This piece follows on from our September article on the Court of Appeal decision regarding the Bell Hotel in Epping.

The hotel has at times over the last few years and is currently in use as accommodation for asylum seekers.  The Council consider that use to be a material change of use that is “development” requiring planning permission, which has not been sought or obtained.  In the summer, against the backdrop of arrests and protests, the Council resolved to close the Bell Hotel and on 5 August 2025 the Legal Services Manager decided to apply for an injunction.

An interim injunction was originally obtained from the High Court later in August, but was overturned by the Court of Appeal.  The application for a final injunction came before the High Court in October and the judgment was handed down yesterday.

The application was refused.  The court concluded that it was not just or expedient to grant the injunction.  Mould J cited several reasons for this: he was not persuaded that an injunction was a proportionate response to the claimed breach; the claimed breach is not flagrant; conventional enforcement methods have not been taken; planning and environmental harm is limited; and the need for the Secretary of State to be able to house asylum seekers is significant.   

The refusal to grant an injunction does not equate to confirmation that the use of the hotel as asylum accommodation is lawful.  Whilst excepting that, of course, the court could determine a matter of fact and degree, Mould J determined that it ought not to.  It is likely that the Claimant and Secretary of State may be called upon in the context of statutory planning procedures to determine the dispute over whether the use of the hotel as asylum accommodation is “development” that requires planning permission.

The case highlights the importance of rigorous record keeping in the context of such decision making within Councils.  The lack of a contemporaneous note detailing the reasons for deciding the use was a material change and that an injunction should be sought was criticised. It left the court in doubt that the decision to make the application was based on properly informed and considered judgment or that it was properly justified.  It is also a reminder that injunctions are reserved for exceptional cases when other enforcement methods have failed or would not be appropriate.