This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/aug/29/court-of-appeal-revokes-ban-on-epping-hotel-bell-housing-asylum-seekers

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Court of appeal revokes ban on Epping hotel housing asylum seekers Asylum seekers to remain at Epping hotel after court of appeal revokes ban
(about 1 hour later)
Home Office had argued that interim injunction for breach of planning was being used to stop protests Judges say decision to allow injunction was ‘seriously flawed’ and contained several ‘errors in principle’
A ban on housing asylum seekers in an Essex hotel that has been the target of far-right protests has been overturned. More than 130 asylum seekers will be allowed to remain in the Bell hotel in Epping after a high court ban on housing them there was overturned by the court of appeal.
The court of appeal decided on Friday to revoke an interim injunction granted to Epping Forest district council after the authority claimed the Bell hotel had breached planning rules by housing asylum seekers. Three appeal judges on Friday set aside a temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council last week, saying the decision to allow it was “seriously flawed” and contained several “errors in principle”.
Challenging the order, lawyers for the site’s owner, Somani Hotels, and the Home Office accused the council of trying to injunct the protests by going after the hotel. The hotel has in recent weeks become the focus of repeated protests – some of which have been orchestrated by far-right extremists and have turned violent. Epping council had offered this as part of its grounds for seeking the injunction – alongside concerns about planning permission for the hotel.
A lawyer representing Epping Forest district council told the court of appeal on Thursday it had not previously moved against the hotel, despite believing for years it was in breach of planning law by housing asylum seekers, because the situation had been seen as “unproblematic”. Last week, Mr Justice Eyre, sitting in the high court, agreed. But, on Friday, the court of appeal judges said upholding that order could lead to further disorder by effectively demonstrating it could achieve its ultimate goal – the removal of the asylum seekers one way or another.
That changed around the time that protests began after an asylum seeker housed at the Bell hotel was charged with alleged sexual offences in July, the council’s lawyer Robin Green indicated. Reports have shown the protests to have been partly orchestrated by far-right extremists. They said the people living at the Bell hotel would have to be housed somewhere, while other councils could take preserving the injunction as a green light to seek the same in their areas.
While the council had included the protests alongside planning issues among its concerns in seeking the original high court injunction, Thursday’s submission to the court of appeal was the clearest indication yet that the demonstrations were the principal catalyst for its urgent legal action. Analysing the high court decision, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said: “If an outbreak of protests enhances the case for a planning injunction, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests – some of which may be disorderly – around asylum accommodation. At its worst, if even unlawful protests are to be treated as relevant, there is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness.
Responding to the submission on Thursday, Edward Brown KC, representing the Home Office, told the judges: “Epping has effectively conceded before this court that this was, in truth, only ever about protest.” He said the interim injunction was “simply the wrong tool” for stopping asylum hotel demonstrations. “The [high court] judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”
Delivering the judgment on Friday afternoon, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, ruled that the earlier high court decision of Mr Justice Eyre should be overturned. They added that “the potential cumulative impact” of other councils reacting by trying to gain injunctions in their own areas was a “material consideration … that was not considered by the judge”.
The ruling will come as a relief to the Home Office, which had been braced for a host of legal challenges from councils around the country.Speaking after the decision, the Home Office minister Angela Eagle said: “We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions. This government will close all hotels by the end of this parliament and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day.”
The Refugee Council’s chief executive, Enver Solomon, said using hotels to house asylum seekers was “untenable”, adding: “Waiting until 2029 to end their use is no longer an option. As long as hotels remain open, they will continue to be flashpoints for protests, fuelling division and leaving people who have fled war and persecution feeling unsafe.”
The charity urged ministers to adopt its “one-off” scheme granting temporary permission to stay to asylum seekers from countries most likely to be recognised as refugees as a way to close hotels by next year, according to its own analysis.
The judges noted on Friday that the interim injunction originally granted was due to come into force on 12 September, and would have lasted only until a final decision on the planning permission matter was given after a trial about six weeks later.
They said the original decision was “seriously flawed in principle” on this; pointing out that the “risk of injustice to the residents of the hotel by being dispersed by 12 September when the trial of the claim was to take place only some six weeks later seems to have had oddly little resonance with the [high court] judge”.
Neither the council nor the hotel’s owner had argued in the high court case the fear of crime being committed in Epping in the future was a key factor, though both had agreed it was relevant.
The court of appeal judges said this was correct. But they said it was outweighed by the concern about incentivising yet more potentially violent protests, the upheaval of having to disperse more than 130 people for the relatively short period before the trial in mid-October, and other factors in the broader public interest.
The judges said: “We grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to (the Home Office). We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025.”
They also agreed Mr Justice Eyre was wrong to refuse to allow the home secretary to intervene in the case; saying the Home Office had a “constitutional role relating to public safety” and was affected by the issues.
Speaking outside the court, Epping cllr Ken Williamson said: “We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s hearing,” adding: “The battle is not over and we will continue the fight.” The council could still be granted an injunction following the full hearing of the legal claim.