Plans to redevelop huge swathes of land at the Church of Scientology’s UK headquarters near East Grinstead, Sussex have been given the green light despite environmental concerns and reports it would deal harm to nearby listed buildings.
The application, which was submitted in September last year, sought to build a mega car park for over 680 vehicles and build permanent infrastructure to support the annual temporary erection of three mammoth marquees used to host the annual gathering of Scientology’s membership body, the IAS. The event brings considerable disruption to the local town, with residents complaining annually about the “chaos” caused by thousands of vehicles – including Tom Cruise’s helicopter – arriving at the site in order to hear reclusive leader David Miscavige speak.
In total, Scientology was seeking permission to redevelop 5.07 hectares, or over half a million square feet of land at their Saint Hill compound. The plans revolve around a single three day event, of which only one day is open to the public, and which Scientology officials admit is not a religious event but a money-making exercise. Supporting their application, the controversial Church supplied a report claiming the IAS event brings more benefit to the UK economy than the Eurovision Song Contest, though it relied heavily on unverified statistics provided by the church and assumed multiplier effects that exaggerated the event’s impact.
Today, elected officials at Mid-Sussex District Council voted to approve the redevelopment eight in favour vs one against and two abstentions.
The project is the latest in a string of developments over the years on the site of Saint Hill Manor, a Grade-II listed building. Since acquiring the site in 1959, Scientology has built a large faux castle, coach park, cafeteria and made alterations to existing buildings leading critics to raise concerns about overdevelopment in a protected National Landscape (formerly known as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).
Speaking against the application, Councillor John Dabell said “Originally, I understand they wanted to build a big unit at what is called Saint Hill and they were denied permission and therefore, they found out you could build a castle anywhere you like, so they built a castle. There have been various things going forward over a period of time where, bearing in mind this is an area of natural beauty which is protected land, and one way or another they have continued, in my opinion, to find a way to do what they want on it. I have concerns for this.”
“They’re talking about using this for 84 days a year […] for quite a large part of the time, that marquee is going to be there and my concern is that it will eventually become something else. There’s always been something like that, that’s actually stretched usage within this part of the land.”
The event has been taking place at Saint Hill for many years without the required permits, with Mid-Sussex District Council issuing a Planning Contravention Notice in 2023. Instead of focusing on the impact of the event taking place in an unauthorised manner in illegal structures erected annually without permission, the Planning Committee today seemed to view the application as an improvement of existing facilities.
A statement from former Scientologist Alexander Barnes-Ross was read out at the meeting by the Council’s lawyer, which said:
This application seeks to make permanent alterations to over 5 hectares of unspoiled, protected rural countryside. Although the proposal seeks to embed a plastic geocell grid into the ground, giving the car park area the appearance of a field for the majority of the year, planning policy states the protection of the National Landscape goes beyond purely visual impact. This will result in a fundamental change to the use of the land, and the Council’s own report acknowledges the harm and damage this will do to the local area and nearby heritage buildings.
However, perhaps more concerning are the number of inaccuracies and falsehoods presented by the applicant, and seemingly endorsed by Officers in their report. At a Premises Licence Review hearing just a few months ago, Scientology’s lawyers admitted in this very chamber that the IAS event – which this application seeks to provide infrastructure for – is not religious in nature, and does not involve any acts of worship. It is a fundraising, money-making event for an overseas entity that extracts huge amounts of wealth from the local economy. The applicant’s, and the officers’ agreement that Saint Hill has religious significance for Scientologists and that this should be given extra weight in terms of demonstrating a public benefit are not only misleading, but demonstrably false. The IAS event, as per the applicant’s legal representatives and indeed the reports submitted as part of their application, is not open to the public apart from one day a year and although there are reassurances the carpark could be used by the local sports club, there is no evidence to suggest such an agreement would last indefinitely.
Similarly, the applicant and indeed the officers’ report suggests that due to the so-called religious significance of the site, no alternative venues have been deemed appropriate for this event… and yet the applicant’s own reports detail how over the years, 25% of these annual IAS events have indeed taken place elsewhere. The Church recently secured permission to build a huge events venue at their worldwide headquarters in Florida, where this IAS event will eventually move to – meaning this development will result in permanent alterations to a protected AONB, yet only see temporary use until their new venue opens in the US.
Finally, it is important for Councillors to note the economic impact assessment is based on figures provided by the applicant themselves and cannot be substantiated. There has been no independent assessment conducted by the Council, or indeed any verification that the figures provided are accurate. The suggestion this event carries a greater benefit to the UK economy than Eurovision is laughable at best. Although a number of attendees visit from overseas, the majority of them stay in hotels owned by Scientologists, who in turn donate their profits back to the Church. There is no mention of the fact last year Scientology’s biggest donor was awarded for donating $360 million. This event creates a closed loop economy and in fact, extracts wealth from the area.
Any reasonable person would consider a 5 hectare development to be ‘major’, and it simply does not serve the public interest. I therefore urge Councillors to reject this proposal.
Statement from former Scientologist Alex Barnes-Ross, in opposition to Scientology’s proposed development at their UK headquarters
The Council’s report noted the plans would result in harm to an area of protected countryside, and deal damage to the setting of listed heritage buildings in the vicinity, but Councillors voted to approve the plans regardless.
Now Scientology have been given the green light, we expect a full permission notice to be issued in the coming days which will lay out any limiting conditions attached to the development and a timescale for construction work to begin.
2 responses
This is a profound disappointment.
The depth of the problem is illustrated by the fact that even the councillor who voted against fell for a Scientology propaganda myth.
The myth is this: Saint Hill 'castle' was built without permission because Wily Ron found out that any Englishman was entitled to build a castle.
This is the exact opposite of the truth.
a) Historically, a castle allowed an individual to challenge the authority of the king, and permission to build was extended only his most trusted vassals for fear of civil war.
b) The 'castle' is a big office building with Disney crennelations. It is in no way an actual castle.
You evidently can't "build a castle anywhere you like" and avoid planning regulations. If you could, the country would be overrun with faux castles. It's ridiculous on the face of it.
My wider point is that even the Councillor who voted against uncritically accepted this propaganda myth, which can be recognised as such with just a little thought.
If councillors accept what Scientology says like that, we can see that it is Scientology which determines their perception of of important matters, and their research doesn't even extend to the application of common sense.
'Safepointing' works, even on dissident councillors.
Upon reflection, the man who cast the 'no' vote did so as a matter of principle, and stood up for many sensible things. Maybe I was annoyed with the way things have gone I didn't respect that.
So, I'll try again, and say this. Even someone who sees so clearly that Scientology can't be trusted didn't look into that ridiculous claim about building a castle.
This is what happens when a single entity can spend so much time and effort setting the stage for the whole discourse, in order to ensure it favours them – and social pressure works.
It's maybe time for a more radical scepticism among local politicians – maybe approach Scientology's claims with the same caution you would when buying a used case – don't take their word for everything.
That will do.