Government wins right to appeal against Bell Hotel closure for asylum seekers

Asylum seekers can continue to be housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping after an injunction was overturned at the Court of Appeal.

The Government has been accused of ‘putting the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people’ after it won a court challenge against the block.

Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, and the Home Office challenged a High Court ruling which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers being housed there beyond September 12.

In a ruling last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction after the authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

But after a hearing on Thursday, three Court of Appeal judges ruled in favour of Somani Hotels and the Home Office on Friday, stating that Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling was ‘seriously flawed in principle’.

The ruling will come as a relief to the Home Office, which had been braced for further legal challenges from other councils over the use of hotels in their areas.

Reading a summary of the ruling overturning the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take similar steps as EFDC.

He said: ‘The potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.’

The judge also said that the appeals were ‘not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise’.

The Bell became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.

Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said that the interim injunction ‘runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation’.

Health minister Stephen Kinnock also warned earlier on Friday that asylum seekers could be ‘living destitute in the streets’ if there was a ‘disorderly discharge’ from hotels.

Nigel Farage claimed the European Convention on Human Rights had been ‘used’ by the Government ‘against the people of Epping’.

EFDC leader Councillor Christopher Whitbread said the Government has ‘let the residents of Epping down’.

He said housing asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel was ‘not right’ for residents of Epping or those living in the hotel itself, adding: ‘We made that argument to the previous government and eventually they closed it.

‘This Government reopened it in April with no real consultation with us, they instructed us that they were going to use it.

‘We were instructed on the numbers and such that they were prepared to use it up to, and really they have let down completely the residents of Epping Forest, and I think what underlined it was their legal argument yesterday around the ECHR and the fact that the asylum seekers trump the residents of Epping when it comes to their rights.’

Councillor Holly Whitbread said EFDC will ‘continue to fight’ the Government, adding the ruling was ‘deeply disappointing’ and left her feeling ‘utterly let down and betrayed’.

The Conservative councillor added: ‘The council has always been against the use of this hotel in this location.

‘One of the key points that wasn’t made clear in the court case was the change to all-male asylum seekers within the hotel.

‘I’m pretty furious at the Government’s action to intervene in what was a legal planning matter. And I think this news will be deeply disappointing to the residents of Epping Forest and, more broadly, across the UK as well.’

Protesters have begun to gather outside the Bell Hotel in Epping after the Court of Appeal ruling.

A small number of demonstrators carrying England and Union flags have gathered outside the hotel, with police officers guarding its entrance – which is gated off with metal fencing.

An England flag has been attached to a drainpipe on the side of the Bell Hotel and England flags have also been painted onto signs and a speed camera outside the hotel.

Protest organiser Sarah White, 40, said: ‘We are outraged by the decision.

‘This sends a deeply troubling message to our community: that the rights of asylum seekers are being placed above the rights of the residents who actually live here.

‘Our community will not stay silent.’

Local mum and grandmother Anna Hall, 57, said: ‘We’re really disappointed. But this is not the end.

‘If it was going to be an easy situation to fix, it would have been done by now.

‘I’ve been to each protest apart from one. Local feeling is very strong.’

But Paul Robinson, 43, appealed for calm.

The office worker said: ‘People need to calm down now, please. I think we need to stay calm and understand the decision. 

‘Feelings need to cool down. There’s so much anger, it’s wrong.  I don’t think shouting at the hotel and the migrants will now help.’

The hotel first housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021.

It accommodated single adult males from October 2022 to April 2024, and has done so again since April this year.

The latest Home Office data, published last week as part of the usual quarterly immigration statistics, shows there were 32,059 asylum seekers in UK hotels by the end of June.

This was up from 29,585 at the same point a year earlier, when the Conservatives were still in power, but down slightly on the 32,345 figure at the end of March.

Responding to the injunction being overturned, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: ‘Local communities should not pay the price for Labour’s total failure on illegal immigration.

‘Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities.

‘This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – KEEP GOING!

‘Every case has different circumstances, and I know good Conservative councils will keep fighting for residents, so we will keep working with them every step of the way.’

Who owns the Bell Hotel in Epping?

The council claimed Somani Hotels, who own the hotel, breached planning rules by using the property as housing for asylum seekers.

This is despite the hotel being used to house asylum seekers before: from May 2020 to March 2021, from October 2022 to April 2024, and since April of this year.

In court, Robin Green, representing the authority, said it had not previously taken enforcement action against Somani Hotels over the use of the Bell as it had been ‘unproblematic’.

Lawyers for both the Home Office and Somani Hotels said the injunction created ‘a risk of a precedent being set’

Since then, other councils have said they will seek legal advice over whether they could achieve similar injunctions for hotels in their areas.

What does the ruling mean for asylum seekers?

Right now, the future for asylum seekers living at the Bell Hotel is filled with uncertainty.

One migrant, a Somalian man given the fake name Abdi, spoke to the BBC about the situation having been moved to the hotel in May.

He said residents have been left ‘in the dark’, adding: ‘We don’t know if one day a bus comes and says we’re going out from here.

‘If this happens – if we are taken out of this place – then they will surely take us from every place we go to. It’s going to be the same.’

There are currently 138 male asylum seekers living at the site, and they would all have needed to be evicted if the ruling hadn’t been overturned.

Across the country, there are around 32,000 asylum seekers housed in around 210 hotels.

Where will asylum seekers staying in the Bell Hotel be moved?

The Labour government promised during the last general election that it would end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers – but the temporary injunction in Epping has come much sooner than expected.

Home Office lawyers said Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has a duty to stop asylum seekers being made destitute, which trumps the council’s powers to close the hotel.

It is not known where the asylum seekers could have been moved to if the injunction hadn’t been overturned.

But a government minister has warned migrants could be left ‘living destitute in the streets’.

Health minister Stephen Kinnock told Sky News: ‘It’s not a question of if we close the hotels, it’s a question of when and how we close the hotels, and what we don’t want to have is a disorderly discharge from every hotel in the country, which would actually have far worse consequences than what we currently have, in terms of the impact that would have on asylum seekers potentially living destitute in the streets.

‘And I don’t think any one of the communities that are campaigning on these hotels issue want to see that.

‘So what we are doing is looking to appeal this injunction simply because we’re taking a pragmatic approach to how we want to manage the process, not because we believe that the hotel … per se should stay open.

‘We’ve got a whole range of options – disused warehouses, disused office blocks, disused military barracks.

‘We are looking at every option that we have to manage the discharge, and it’s really important that we do that and put those plans in place, but of course, it’s going to be much more effective if we’re able to do that in a way where we’re controlling the discharge from these hotels.’

Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.

For more stories like this, check our news page.

Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.