'Former detainee' at controversial Kidlington immigration centre speaks out about plans to more than double its capacity

The consultation period for the expansion of the facility near Kiddlington from its current 160 beds for detained men to 400 has now ended.

After years of campaigns against it, Campsfield House IRC, which is operated by private company Mitie, closed in 2019, but reopened in 2025.

The site has seen repeated protests, including hunger strikes, with human rights campaigners warning it “rips apart families and destroys lives” and alleging detainee “slave labour”.

Gentjan Lybeshari, who describes himself as a “former detainee who was held inside Campsfield House IRC for two and a half months” has responded to plans for the expansion.

The dates of his alleged detention seem to be redacted on the Government planning website.

In his response, he said “I am exposing the severe institutional failures” which he claims to have “witnessed and experienced first-hand”.

Gentjan said these “prove this centre is unfit to operate, let alone expand”.

He said: “An institution that operates with zero security, untrained staff, and systematically violates the basic human rights of individuals under its care must not be expanded.

“It must be permanently shut down.”

In 2024, local planning authority, Cherwell District Council, passed a motion which said: “Campsfield House Immigration Detention Centre in Kidlington was closed in 2019 after decades of campaigning by refugee support groups and Cherwell residents, and the publication of two government commissioned reviews criticising the UK’s migrant detention system.

“The leader of the reviews, the Prison Ombudsman, Sir Stephen Shaw, described the detention system as indiscriminate, inhumane and hugely wasteful.”

Local MPs, councils, residents, human rights and religious organisations have responded to the expansion plans, with around 250 objections to the Home Office plans which are being assessed directly by the Government through the Crown Development Route, due to their “national importance”.

This means local planning authorities are unable to refuse plans and are effectively bypassed in decision making – this route is also set to be used for the MOD Bicester asylum seeker camp proposal.

This has been criticised by elected representatives and was called a “sneaky move” and “immoral” by resident Dali Dunn.

There are calls for a “public inquiry” if plans are approved through this route, including from campaign group Right to Remain and the Coalition to Close Campsfield, given the local opposition.

Redacted information in the plans has meant some agencies, such as National Highways, have been unable to “come to a view concerning the potential impact”.

One comment of support was left by “interested party”, Ryan Harris, who said: “This expansion gets my vote 100 per cent.

“The UK is over-populated and personnel who have no legal right to be in the UK need to be removed from our territory.

“As they would be a flight risk it is correct to hold them in a secure centre until such time as they are deported.

“Absolutely this project should go ahead.”