Planning and politics are always closely linked - not in a best friends sense.  Immigration is high on the political agenda.  Decisions regarding the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest have been front page news and have prompted calls from politicians for enforcement against other asylum hotels.  This article takes a more in depth look at the case behind the headlines.

The hotel has provided asylum accommodation on and off since 2020.  It was used from May 2020 to March 2021 when closed during Covid and again from October 2022 until April 2024 following which it closed.  During the latter period the hotel owners, Somani, applied for a temporary change of use to hostel for asylum seekers but the application remained undetermined by the Council until it was withdrawn over a year later when the use was shortly to cease. 

The Home Office contacted Somani in February this year having identified the closed hotel for use as temporary asylum accommodation.  On 17 March the Council wrote to the Home Office objecting to the use of the hotel for this purpose based on pressure on local services (with no mention of planning control).

A one-year contract to provide exclusive use of the hotel for asylum accommodation was entered into by Somani and Company Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), a Home Office service provider, on 24 March 2025.  There have been no internal changes to the building and the only external change is the erection of security fencing following protests outside the hotel.

The hotel has been used for asylum accommodation again since April.  Shortly after the use commenced the Council contacted Somani explaining their view that permission should be sought for a change of use.  Somani were initially open to this but took advice from the Home Office.  Somani contacted the Council on 15 May to explain “in the Government’s opinion the hotel is contracted on exclusive use terms as a hotel, not a hostel, and so they do not support a change of use application”.  The Council did not respond.

In the intervening period three residents of the hotel have been arrested and there have been increasingly large protests in the area.

The next contact from the Council was the launch of injunction proceedings with the service of papers on Somani on 11 August. 

The hearing took place in the High Court on 15 August before Mr Justice Eyre (the judge), with judgment reserved to 19 August.  On 18 August an application was made to join the Home Secretary as a party to the proceedings.  A short hearing was held on 19 August at which the judge decided it was not desirable.  Judgment was then handed down granting the Council the interim injunction they sought, consequently requiring removal of 138 asylum seekers to alternative accommodation by 12 September.  Appeals were lodged in respect of both matters.

The two linked applications were heard in the Court of Appeal on 28 August with judgment given the following day.

The Court of Appeal granted the Home Secretary intervener status and found that the “judge made a number of errors of principle which undermine his decision”.

The Court of Appeal found that the judge’s exercise of discretion in this case was seriously flawed by his erroneous reliance on the “deliberate breach” (Somani declining to apply for planning permission for a change of use) as a significant factor in favour of the grant of an interim injunction.  Previous judicial observations that, “the court may be more ready to grant an injunction where conventional enforcement measures have failed” and less ready “where action has never been taken” were considered pertinent.  In this case conventional enforcement measures had not been tried.

It was noted that “the fact of protests outside a building is not an obvious matter which falls within planning control” and that taking the protests and consequences of unlawful activity into account as factors in favour of granting the interim injunction were “very worrying aspects” of the judgment.  The Court of Appeal considered that doing so could encourage further protests around asylum accommodation and lawlessness. 

In terms of the wider picture, the Court of Appeal agreed that the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to provide asylum accommodation is a national issue requiring a structured response.  It found that granting an interim injunction “ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means that capacity needs to be identified elsewhere” and “incentivises local planning authorities… to apply to the court urgently before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted”.

Criticism was made of the little weight the judge gave to preserving the status quo instead of granting the interim injunction.  The use has been intermittently taking place over several years and there are only weeks before the full hearing determine the issue.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that there had been no delay by the Council.  “The tactics used on the Council’s behalf were not only procedurally unfair to Somani, but ought to have reinforced the argument that the delay was a significant factor in the balance against interim relief”.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal agreed that the local resident’s fear of crime was properly considered, however found that it was clearly outweighed “by the undesirability of incentivising protests, by the desirability in the interests of justice of preserving the status quo for the relatively brief period leading up to the forthcoming trial, and by the range of public interest factors…”

The successful appeal did not deter West Northamptonshire Council from issuing planning contravention notices to three asylum hotels last week.  The full hearing regarding the Bell Hotel in mid-October will be watched with great interest by many.