Home Office proposes doubling of Campsfield capacity

The Home Office has proposed a second phase of development to the Campsfield Immigration Removal Centre (IRC), increasing its capacity from 160 to 400 beds. This expansion to the facility – whose reopening in 2025 has been followed by regular protests – would progress through the Crown Development approval process, bypassing the Cherwell District Council.

Located north of Kidlington, Campsfield holds detainees whose custodial sentence has ended and who are awaiting deportation, and those who do not have a legal right to remain in the UK. The facility was previously closed in 2018 following significant backlash for its treatment of prisoners and staff, with 41% of Campsfield detainees in 2018 reporting that they felt unsafe.

The proposed expansion would see an additional 240 beds, 176 staff members, and 10,840m² of floorspace as part of a broader strategy to increase national detention capacity to 3,500 by 2030. The Home Office has justified both the expansion and the choice to pursue the Crown Development route by referencing its policy goals. In a Statement of National Importance included in its planning application, the Home Office argued that “insufficient detention capacity is a critical bottleneck in the immigration system” and that “both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have confirmed that tackling illegal migration remains a top government priority”.

According to the Home Office, Campsfield plays an important role in government immigration policy, with Phase 2 of construction labelled a “nationally significant development”. They have also acknowledged the controversial nature of the proposal, saying, “Phase 2 is significantly larger [than Phase 1, which reopened the facility] and is expected to attract greater public interest, making the local planning route less appropriate”.

Advocacy groups have already criticised the planned development, with Oxfordshire charity Asylum Welcome Joint-CEO Hari Reed writing in a press release: “We are concerned by proposals to increase Campsfield’s capacity from 160 to 400 and would encourage people to engage with the consultation process.”

In a leaflet shared with Cherwell, the Oxfordshire-based Coalition to Close Campsfield (CCC) claims that the reopening occurred “despite the opposition of the parish, district and county councils” and that the Crown Development route for expansion “is expressly designed to override the wishes of local people and the local planning authority”. The CCC has also criticised the expansion for its proximity to the Oxford Technology Park and disputed the Home Office’s assertion that the expansion is “value for money”, calling for a public inquiry “in view of the issue’s importance and contentiousness”. 

A recent Cherwell investigation found that at least 9 Oxford colleges indirectly invest in Mitie Group Plc, whose subsidiary runs Campsfield. The University restricts investments against certain types of arms production companies, tobacco companies, fossil fuel exploration and extraction companies, and funds which invest in these types of companies, but does not limit investment in companies involved in the border industry. 

Mitie told Cherwell, “Our colleagues are committed to upholding the highest standards of dignity, safety, and respect for those in our care.”

Public consultation on the proposal is open until 24th July, 2026.