A High Court judge has temporarily barred the Home Office from using the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, to accommodate asylum seekers, ordering that residents be moved out by 16:00 BST on 12 September.
The interim injunction, secured by Epping Forest District Council on Tuesday, 19 August, turns on planning law and follows weeks of protests at the site.
Mr Justice Stephen Eyre granted the order after the council argued the hotel’s operator, Somani Hotels Ltd, had not obtained permission for a material change of use from a commercial hotel to long-term accommodation. In his ruling, he criticised the approach as one that “sidestepped” public scrutiny that would have accompanied a planning application or a lawful development certificate.
The Home Office opposed the application, warning it would “substantially impact” its ability to meet statutory duties to house asylum seekers while longer-term accommodation is arranged. The court nonetheless directed that the hotel cease being used for this purpose and that the current cohort—reported variously as 138 to about 140 men—be moved by the deadline.
Border Security and Asylum Minister Dame Angela Eagle said the government would “carefully consider” the judgment. She reiterated ministers’ commitment to end the use of hotels for asylum accommodation by the end of the current Parliament, a position she has set out in Parliament.
The case has unfolded against a heightened local backdrop. The Bell Hotel became a focus of demonstrations in July after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl. Police made arrests during subsequent disorder. The defendant denies the allegation and is due to stand trial.
Epping Forest District Council said it sought the injunction amid “unprecedented” protest activity and because the hotel’s use was not authorised under planning rules. The authority welcomed the court’s decision; its Conservative leader, Chris Whitbread, argued that ministers had restarted use of the hotel earlier this year without adequate consultation. Somani Hotels can seek permission to appeal.
Politically and operationally, the ruling may carry wider implications. Financial Times, ITV and other outlets reported several councils were examining similar action on planning grounds, with Broxbourne in Hertfordshire among those reviewing their options. The Home Office has said reliance on hotels is intended to be temporary; however, the scale of demand has persisted.
The judgment comes amid a separate national debate over protest, public order and counter-terrorism law. In early July, Parliament proscribed the direct-action network Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000, following incidents including damage to RAF aircraft and operations at defence-sector sites. Police have since made a series of arrests at demonstrations calling for the ban to be reversed.
On Tuesday, The Independent reported Dame Angela Eagle’s response to the Epping ruling, saying the government would continue work with councils and communities and that its programme to close hotels remains in train. The department has 24 days from the date of the order to consider appellate steps.
The Bell Hotel has previously been used at intervals since 2020 for asylum accommodation. According to material before the court, the council had not pursued formal enforcement action during earlier periods—when families were among those housed—but objected to its renewed use for single adult men from April 2025. The court’s present order is interim, pending any further proceedings.
Ministers have not set out where current residents will be moved. Security Minister Dan Jarvis has said contingency arrangements are being explored across the estate while the Home Office assesses the judgment’s operational impact. Local services and police have urged calm around the site as the deadline approaches.
The council’s case rests on planning law rather than asylum policy: the central contention is that extended use as institutional-style accommodation amounts to a change of use requiring permission. The judge’s reasoning focused on the absence of the usual public process that planning applications entail. If authorities elsewhere succeed on similar grounds, the ruling could accelerate the government’s shift away from hotels, but would also increase pressure to commission alternative capacity at pace.
For now, the operational requirement is clear: the Bell Hotel must not be used to house asylum seekers after 16:00 on Friday, 12 September, unless a higher court intervenes. The position of the residents—many of whom have been in situ for months—will depend on relocation decisions the Home Office must take in the coming days.
