Battle to stop hotel housing asylum seekers reaches High Court

A High Court justice is to determine if a edifice has breached readying rules by becoming a tract for migrant accommodation.

And the lawsuit that could person repercussions for councils crossed the state wherever asylum seekers are housed successful hotels.

Epping Forest District Council wants an interim injunction against The Bell Hotel successful the town, which is owned by Somani Hotels, to forestall it being utilized arsenic migrant accommodation, arguing the premises was not operating arsenic intended arsenic a hotel.

Lawyers for the assembly called it "a precise superior problem" and said it was creating "a feeding crushed for unrest," stating that determination is an "overwhelming lawsuit for an injunction".

Opening the proceeding astatine the High Court successful London connected Friday, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said it was a occupation that was "getting retired of hand" and "causing large anxiety" to section people.

Protests person taken spot extracurricular the edifice aft 2 men staying determination were charged with intersexual offences successful abstracted incidents, including 1 involving a 14-year-old girl.

Mr Coppel said determination was "no statement betwixt [asylum seekers] and the hotel, they bash not take the duration of their stay... they bash not take the benignant of room".

The edifice "is nary much a edifice [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender", helium said.

Barristers for the edifice radical told the tribunal that an injunction would origin asylum seekers "hardship" and that the determination would acceptable "a unsafe precedent that protests warrant readying injunctions".

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said the institution did not reason that residents' concerns "are not genuine", but that they did not warrant an interim injunction to halt the usage of the hotel.

"Those peculiar ideological, non-community concerns are not applicable to planning," helium said.

The assembly had "not shown immoderate evidence" that it had "grappled with the hardship" that would beryllium caused to asylum seekers, the Home Office and the institution if a impermanent injunction was granted, Mr Riley-Smith said.

50,000 migrants travel to UK

More than 50,000 migrants person crossed the Channel successful tiny boats since Sir Keir Starmer became premier curate past July.

The barrister told the tribunal that what was happening astatine The Bell Hotel "is occurring successful hotels crossed the country" and that the Home Office has a "statutory duty" to supply impermanent exigency accommodation for asylum seekers.

During Mr Riley-Smith's submissions, the judge, Mr Justice Eyre said: "I deliberation I tin instrumentality judicial announcement that determination has been nary diminution of the request for accommodation for asylum seekers."

More connected this story:
Man denies enactment battle charges
Epping protests the 'latest flashpoint'

Migrants were housed astatine the edifice from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024 and the tribunal heard the assembly ne'er instigated immoderate ceremonial enforcement proceedings against this use.

Council 'entirely wrong'

In April 2025, they were erstwhile again being placed determination and Mr Riley-Smith said that a readying exertion was not made "having taken proposal from the Home Office".

In written submissions, the barrister said it was "entirely wrong" for the assembly to "suggest the usage has been hidden from them", saying it was "directly approached successful February 2025 by the Home Office earlier the usage began and alerted to the upcoming usage".

He said an injunction would beryllium a "draconian step," and warned granting 1 would origin harm.

"The main harm would beryllium the nonaccomplishment of accommodation for asylum seekers presently being housed determination nether the Home Office's statutory duties," helium said.

Mr Justice Eyre is owed to present his determination connected Tuesday.