🔴 Court Overturns Migrant Hotel Ban — Was Planning Law Ignored?

The Court of Appeal has overturned the injunction that would have compelled the removal of asylum seekers from The Bell Hotel in Epping, a decision that has already attracted close scrutiny across the legal profession.

The judgment, delivered by Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, set aside the High Court’s earlier ruling which had restrained the hotel from continuing to house asylum seekers under contract with the Home Office.

The Court’s reasoning, while carefully articulated, has left many practitioners and commentators questioning whether the balance struck was overly weighted in favour of the government’s interests.

At issue is not the wider policy of asylum accommodation, which the Court made clear was outside its remit, but the application of planning law and the scope of discretion afforded when councils seek enforcement through section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In overturning Mr Justice Eyre’s interim order, the Court of Appeal stressed that the national context could not be ignored. It emphasised the potential disruption to the asylum system if councils across the country were encouraged to seek similar injunctions.

The Court considered the “floodgates” effect of such litigation and the impact on accommodation capacity, alongside the risk of incentivising further disorder through local protests. Yet this emphasis on consequences beyond the immediate case is precisely where unease has arisen.

Many legal minds would argue that section 187B is designed to allow local planning authorities to enforce compliance in individual cases where they believe there has been a breach. The statute does not set the standard that enforcement should only be permitted if it does not inconvenience central government logistics.

It is one thing to weigh convenience in the balance of an injunction; it is another to suggest that the possibility of wider litigation by other councils can diminish the enforceability of planning law itself.

Equally, the finding that Epping Forest District Council’s delay in dealing with Somani Hotels’ prior planning application undermined their case may strike some as misplaced. Delay can be relevant to discretionary remedies, but it cannot in itself erase the fact that the council had a statutory duty to regulate planning control and that a material change of use may still have occurred.

The Court’s characterisation of the issue as a matter of preserving the status quo until the October trial risks being read as giving precedence to administrative convenience over the enforcement of planning law.

On the issue of protests, the Court rightly warned against giving unlawful demonstrations weight in judicial reasoning, lest it incentivise disorder. Yet here too, there is concern that the pendulum has swung too far.

By disallowing the injunction partly on the basis that protests should not count in favour of the council’s case, the ruling can be interpreted as saying that breaches of planning law may be tolerated to avoid unrest, when in fact such breaches ought to stand or fall on their own merits.

The essential question is whether the Court of Appeal’s approach risks creating a precedent where local authorities, seeking to uphold planning law in good faith, are told their enforcement will be sidelined whenever central government raises capacity or logistical difficulties.

If so, the concern is that the principle of planning law applying equally to all is undermined. Section 187B was intended to be a tool for enforcement, not one conditioned on whether the Home Office might be inconvenienced.

This commentary is not to challenge the authority of the Court, whose judgment is binding and to be respected, but to raise legitimate questions as to whether the decision gives disproportionate weight to national policy considerations at the expense of the narrow planning law issue before it. The proper place for arguments about capacity and system-wide asylum logistics lies in Parliament, not in determining whether a local authority is entitled to seek an interim order to enforce planning control within its own jurisdiction.

The full trial of Epping Forest District Council’s claim remains scheduled for October, where the substantive issue of whether the hotel’s use constitutes a material change of use without permission will be tested. It is at that stage that the central point of law will finally be adjudicated. For now, the ruling leaves unanswered the wider question: whether the courts should place planning law on hold whenever enforcing it risks unsettling the Home Office’s arrangements.

Well, that’s all for now. But until our next article, please stay tuned, stay informed, but most of all stay safe, and I’ll see you then.