of removal is used only where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timeframe.”
Previously, an asylum seeker accommodation centre was planned for MOD Bicester and was refused at a 2003 public inquiry.
This decision was overruled by the government, but the plans did not go ahead.