The owner of the former Firgrove care home in Burgess Hill has fiercely condemned social media users for spreading “unfounded and baseless” claims that the shuttered building would be converted into accommodation for asylum seekers, after a protest and counter-protest brought more than a hundred people to the streets outside the property. The old care home, situated on Keymer Road, has been closed since 2021, and in the days before the demonstration it became the subject of intense online speculation, particularly on Facebook, where users claimed it would become a House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) for asylum seekers. In a statement issued after the protest, the owner insisted that the property is now in new ownership and is leased to a prospective care home operator, with the intention of using it as a children’s care home. The owner said no application has ever been made to change the building’s use, that the current planning designation remains a care home, and that the property is under refurbishment to operate as a modern care facility. The local council, the owner added, is aware of that decision. The statement also said Sussex Police are fully aware that the property will not be used for any purpose other than the provision of care services. The demonstration on 15 September saw both protesters and counter-protesters gather outside the building, reflecting wider concerns about immigration and asylum accommodation. The owner said the false information circulating online had caused significant distress to innocent people and was delaying the reopening of a facility meant to serve the community.
Sussex Police described the gathering as a lawful protest and counter-protest, but confirmed that one arrest was made during the evening. Around 150 people attended the demonstration on Keymer Road, and officers were present to supervise the two groups. A 58-year-old man from Brighton was arrested for failing to remove a scarf covering his face and was later released on bail while enquiries continue. There were no reports of injuries. Counter-protesters, including groups such as Stand Up To Racism, gathered on the opposite side of the road, while other demonstrators expressed concerns about the building’s possible future use. The arrest was the only reported police action during the protest, despite the strong emotions on both sides. The police statement did not confirm or deny the nature of the rumours, but said simply that officers attended a lawful protest and counter-protest. The presence of the Home Office and local MP Alison Bennett was also noted, with both contacted for further comment. The event in Burgess Hill was one of a number of similar episodes in recent years where unverified claims about asylum accommodation have triggered local protests before official confirmation emerges. The police response treated the demonstration as peaceful, but the arrest highlighted the tense atmosphere around the site.
The owner’s statement set out the legal and planning position in detail. “The property is in new ownership after the closure of the former care home and is leased to a prospective care home operator to use it as a children care home,” the statement said. “It is no longer managed by Firgrove care home group.” The statement continued: “The current owner had never applied to change the use of the building and will maintain the current planning use as Care Home. The property is under refurbishment to operate as a Care Home and the Council is aware of this decision.” The owner stressed that the building’s future is firmly anchored in the care sector, not in asylum accommodation or houses in multiple occupation. The statement also said the current owner is working closely with the police authority, which is fully aware that the property will not be used for any purpose other than the provision of care services. That declaration was intended to put an end to the speculation that had been building on social media, where false claims had been repeated and amplified without any evidence. According to the owner, the planning department had never been consulted about any HMO use, and that information was already in the public domain, making the continued circulation of the rumour all the more frustrating.
The owner was particularly scathing about the way the misinformation had spread. “The recent manifestations on social media are unfounded and baseless but hype news,” the statement said. “I wish to reiterate that it was never my intention to use the property as HMO but to continue providing care to the community.” The owner went on to question how such movements could be allowed to proceed in an age where information is readily available. “How the idea that this property will be used as HMO is beyond belief as the planning department was never consulted this, which is in the public domain. How and why such movements are allowed to proceed despite in an age where information is available,” the statement read. The owner also made clear that the protests were unjustified and damaging. “It is in the public interest to clarify the matter and point out that the protests were unjustified and baseless. This is causing lot of distress to innocent people and delaying the development of the site into a modern care facility,” the statement added. The comments reflect a growing frustration among property owners and local authorities who find themselves having to respond to social media-driven rumours that can quickly spiral into public disorder, even when no planning application or official proposal exists.
Mid Sussex District Council moved to support the owner’s account by confirming that it has received no formal submissions relating to the site. A council spokesperson said: “Firgrove is a privately owned property. The council has not received any planning application, change-of-use application, or other formal submission relating to the site. We are not aware of any proposals for the use…” The council’s response effectively confirmed that the building’s current legal use remains a care home and that there is no active planning process to change it. This is highly significant, because any proposal to use the building as an HMO or asylum accommodation would normally require a change of use application or at least a formal discussion with the planning authority. No such steps have been taken. The UK Home Office, which is responsible for asylum accommodation contracts, was also contacted for comment, as was local MP Alison Bennett. The council’s statement did not say whether any informal inquiries had been made about the site, but it made clear that no formal planning process is underway. That leaves the owner’s account as the only credible explanation for the building’s future: it is being refurbished, it will remain a care home, and it will be used for children’s care services, not asylum accommodation.
With the facts now clarified, the immediate future of the former Firgrove care home appears settled, but the episode has left a broader lesson about the power of misinformation in local communities. The owner’s statement repeatedly described the protests as unjustified, baseless, and harmful, and said innocent people had been caught up in the distress caused by false allegations. The delay to the refurbishment is a tangible consequence, and any further disruption could slow the delivery of much-needed children’s care provision in the Burgess Hill area. The police confirmed that the protest was lawful, despite the arrest, and no injuries were reported. The council has not identified any reason for intervention, and no official body has put forward any proposal involving asylum seekers. The key facts are simple: the building is owned privately, it is leased for use as a children’s care home, no change of use has been applied for, and the planning status remains that of a care home. The wave of protest appears to have been based entirely on unsubstantiated social media content. For residents, the affair may serve as a reminder to check official sources before accepting claims that can inflame community tensions. For the owner, the hope is that the site can now be allowed to reopen as a modern care facility, free from the false rumours that brought demonstrators to its gates.