Mims Davies presented the Copthorne Hotel petition to the Commons on 8 September with 1,927 names. The council motion it cites says something different.
A petition calling for the Copthorne Hotel to be returned to its former use was presented to the House of Commons on 8 September. It carries 1,927 names.
Mims Davies, the Conservative MP for East Grinstead and Uckfield, presented it. Hansard records her saying she rose to present it “on behalf of 563 constituents from East Grinstead, Uckfield and the surrounding villages, as well as a further 1,364 people who have signed online”.
The hotel sits on Copthorne Common Road in Copthorne, in the Copthorne and Worth ward of Mid Sussex district. The village is about five miles west of East Grinstead, three miles east of Crawley and nine miles north of Haywards Heath.
The petition has been given the number P003236. As at today, Hansard carries no government response to it.
What the petition asks for
The wording is on the record in full, in the Hansard report of 8 September.
The petition declares that the hotel “should be returned to its former use as a major local employer, valuable Gatwick Airport accommodation and a highly valued community hub, in line with the Mid Sussex District Council motion passed in September 2025”.
It then asks the House of Commons to urge the Government to facilitate the hotel’s return, “used as asylum accommodation for the last six years”, to “its original and proper use at the earliest possible opportunity and before the current planning permission expires”.
Introducing it, Davies told the House:
For over five years, the Copthorne hotel has housed asylum seekers, depriving the community of both a local employer and a much-used and much-loved community space.
She added that since 2023 her constituents had “seen other hotels opened for asylum accommodation close before the Copthorne hotel”, that there was “a palpable sense of frustration within the community”, and that they “urgently want clarity on when the hotel will close”.
The two documents differ on how long the arrangement has run. Davies said “over five years” in the Chamber. The petition text she read says “the last six years”.
The council motion it points at says something different
The petition rests part of its case on a Mid Sussex District Council motion. We read the motion.
Full Council met on 24 September 2025 and took a Conservative group motion as item 13, proposed by Councillor Graham Casella and seconded by Councillor John Belsey. A tabled amendment was accepted by the proposer before the vote, and it is the amended version that passed. Both versions are published on the council’s own meeting page.
The amended motion that Council carried reads, in full:
The Council is sensitive to the views of local communities but is also aware of the need to support those who have entered the country to seek safety and refuge, especially women and children. Consequently, we look forward to the judgment in Epping Forest v Somani Hotels Ltd case which is listed for October 2025 and hope this judgement will assist councils to understand what powers they have in relation to asylum hotels.
Therefore, we request that Mid Sussex District Council in partnership with others work together to assist and investigate what further support that can be provided to all people residing in Copthorne.
That is the whole text. The motion Council passed does not call for the hotel to be returned to its former use, does not ask the Government to do anything, and does not mention a planning permission. What it requests is that the council investigate what further support can be provided to people living in Copthorne.
The amendment changed two things from the motion as originally published with the agenda:
- “The Conservative Group is sensitive to the views of local communities” became “The Council is sensitive to the views of local communities”.
- A request for support “to the residents of Copthorne” became support “to all people residing in Copthorne”, which takes in those housed at the hotel.
It passed with 41 votes in favour, none against and two abstentions.
None of that means the council was silent about the hotel. The minutes record Casella acknowledging “the views of Copthorne residents around the prolonged use of the hotel for asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants which has had a negative impact on the village in terms of lack of employment, tourism and an increase in protests”. He cited a lack of social cohesion and proposed the motion as a way to investigate bringing the community together.
Belsey, seconding, said it would help the council understand the impact on the community and share ways the council could provide support, “such as through community tension assessments”. The Leader “acknowledged the anxiety felt in the local area” and said the council and other public bodies should do all they can to support all residents “wherever they reside”. Members noted the motion built on a commitment made in 2020 to support refugees.
So the debate did record the concerns the petition describes. The resolution Council actually passed asked for support and an investigation, not for the hotel to be handed back.
The planning permission, and why it is harder to pin down
The petition’s deadline is a planning one. It wants the hotel back in its original use “before the current planning permission expires”. So we searched the council’s own planning register for what that permission is.
The register holds one application that matches. DM/22/1679 is for the “change of use of the staff accommodation block for a temporary period of 3 years to provide bedrooms for asylum seekers and migrants who require temporary accommodation”, at the staff accommodation at the Copthorne Hotel London Gatwick, Copthorne Common, RH10 3PG.
From the register entry:
- Received 25 May 2022, validated 26 May 2022.
- Decision: permission.
- Decision issued 12 July 2022.
- The register’s own “Temporary Permission Expiry Date” field is blank.
Three points follow, and all three are worth stating carefully.
First, that permission covers the staff accommodation block, not the hotel itself. The two are separate buildings on the same site.
Second, three years from the date the decision was issued would have run out in July 2025. Whether that is the operative date depends on the wording of the condition, which can run from the start of the use rather than from the decision. We could not read it. The register’s documents tab returns “permission denied” to the public, so the decision notice and its conditions are not available to us today, and the council has not filled in the expiry field that would settle it.
Third, a search of the register returns no later application at the hotel to extend or renew a temporary permission.
We are not able to say from the public record when the current planning permission expires, or whether it already has. Neither, on the face of the register, can a resident.
What it means for you
- If you signed it: the petition is now formally on the record as P003236, and the Hansard page above is the permanent public version of what you signed.
- If you want to check the claim about the council: the motion, the amendment and the minutes are all linked above and take about five minutes to read.
- If you want to track the planning side: the application reference is DM/22/1679 on the Mid Sussex planning register. Our Mid Sussex planning news page covers what is moving through the system locally.
- A petition presented in the Chamber is not a debate and not a decision. It puts the text and the number of signatories on the parliamentary record. Nothing in the record so far commits the Government to anything.
We have asked no one for comment on this article, and it contains none. Everything above is taken from Hansard, from the council’s published papers and minutes, and from the council’s planning register.
Have your say