Successful planning challenge to use of hotel for asylum accommodation: the first of many?
25 August 2025
by Guest Contributor Alice Grant
Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)
Introduction
In Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB), the High Court granted Epping Forest District Council an interim injunction preventing Home Office contractors, CTM, from using the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, to accommodate asylum seekers. The Court’s ruling has temporarily halted the government’s repurposing of the Bell, on the basis that the Council had a strong arguable case of unlawful change of use. The injunction requires occupation of the Bell by asylum seekers to cease by 12 September 2025.
Factual Background
The Bell Hotel, an 80-bed premises on the outskirts of Epping’s market town, had been commercially struggling since the Covid-19 pandemic. The Bell had a history of fluctuating uses since 2020, including temporary accommodation for the homeless and asylum seekers.
The planning enforcement team of Epping Forest District Council had repeatedly contacted the Bell from 2020–2022 to make it known that housing asylum seekers was seen as a change of use by the Council, and as such, required planning permission. Without applying for permission, Somani Hotels entered into a contract with CTM in 2025 to accommodate up to 138 asylum seekers. In April 2025, the asylum seekers occupied all hotel rooms, with security and welfare staff present on site. The premises were no longer functioning as a conventional hotel with public dining and event facilities.
The Council drew the Court’s attention to the wider impacts on the local area: protests, pressure on local services and fear of crime among residents. These fears were substantiated by a series of reported crimes involving some of the occupants at the Bell, including arrests for alleged arson, sexual assault, common assault and battery (at [20]).
The Court found that the Bell’s owners, Somani Hotels, had acted deliberately in continuing to house asylum seekers despite being aware of the Council’s view that planning permission was required (at [57]–[58]). Eyre J stressed the Defendant’s conduct was not “flagrant” or “surreptitious”; Somani Hotels had acted openly and in good faith, though with knowledge of the planning risk (at [59]–[60]). In those circumstances, the Court accepted that the Council’s pursuit of injunctive relief under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘TCPA’) was an appropriate enforcement response.
The Court’s Reasoning
The Hotel’s Change of Use
In determining whether the Council had a strong arguable case, the Court considered two questions. First, whether the use of the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers was a change from the permitted use as a hotel. Second, whether, if such a change was found, it was material in terms of planning considerations.
On the first question, the Council argued that the Bell was no longer operating as a hotel but as a sui generis facility contracted to the Home Office. Whilst Eyre J noted that this issue was not clear-cut, citing authorities such as Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB). He held that there was “considerable force” in the Council’s contention that the Bell’s current use required permission. This was supported by factual circumstances: the lack of guests, daily monitoring requirements of the occupants, the necessity of security staff and the absence of any public-facing hotel function (at [100]).
In assessing the materiality of the change, both on-site transformation and off-site effects were relevant (at [37]). The judge considered the difference in the way in which the premises integrated with the locality and the difference between the occupants compared with typical hotel guests (at [100]). These features strengthened the Council’s position that there had been a material change of use without permission. The ultimate questions of breach and lawfulness are reserved for trial.
Interim Injunction
In accordance with American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] A.C. 396, the Court applied the three-stage test for interim relief: (i) whether there was a serious issue to be tried; (ii) whether damages would be an adequate remedy; and (iii) where the balance of convenience lay. The Court emphasised that in the context of s.187B TCPA injunctions, the Court’s role was to assess whether urgent injunctive relief was necessary to protect the integrity of the planning system (at [31]–[33]).
On the first two stages, Somani Hotels accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages were not adequate compensation. The central question therefore rested on the balance of convenience. The Court gave significant weight to the public interest in enforcing planning law (at [54]), noting that the Defendant had deliberately chosen not to seek planning permission despite knowing the Council’s contrary view (at [59]–[60]). The Court also found that ordinary enforcement tools, such as a stop notice, were inadequate and would cause further delay (at [47]–[48]). This was viewed in conjunction with the strength of the Council’s arguable planning case (at [98], [107]).
The Court equally acknowledged countervailing considerations. First, the public interest in accommodating destitute asylum seekers. Second, the disruption potentially caused by the move of the occupants. Third, the financial harm incurred by the hotel if the contract was terminated.
When all factors were considered “in the round” (at [104]), the Court held the risk of injustice was greater if relief were refused now and later found appropriate. Eyre J adopted Mr Justice Christopher Clarke’s summary of Lord Diplock’s guidance in American Cyanamid: “A fundamental principle is that the court should take whatever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice,” (Sabmiller Africa v East African Breweries [2009] EWHC 2140 (Comm) at [47]). Accordingly, the Court granted the interim injunction.
Comment
This case, widely reported in the media, is of particular significance given the numerous hotels across the country repurposed as asylum seeker accommodation. The Home Secretary, under s. 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, has a duty to provide emergency housing for asylum seekers. Whilst this often takes the form of local establishments, protests have erupted across the country citing concerns surrounding public safety and lack of fairness. Demonstrations have taken place outside hotels, and whilst there have been instances of unlawful behaviour, many are conducted in a peaceful manner in accordance with the law.
Eyre J emphasised that “the public generally are expected to tolerate a degree of disruption from lawful protest” (At [71]). Nevertheless, it was concluded that if Somani Hotels were indeed in breach of planning controls, the amenity of residents will have been affected by protests against unlawful use of the Hotel. This aspect stood in favour of the grant of relief.
Drawing on West Midlands Probation Committee v Secretary of State for the Environment (1998) 76 P. & C.R. 589, more weight was accorded to public fear and risk of crime (at [75]–[82]). Given that three persons at the Bell had been arrested, Eyre J emphasised that “it is understandable that the arrests form a basis for the local concern” (at [80]). Crucially, if Somani Hotels had chosen to make an application for planning permission, such concerns may have been raised and dealt with by the local council.
The government has announced its intention to appeal against the High Court’s refusal to allow it to intervene in the case. Security Minister, Dan Jarvis, justified the government’s position, commenting that the closing of hotels housing asylum seekers remains Labour policy but must be done “in a managed and ordered way.”
Conclusion
The High Court’s decision in Epping Forest DC v Somani Hotels is a landmark ruling against the backdrop of ongoing national debate about asylum accommodation. The tension between two elements of public policy is highlighted: the Home Office’s statutory duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and the democratic right of communities to express their concern over the use of local hotels for that purpose.
The ruling has immediate local consequences but also carries broader national significance. Whilst the injunction is a temporary and fact-specific remedy, other local councils may pursue action where similar circumstances arise. Indeed, Sky News has identified that 18 local authorities, including Labour-led councils, are now seeking legal advice on resisting similar asylum-hotel arrangements. For campaigners opposed to hotels being used in this way, the judgment will likely be seen as a triumph for local democratic activism.
The Government, however, has made clear that it will seek to appeal. The court had refused a last-minute effort from the Home Secretary for permission to intervene in the case, but, if successful,
in its new bid to be involved, the government is expected to consider a further appeal against the ruling itself. Echoing the words of the Security Minister, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper asserted the need to close such hotels within a structured government programme rather than in “piecemeal court decisions.” Protests and counter-protests continue, as growing numbers of local communities mobilise around this contentious issue.
Alice Grant is a political commentator for broadcast media with experience in the House of Commons. She is pursuing legal studies after working in private equity.
