High Court dismisses Epping Forest asylum seeker hotel injunction claim

The High Court has dismissed a claim by Epping Forest District Council for an injunction preventing the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping as accommodation for destitute asylum seekers pursuant to the Secretary of State’s statutory duties. The Council’s application was brought on the basis that it considered such use to amount to a breach of planning control.

While finding that the Council had a reasonable basis for alleging that the use was a breach of planning control such that an application for an injunction under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 could be sought, the Court declined to make a declaration that there was any such breach of planning control and was not persuaded that it was just or convenient to grant an injunction. Factors which weighed against the Council’s application included:

• The absence of any detailed account or record, contemporary or otherwise, of the Council’s decision-making, meant the Court was left in considerable doubt as to whether the decision to seek an injunction was made on a properly informed basis as to the planning issues involved or what the reasons were for reaching the decision ultimately made. The failure to make a contemporaneous (or any) record, particularly given the express requirement to do so stated in the Council’s Scheme of Delegation, was a serious procedural error which gave rise to real prejudice to the Defendant hotel owner, Somani Hotels Limited.

• There was an unresolved dispute between the Council and the hotel owner as to whether the use of the Bell Hotel was a breach of planning control, which had not been determined by the Council in its capacity as local planning authority or thereafter on appeal. Despite the Bell Hotel having been used to house asylum seekers for various periods from May 2020, the Council had taken the decision not to pursue enforcement action under the 1990 Act, including when the use resumed in April 2025. This was not consistent with the Council’s case that the Court was dealing with a flagrant breach of planning control.

• The Council’s evidence did not establish that the amenity impacts of the use of the Bell Hotel itself were sufficiently serious to require immediate injunctive relief. The security fencing erected around the premises was a temporary measure in response to the protests in Summer 2025, rather than being required by the use of the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation. The Council had not provided evidence in support of its contention that the use of the Bell Hotel was unacceptably impacting the provision of local services or that asylum seekers have a greater propensity to anti-social or criminal behaviour.

• The Court accepted that there was a reasonable basis for local residents’ fears and concerns about crime arising from the behaviour of a limited number of individuals accommodated at the Bell Hotel. However, these fears and concerns could not properly be said to be grounded in the use of the Hotel as asylum accommodation itself. The Court found that there was no evidential basis for the assertion that asylum seekers as a cohort have a greater propensity than the settled population of the UK to engage in criminal or anti-social behaviour.

• The Council identified the protests in Summer 2025 as being the trigger for the injunction application. However, the mere fact of public protests should not have been given any weight by the Council in deciding to seek an injunction under the 1990 Act, nor did the Court give it any weight; the fact of protests was neither a planning nor an environmental harm. Violent disorder was to be managed under other legal frameworks (e.g., the Public Order Act 1986).

• The use of hotels, including the Bell Hotel, as contingency accommodation for destitute asylum seekers was required by the Secretary of State as matters stood at the time of the hearing in order to discharge her statutory duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Council’s failure to engage with the Secretary of State about the impact of taking the Bell Hotel out of use was significant and undermined the Council’s assertion that the injunction would not impact on her ability to house asylum seekers.

• The injunction would have a financial impact on the hotel owner, including preventing it from using revenue from its Home Office contract to refurbish the Bell Hotel for use by other customers in the future, something which it was not financially able to do without the revenue from that contract. The Council failed to consider this issue in deciding to seek an injunction.

The Court was satisfied that both Somani Hotels and the Secretary of State had been open and transparent in their actions towards the Council.

The hotel owner, Somani Hotels Limited, was represented by Jenny Wigley KC, leading Piers Riley-Smith of Kings Chambers.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department was represented by Katharine Elliot, led by James Strachan KC of 39 Essex Chambers.

Jacqueline Lean acted for Clearsprings Ready Homes Ltd, a provider of asylum accommodation to the Secretary of State which intervened in proceedings. She was led by Chris Buttler KC of Matrix Chambers.

A copy of the judgment may be found here.