Labour accused of bypassing locals as £399m immigration detention plan is fast-tracked

The Government has been accused of “bypassing local scrutiny” as it fast-tracks plans to create one of Europe's biggest immigration detention centres on a Hampshire seafront.

The former Haslar Immigration Detention Centre in Gosport closed a decade ago. Now the Government is reopening and dramatically expanding the site, with plans for a 600-bed facility holding foreign criminals and immigration offenders awaiting deportation.

But instead of allowing Gosport Borough Council to handle the planning application, ministers are using the controversial Crown Development process, which allows nationally important projects to be dealt with by the Government rather than the local authority.

Local politicians are furious.

‘If they have nothing to hide’

Gosport Borough Council leader Zoe Huggins has written to Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood demanding an open inquiry and greater access to the evidence behind the project.

Her argument is simple: if the Government believes the scheme can withstand scrutiny, it should have nothing to fear from giving local people a proper voice.

“If the Government believes this expansion application stands up to scrutiny, it should not fear greater openness, transparency and scrutiny,” she said.

Gosport MP Dame Caroline Dinenage has also attacked the decision to use the Crown Development route, warning that it removes decision-making from local people and places it in the hands of Whitehall officials and politicians.

She accused the Government of trying to push the application through with “minimal scrutiny”.

Residents say they are trapped

The controversy is not confined to politicians.

Residents living around the seafront site say the redevelopment has already caused misery, with some claiming years of construction noise and disruption have affected their lives and property values.

One resident living just 50 yards from the centre claimed her home had lost £25,000 in value and said residents felt like “prisoners in our own homes” because they were struggling to sell.

Another resident questioned the scale of the operation, pointing out that the planned facility will accommodate 600 detainees alongside around 450 staff.

The centre's reopening is being phased. The first stage will provide 130 beds and is expected to be ready by autumn, with the first detainees anticipated to arrive in spring 2027.

Labour says removals are the priority

The Government insists there is no apology for expanding detention capacity.

The £399 million programme, originally proposed under the Conservatives but now being carried forward by Labour, will also expand Campsfield House in Oxfordshire from 160 to 400 beds.

Together, the Government says the extra capacity will increase detention space by around 40 per cent and could help facilitate the removal of 45,000 foreign criminals and illegal migrants over the next decade.

That is the Government's central argument: Britain cannot deport people who are not being detained, and increased detention capacity is therefore essential to making its immigration policy work.

But critics say that does not justify shutting local communities out of decisions that will fundamentally change their neighbourhoods.

The bigger battle over Whitehall power

The dispute is becoming part of a much wider argument over the Government's use of Crown Development powers.

Labour is also using the route for plans involving former military sites at RAF Linton-on-Ouse, MoD Bicester and MoD Barnham.

Critics accuse ministers of exploiting a process designed for genuine urgency to bypass elected local authorities.

The Government insists all Crown Development applications involve extensive consultation and says residents can still submit their views through the formal process.

But for people living opposite Haslar, the argument is unlikely to end there.

They are being asked to accept one of Britain's largest immigration detention facilities on their doorstep — while the Government insists it should be Whitehall, rather than the local community, that makes the final decision.

And that raises the awkward question at the heart of the row:

If the Government is confident the plan is right, why is it so afraid of letting the locals have their say?

SOURCE