Oxfordshire immigration detention centre not a 'Nimby' issue

It is the job of councillors – democratically elected political representatives – to oppose new projects where they do not have the support of local people.

We at the Oxford Times previously praised the Oxfordshire politicians who went against the position of their party nationally in reflecting the discontent householders felt, for example, towards Thames Water.

We have also highlighted the concerns of Oxfordshire residents who do not wish to see their countryside ‘carpeted’ over with new housing developments, in light of new government targets.

READ MORE: Woodstock residents left without gas handed parking tickets

But in the case of Campsfield House – such a symbolically significant and morally contentious issue - it is somewhat surprising there remain suggestions that some people oppose the re-opening of the immigration detention centre not because they are principally against it, but in the spirit of a not in my backyard or ‘NIMBY’ issue.

Campsfield House. (Image: Oxford Mail)

When the stakes for people inside are so high, and the location of the centre in and of itself has not been proven to present a principle point of concern, it is imperative that politicians and residents think morally about the status of Campsfield rather than just deciding whether they want it on their doorstep.

Thinking in moral terms is not mutually exclusive with putting Oxfordshire first as it determines the kind of county we want to live in.

Of all the front page stories published in the Oxford Times over the last few weeks, it’s fair to say this one may have elicited the strongest comments.

The reasons for that, actually, might be that most of them seem to have come from the same person.

Deputy county council leader Dr Pete Sudbury told us Campsfield House was the result of “performative cruelty”, an “elected dictatorship” and also described it as a “concentration camp”.

Dr Sudbury. (Image: Other.)

Of course, this is often what happens when politicians – perhaps more common among some political persuasions than others - are asked for their view on contentious issues.

But what does seem remarkable is just the extent to which opinions can change on issues like these. Dr Sudbury’s do appear to have remained consistent and one can give him that.

Namely, local Labour had been campaigning to get the centre closed pre-2024.

But for the Labour government to now be calling for it to re-open, and incorporate 290 additional immigration detention beds, is nothing short of remarkable.

Oxford city council leader Susan Brown says she is “disappointed” at the re-opening of Campsfield House.

It is good to at least see some consistency from local councillors on this topic and it arguably offers some faith in the democratic process.

Susan Brown. (Image: Oxford City Council.)

While the Oxford Times has praised councillors for reflecting the views of residents, it is also necessary to have councillors whose principles do not change on a whim.

Especially on such a morally and culturally significant issue like Campsfield House.

So long as councillors combine some consistency in following their conscience with reflecting the views of Oxfordshire residents, we should be ok.

And a message for local residents - there’s a time and place to be a nimby. But it’s probably not now.

Help support trusted local news 

Sign up for a digital subscription now: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/subscribe/

As a digital subscriber you will get:      

• Unlimited access to the Oxford Mail website   
• Advert-light access       
• Reader rewards       
• Full access to our app

About the author

Noor is the Local Democracy Reporter for Oxfordshire who covers political stories from across the county. 

She began working as a journalist in Oxford in September 2023 having graduated from the University of Oxford.

Noor was trained at the News Associates journalism school and can be found on X through the handle @NoorJQurashi