Epping Council succeeds in interim relief preventing use of hotel as asylum accommodation

Epping Council has succeeded in obtaining an interim injunction to prevent the use of the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation pending the final outcome of the proceedings. The case is Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB). This is a planning law case so don’t expect too much from me here.

Background

The Bell Hotel has been used as asylum accommodation since April 2025, under a contract between CTM (North) Ltd (one of the companies that contract with the Home Office to provide accommodation) and Somani Hotels Ltd. Use of the hotel’s facilities, including a restaurant and bar, by local people had been declining partly because of the location on the outskirts of town.

In 2006 the owners sought planning permission to partially demolish the site and use the rest as a care home. Permission was granted after initially being refused, but the changes were never made.

During the pandemic, the hotel was used to accommodate homeless people, including those who were in the asylum system. The hotel was re-opened to the public in August 2022, however occupancy at the hotel was “very greatly reduced” and any use by “the general public has been minimal”.

The hotel was again used as asylum accommodation from October 2022 to April 2024. It was then closed for a year before its current use from April 2025. Somani gave evidence that the contract with CTM provided the hotel with a steady income which allowed it to remain financially stable.

The hotel has been the focus of far-right activity and anti-migrant protests since July 2025.

History of planning issues

In July 2020 the council had contacted Somani saying that they believed the use of the hotel to accommodate people in the asylum system amounted to a change of use. Somani did not accept this but said that they did not intend to continue using the hotel in this way after the pandemic.

Contact was made again by the council’s planning enforcement staff in November 2022 and Somani applied for approval for a temporary change in use in February 2023. The application was made without prejudice to Somani’s position that there had been no change in use. The council had not decided the application by March 2024 and Somani withdrew it because of the imminent end of the contract to provide asylum accommodation.

Before the start of the new contract in April 2025 there were discussions between the Home Office, CTM and the council. The council said that it did not support the use of the hotel as asylum accommodation, but it did not say that this would be a breach of planning control. It was agreed that there would be no more than 138 people accommodated at the hotel, in the 80 available bedrooms, meaning that many people have to share a small room with someone they do not know.

People are not allowed to ask for or even pay for a room upgrade (not that I can see paying for an upgrade as an option for anyone in receipt of asylum support, with their £9.95 per week). If someone wants to spend more than a day away from the hotel they must get permission from the Home Office. People have to sign in every day and the hotel is obliged to notify CTM and the Home Office is anyone fails to do so for more than a day. The person will then be at risk of losing their asylum accommodation.

On 8 April 2025 the council’s planning enforcement team contacted Somani and said that their position was that they would need permission for a change of use. On 15 June 2025 Somani said that they would not be applying for this “because of advice from the Home Office that it regarded the use as being a hotel and that it did not support the Defendant [Somani] making an application for permission for change of use”.

The judgment

The council then commenced these proceedings, seeking an injunction under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The council’s argument was that “the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers in the way in which that is being done is a material change of use for which the Defendant should have but has not obtained planning permission with the consequence that its use in this way is unlawful”. This was denied by Somani.

The evidence from the council which they said supported their conclusion that there had been a material change of use was that:

there has been harm to the amenity of the local area “from the nature of the use [of the Bell] and associated, sustained protests and disturbance, heightening the risk and fear of crime, and resulting in occupants of the Land being socially excluded from the community.” Mr Stubbs that there is in addition “significant detriment to the amenities of nearby residential properties … by means of noise disturbance.”

The council also gave evidence of three arrests of people who were at the Bell Hotel, the court noting that “those witnesses’ knowledge of those matters derives solely from press reports apparently based on press releases by the police”. The council then gave evidence about the history of protest activity starting in July 2025 which was initially peaceful and limited to local residents but “increased in scale and came to involve persons who had travelled to Epping from elsewhere either to express opposition to the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers or to express support for those accommodated there”. 

Somani said that CTM should have been added to the proceedings and the failure to do meant the court did not have all the information it needed. The court noted that in several other similar cases the Home Office contractors had been added, but said that it was not necessary in this case as Somani’s staff had remained in place running the Bell and there was detailed information from CTM in Somani’s evidence. 

The court said that:

whether the current use of the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers is lawful depends on the answers to two questions. First, whether such use is a change from the permitted use as a hotel. Second, whether, if there is such a change, it is a change which is material in terms of planning considerations.

This application was for an interim injunction lasting until the final decision on the section 187B application. The court applied the approach in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 and said that a “factor of considerable force in favour of the Defendant and against the grant of interim relief is the important public policy objective of accommodating destitute asylum seekers”.

Weighed in favour of the council was:

The Defendant was aware that the Claimant through its planning officers had consistently taken the view that if the Bell was lawfully to be used to accommodate asylum seekers permission for change of use would be needed. Initially, the Defendant had indicated that it would seek planning permission. That position then changed. The Defendant decided not to seek planning permission. It did so after receiving advice from the Home Office and as a result of that advice the Defendant adopted the position that planning permission was not needed and that the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers was not a material change of use. … It is a significant consideration that the effect of the Defendant’s deliberate decision is that unless injunctive relief is given the Claimant and the residents of Epping will have to bear with the consequences of the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers until the lawfulness of that use has been determined through the enforcement process. If that use is ultimately found to have been lawful (on the footing that the Defendant is right to say that it is not a material change of use) then that will not have been any detriment. If, however, the Claimant is correct in saying that the use is unlawful then there will have been detriment resulting from the Defendant’s deliberate decision. It is also relevant that as a consequence of the Defendant’s deliberate decision there has not been the structured and considered assessment of the position through the planning process to which I referred above and which is one of the purposes of the system of planning control. The force of that point will have to be considered against the argument for the Defendant that there has been no material change of use and so no requirement for such consideration.

The court gave only limited weight to the impact of the protests and the fear of crime being committed by those at the hotel. The potential financial impact on Somani was also taken into account as a relevant consideration.

It was also considered that the strength of the council’s argument that there had been a material change in use operated as a factor in favour of granting interim relief.

Although the council only made the application to the court on 11 August 2025, the court found that there had been no inappropriate delay. This was because there had first been a period of time when the council had expected that Somani would make the necessary application, and it was also accepted that the council’s concerns had been heighted by the events of the past couple of months.

It was not in dispute that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages would not be an adequate remedy for the council if interim relief was refused.

Taking all of the above into account, the court concluded that the balance of convenience lay in granting interim relief. It said that the risk of injustice was greater if interim relief was refused and the case ultimately succeeded, than the other way around. People will need to be moved out of the hotel by 4pm on 12 September 2025.

Conclusion

The court said that “As a matter of reality even if a shortened timetable were to be imposed on the parties it is unlikely that a final decision on the section 187B application will be made until towards the end of this year”, so it will be a while before the substantive issue is decided. Appeals also seem likely.

Media reports have said that the Home Secretary attempted to intervene in the case only yesterday, which really does beg the question – why on earth did the Home Office not get involved in this case earlier, particularly given their position as relied on by Somani?