Just days before Mid-Sussex District Council (MSDC) were set to vote on a proposed ban on protesting outside Scientology’s UK headquarters, the Church have withdrawn their application in a dramatic U-turn after an almost year-long process which has cost the taxpayer £84,000.

The move comes after the Council published a lengthy report recommending the request for a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) is rejected based on over five hundred pages of evidence, which included statements from local residents, protestors, Scientologists and law enforcement officers.

The report concluded that contrary to Scientology’s claims that protestors had engaged in hate speech, harassment and intimidation, “this is not supported by the Police witness statements which confirms no arrests were made in 2023 or 2024, that they had no concerns about protesters’ behaviour in 2023, and that in all cases the event was peaceful between all parties.” Council officers subsequently determined the threshold for a PSPO to be implemented, which requires “persistent, ongoing disruption” to the local community, had not been met and recommended elected members reject the application.

A Cabinet meeting was then scheduled for Monday 30th June, at which Councillors would ratify the decision via a democratic vote.

However, in an email to the local authority late on Thursday, Scientology’s lawyer Peter Hodkin explained that the Church wanted to withdraw their application and are instead seeking “alternative measures” to restrict protestors’ rights, although they “do not rule out requesting it again based on what happens” at this year’s IAS event.

“To be clear,” the email says, “the purpose of the request for an (sic) PSPO was solely to prevent anti-Scientologists from congregating at the gate of the Church while members of the Church, and other visitors, were entering to attend religious services (which occur 7 days a week including during the IAS weekend) and religious activities, such as the IAS event. It did not seek to stop protests occurring in the vicinity of the Church, just not right next to it. We believe that is an entirely reasonable request.”

“While we note that your investigation of matters went broader than this, this was the simplicity of what the Church was asking for” Hodkin wrote.

In response, MSDC’s Assistant Director (Communities) Lucy Corrie, who has been overseeing the PSPO process, said “the Cabinet meeting on Monday will proceed in accordance with the published agenda, on which consideration of a PSPO will remain a scheduled item. However, we will make sure to bring your correspondence to Cabinet’s attention, so members are aware of the latest position when making a decision.”

A supplementary note was then published on the Council’s website informing officials that after receiving additional correspondence, “there is no longer a party requesting a PSPO on Saint Hill Road or West Hoathly Road East Grinstead.”

The PSPO process has been ongoing since July of last year. In October, Council observers were present across all three days of Scientology’s annual IAS event in order to monitor the protest activity and assess whether the demonstrations met the criteria for implementing a ban. This, along with legal fees and countless hours spent reviewing live stream and Police body cam footage, as well as negotiating with both parties, has resulted in £84,000 of taxpayers’ money being spent on assessing the application – only for Scientology to withdraw it at the last minute.

In their report, the Council suggested that any disruption to the local community across the weekend was in fact caused by Scientology’s poor traffic management, lack of safety precautions and obstructions to the public highway, rather than the small gathering of protestors who assembled on a grass verge near the entrance to the Church. It made several recommendations for Scientology to implement which would reduce disruption whilst protecting protestors’ freedom of speech and rights to assembly.

Local residents have since taken to social media to express their support for the protestors. “I have two friends who were deeply abused by [Scientology],” one comment noted. “It’s had a massive impact on their lives. It takes courage to make others accountable and protect others from harm.”

Another said “Scientology happens to have its cult HQ here – but is a global travesty of human abuse and suffering so all comers welcome if it sends a message”

Local County Councillor Jacquie Russell also responded to comments, explaining she “took time to observe the last event in readiness to comment on the PSPO application should the decision be to proceed to public consultation because as County Cllr I am a statutory consultee and that is part of my job.”

She continued, “As a result I was subjected to a rather unpleasant petition effort by a few residents who said they were members of the church purely for doing my job.”

Here’s Scientology lawyer Peter Hodkin’s email to the Council in full:

Dear Lucy

Thank you for your email.

My client has carefully reviewed your published paper and the various documents. We appreciate all of the work that you and other Council staff have put into this.

To be clear, the purpose of the request for an PSPO was solely to prevent anti-Scientologists from congregating at the gate of the Church while members of the Church, and other visitors, were entering to attend religious services (which occur 7 days a week including during the IAS
weekend) and religious activities, such as the IAS event. It did not seek to stop protests occurring in
the vicinity of the Church, just not right next to it. We believe that is an entirely reasonable request.

While we note that your investigation of matters went broader than this, this was the simplicity of what the Church was asking for. There is an alternative way of achieving this which my client has recently discussed with the police.

My client is therefore willing to see what can be achieved by working with the police, Mid Sussex and Highways this year. On this basis my client withdraws the present request for a PSPO. They will see what can be done this year, and do not rule out requesting it again based on what happens. Hopefully it will not be needed.

As I have said we do appreciate everyone’s efforts, and I hope that this may considerably
shorten the homework of members of the Cabinet, as well as the length of the meeting on Monday!

Kind regards

Peter Hodkin

Scientology lawyer Peter Hodkin’s email to Mid-Sussex District Council, 26th June 2025

Journalist Tony Ortega, who has been following the PSPO process closely on The Underground Bunker, told us “Twice in only a month, Scientology has done this, pulling petitions rather than suffer embarrassing no votes — in Florida last month and now in England.”

“In both cases, local government bodies had spent considerable time and effort on Scientology’s proposals before (correctly) deciding they were not the right thing for their respective towns. Scientology’s last-minute withdrawals look like David Miscavige tantrums by a ruthless leader who isn’t used to being told no. I hope more government bodies take note before they too invest time and money considering Scientology schemes.”

Scientology Business will be present at the Cabinet meeting on Monday and we will of course keep you up to date on any developments between now and then.