🔴 ESSEX ASYLUM HOTEL INJUNCTION: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RESERVED

In a keenly anticipated development at the Royal Courts of Justice, Mr Justice Mould has reserved judgment following the conclusion of a three-day High Court hearing into Epping Forest District Council’s bid for a permanent injunction against the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping as accommodation for asylum seekers.

The council’s application, opposed by hotel owner Somani Hotels Limited and intervened upon by the Home Office, centres on allegations of a planning breach stemming from what the local authority describes as a material change of use at the 80-bedroom site.

At the heart of the dispute lies the council’s contention that quartering asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel constitutes a shift from its lawful Class C1 hotel designation under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to a sui generis use, necessitating planning permission that has not been sought.

Philip Coppel KC, representing the council, argued in written submissions that the current arrangement—housing up to 138 single adult males under a contract with Home Office contractor CTM (North) Ltd—has led to operational changes including exclusive occupancy, daily sign-ins, and Home Office-directed room allocations, rendering it incompatible with standard hotel operations.

He emphasised that no public bookings or visits are possible, and the site’s facilities are inaccessible to non-residents, factors he submitted amount to a significant adverse impact warranting injunctive relief under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The hearing, which wrapped up on Friday, heard evidence from Steve Lakey, managing director of Clearsprings Ready Homes, a key government contractor providing asylum accommodation services across southern England and Wales.

Lakey warned of potential broader repercussions, stating that a successful injunction could trigger a “domino effect” with other hotels withdrawing from similar arrangements, complicating efforts to secure alternative sites.

He noted Clearsprings’ involvement at the Bell since May 2020, highlighting the firm’s £187 million in profits over six years from supporting approximately 30,000 migrants, half of whom are housed in hotels.

Under cross-examination by Coppel, Lakey acknowledged the financial scale but stressed the practical challenges of relocation, querying where displaced individuals would be placed amid ongoing systemic pressures.

The Home Office, through barrister James Strachan KC, described the council’s application as “misconceived,” arguing that block-booking rooms does not alter the hotel’s fundamental use.

Strachan submitted that any closures must follow a “structured response” to avoid straining the national asylum system, where hotels form a critical component of contingency accommodation under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

He cautioned that isolated local actions ignore the need to redistribute capacity elsewhere, potentially exacerbating the backlog of over 111,000 asylum applications as of mid-2025.

For Somani Hotels, Jenny Wigley KC contended that an injunction represents an “exceptional last resort,” pointing out the absence of prior enforcement action by the council despite the site’s intermittent use for asylum seekers since 2020.

She highlighted the hotel’s financial decline predating the current contract, with no structural alterations beyond security fencing installed in response to external events.

Wigley noted a February 2023 application for temporary change of use, withdrawn in April 2024 due to lack of determination, and argued that conventional enforcement routes, such as notices under section 172 of the 1990 Act, remain untried and likely effective if a breach is proven.

The proceedings also addressed procedural matters, with Mr Justice Mould expressing concern over threats received by witnesses since the council initiated action in August.

He described such incidents as “highly regrettable and totally unacceptable,” underscoring that the case pertains strictly to planning control under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The judge affirmed his intent to deliver a written ruling promptly, acknowledging the interests of all parties in a swift resolution.

This latest phase follows an interim injunction granted to the council by Mr Justice Eyre on 19 August 2025, which restrained the hotel’s use pending trial but was overturned by the Court of Appeal on 29 August.

The appellate court, in a decision by Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Mr Justice Cobb, found errors in the initial balancing exercise, particularly regarding the Home Office’s absence from early proceedings and the national implications for asylum duties.

The Bell Hotel’s role in asylum accommodation dates back to its closure during the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, followed by periods housing homeless individuals and asylum seekers without incident until April 2025.

The current contract, capping occupancy at 138 and providing services like reception, catering, and security, has accommodated around 95 individuals as of the hearing’s close.

The case draws on precedents such as Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868, where similar distinctions between hotel and sui generis uses were examined, emphasising fact-sensitive assessments of on-site and off-site effects.

Analysts note parallels with Great Yarmouth and Fenland cases, where outcomes varied based on local planning policies and broader public interest considerations.

With the UK’s asylum backlog standing at record levels and hotels costing £5.5 million daily, the ruling could influence similar disputes nationwide, as the Home Office pursues a phased reduction in such reliance by 2029.

Epping Forest District Council’s pursuit reflects ongoing tensions in planning enforcement amid national immigration obligations, with the final decision poised to clarify the threshold for material changes in asylum contexts.

Until Mr Justice Mould’s judgment is handed down, the Bell Hotel continues operations under the existing arrangement, subject to any appeal routes that may follow.

Stay tuned, we will let you know as soon eve the Judges decision drops ……