The Bell Hotel Case: Planning Law Dispute at the Centre of UK Immigration Debate

The Epping Forest District Council -v- The Bell Hotel case has been widely reported recently and still continues to be heavily promoted across social media platforms. However, it may come as a surprise to some that the case is actually in relation to a breach of planning permission and not immigration law. Notwithstanding this, the matter has been highly politicised and there has been a significant debate on the UK’s immigration policies as a result.

Pursuant to the UN Convention on Refugees 1951, an asylum seeker is an individual seeking international protection for reasons including war, violence or threat of persecution in their home country. The Convention was established following the millions of displaced individuals after World War 2 and has since been adopted by more than 100 states.

The Home Office

The Home Office, is responsible for the accommodation which is provided to those seeking asylum in the UK, whilst their claim for asylum is being assessed. This is because asylum seekers are generally not allowed to work, even if they want to, nor do they have recourse to public funds.  

Accommodation is provided on a ‘no choice’ basis, meaning that asylum seekers have no say in where they stay (sometime for years) and they are at the complete mercy of the Home Office.

The Home Office has contracts with suppliers who provide accommodation and support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. As a reference, Asylum Seeker Support Allowance is set at approximately £7.00 per day compared to those claiming Universal Credit, which is upward of £24.24 per day.

The Dispute

On 12 August 2025, The Epping Forest District Council (“the Council”) filed an application for an interim High Court injunction pursuant to Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows local authorities to seek injunctions where there is an impending or actual breach of planning control.

The Bell Hotel (“the Hotel”) was subject to ‘Class C1’ use, i.e. the planning permission granted to The Hotel was limited for use as a hotel or guest house. The Council argued that because the Hotel was now housing asylum seekers, it was no longer being used as a hotel or guest house and, therefore, in breach of its planning permission. The Council managed to obtain an interim High Court injunction, giving the 138 asylum seekers temporarily residing at the Hotel, 28 days to leave.

The Home Office appealed the above High Court decision in the Court of Appeal which successfully led to the High Court’s above-referred decision to be overturned. The Council have stated that they intend to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, the highest appeal Court in the land.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal judges, in their decision to overturn the High Court interim injunction stated that the Council were in fact aware of, and agreed to, the Hotel housing asylum seekers. The Judges also stressed that the Home Secretary has clear statutory duties towards asylum seekers which includes preventing them from destitution.

The Court of Appeal further stated that the High Court Judge had made a number of errors of principle and that the decision was ‘seriously flawed’. The Court of Appeal stated that the fact that protests were taking place outside of the Hotel, should not have been considered, as protests are not a matter for planning control and considering the same, could entice further protests.

What’s Next

Whether the Council will be given permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision at the Supreme Court, will need to be seen.

The hearing for the Council’s sought after ‘permanent’ injunction is listed for October 2025. We are sure there is more to come on this.

Conclusion

For further information on this matter, we refer you to the Judgment – Somani Hotels -v- Epping Forest District Council – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary