Durrants’ Jasmine Philpott, Senior Planner and Development Surveyor comments on the recent High Court and appeal decisions concerning the Bell Hotel asylum hotel in Epping.
When the High Court granted an interim injunction requiring all 138 asylum seekers to be removed from the Bell Hotel in Epping on 15th August, many viewed the approach taken by Epping Forest Council as a blueprint for closing hotels used to house asylum seekers elsewhere. However, the decision was overturned at appeal just two weeks later.
So, what happened and what does it tell us about the future of these hotels?
I firstly want to say that it’s quite exciting when a big, national news story is actually about planning, and that’s why I am writing about it. This article focusses on the planning and legal matters underlying this issue and not the very heated debate about refugees in this country. I am aware that this topic has polarised local people, especially as Diss recently endured a bout of protests outside the Park Hotel, which is no longer accommodating refugees.
Some background
The Bell Hotel in Epping has accommodated refugees (predominantly single adult males) on and off since 2022. The owner, Somani Hotels, has a contract with the Home Office to house asylum seekers in all of its 80 rooms. All of the rooms are double occupancy, and though the residents can leave, they must inform the Home Office if they are to be away for more than one day, and they have to sign in and out. There is on-site security and a welfare officer.
Criminal activity and protests
Until April 2025, the hotel was used by the asylum seekers without incident. However, in 2025 there were three arrests, all followed up with criminal charges – one for arson in April, one for sexual assault in July and one for common assault, battery and sexual assault in August. These incidents sparked a number of protests, some of which became violent.
The interim injunction
The first High Court judgement related to an application by the Council for an interim injunction. The Council had already started formal injunction proceedings, and the main trial for that is still due to take place in October 2025. This judgment related to a temporary injunction to remove the residents from the hotel between now and the main trial being decided.
The judge in that case ultimately found in favour of the Council, granting the interim injunction. His decision examined the question of whether or not the long-term use of a hotel to house asylum seekers results in a material change of use. He concluded that it does, primarily because:
∙The hotel is not available for anyone else to use
∙The residents cannot choose their room and cannot upgrade even if they offer to pay
∙The residents cannot come and go as they please
∙The residents, by virtue of their destitution, are unlikely to contribute to the local community in the way that a typical guest might
∙The residents do not have accommodation elsewhere
∙The presence of a security and welfare staff on-site
The appeal
The Home Office appealed immediately, and three judges allowed the appeal. However, that decision was decided partially on a procedural error. The judge in the interim injunction had rejected a last minute request from the Home Office to join the litigation. The judges considered this to be an error of judgment, because the Home Office had a significant interest in the case and would have presented important evidence that could have changed the outcome.
What now?
The main injunction case will be heard in October. Only once that has been determined will we be able to draw any meaningful conclusions. However, in the meantime, I do feel that the original judgment correctly identified some significant differences in the use of a hotel for short-term guests vs for long term guests. If renting out one’s private home as a holiday let constitutes a material change of use (which it does), I cannot see how using a hotel for
asylum seekers, or anyone on that type of basis, could be viewed differently.
This article first appeared in the Diss Express.
