Leader of Epping Forest council calls for calm after court of appeal ruling
The leader of Epping Forest district council has called for calm after the court of appeal ruled asylum seekers can stay at the Bell hotel in Essex.
Councillor Chris Whitbread told Times Radio:
I call for calm. There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non peaceful protests outside the hotel.
He added:
We saw yesterday the government say that asylum seekers have more rights than my residents. I’m really cross with this ruling. Obviously we’ll now reflect on where we are.
Obviously we’re still going to court in October to go for a final injunction and we will be pushing hard to make sure that’s successful, but we will do everything we can still.
This is an awful position for the town … I’m really concerned for the future of the town at the moment.
Speaking outside the London court after the ruling, Ken Williamson, member of cabinet for Epping Forest district council said:
We understand government faces a dilemma, but that should not be at the expense of local communities.
Planning law may seem dull, it might seem boring, but it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government. It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities, and it should not be set aside lightly. The government can still listen.
It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past six weeks, for the trauma and disruption brought upon our community.
The council could still be granted an injunction after a full hearing of the legal claim, which is due to be heard in October.
Key events
The government has “let the residents of Epping down”, the leader of Epping Forest District Council said.
Asked what his message would be to people who may be planning to protest this weekend in the Essex town, Councillor Christopher Whitbread told the PA news agency: “We don’t want to see some violent scenes around the hotel or in the town itself that would that would only help the Government’s arguments, and it’s the Government that have let the residents of Epping down.
“I had numerous conversations with various people around this issue, the Home Office were not helpful.”
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.”
In reaction to today’s verdict, Weyman Bennett, Stand Up to Racism co-convenor said: “The initial judgement was always wrong. It was a concession to racist thugs set on scapegoating and intimidating refugees.”
Kevin Courtney, Stand Up To Racism co-chair, said: “This court judgement is welcome, hateful demonstrations should not determine public policy.
“The far right will seek to use it to stimulate more and more hostile demonstrations targeting asylum seeker in hotels. It’s important that all people of goodwill speak out and peacefully mobilise against this hateful targeting of vulnerable people.”
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 drain pipe on the side of the Bell Hotel and England flags have also been painted onto signs and a speed camera outside the hotel.
Kevin Rawlinson
Three appeal judges on Friday set aside a temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council last week, saying the decision to allow it was “seriously flawed” and contained several “errors in principle”.
The hotel has in recent weeks become the focus of repeated protests – some of which have been orchestrated by far-right extremists and have turned violent. Epping council had offered this as part of its grounds for seeking the injunction – alongside concerns about planning permission for the hotel.
Last week, Mr Justice Eyre, sitting in the high court, agreed. But, on Friday, the court of appeal judges said upholding that order could lead to further disorder by effectively demonstrating it could achieve its ultimate goal – the removal of the asylum seekers one way or another.
They said the people living at the Bell hotel would have to be housed somewhere, while other councils could take preserving the injunction as a green light to seek the same in their areas.
In a summary of their ruling, Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb said that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell hotel, was first made aware of legal action being taken by Epping Forest district council when it “received the court papers and a court bundle running to over 1,600 pages”.
The judges said the authority’s “tactics” were “procedurally unfair” and “ought to have reinforced the argument” that a temporary injunction should not have been issued.
They said:
For much of the period of four years from 2020-2024, Somani [Hotels] had been running the hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers without enforcement action from the council.
When, in 2023, Somani [Hotels] sought planning consent to change its use, for over a year, Epping did not process the application, notwithstanding the statutory duty upon it to do so within eight weeks.
The council was aware by February 2025 that the hotel was once again to be used to house asylum seekers and by its letter of 15 May 2025, Somani [Hotels] made clear that it had been advised by the Home Office that a planning application was unnecessary.
The council took no steps in response to this letter, whether by issuing an enforcement notice or otherwise. There was no threat of court proceedings.
Epping Forest district council will “continue to fight” the government after the court of appeal ruling, a councillor has said.
Holly Whitbread said the ruling was “deeply disappointing”, adding she felt “utterly let down and betrayed by the government”. Whitbread, who is finance and economic development portfolio holder for Epping Forest district council, told the PA news agency:
The council will continue to fight this
We’re looking at our legal options now and we will be going ahead, I presume, with the permanent injunction in the October trial, if that’s still possible.
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.
In a summary of their ruling overturning the injunction related to the Bell hotel, Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb said an argument put forward by the Home Office in the appeal about a “hierarchy of rights” was “unattractive”.
The Home Office had told the court of appeal in written submissions for Thursday’s hearing that while Epping Forest district council represented “the public interest that subsists in planning control in its local area”, the department represented the “public interest of the entirety of the United Kingdom”.
Barristers for the government told the court that the European convention on human rights “establishes non-derogable fundamental human rights”, adding:
The respective legal rights in play are fundamentally different in nature.
In a summary of their ruling, the three court of appeal judges said:
The written arguments on behalf of [the Home Office] in this appeal included the contention that ‘the relevant public interests in play are not equal’ and that one aspect of this is that the home secretary’s statutory duty is a manifestation of the UK’s obligations under article 3 of the European convention on human rights. This point was not pursued in oral argument.
Any argument in this particular context about a hierarchy of rights is in our view unattractive.
The summary continued:
We were told by counsel for Epping [Forest district council] that the protests operated as a ‘trigger’ for the application for the injunction. The fact of protests outside a building is not obviously a matter falling within planning control.
While we accept that the judge was right to exercise considerable caution before attaching weight to the fact of the protests, including unlawful protests outside the hotel, he nonetheless gave weight in his evaluation to the fact that protests were occurring and weighed them in the balance as a factor in favour of granting the injunction.
These are worrying aspects of the judgment.
If an outbreak of protests enhances the case for a planning injunction, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around asylum accommodation.
At its worst, if even unlawful protests are to be treated as relevant, there is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness. The judge does not appear to have considered this risk, again perhaps because he had denied himself the advantage of hearing submissions on the merits from counsel for the [Home Office].
Further and in any event, in this regard the judge failed to consider whether there would have been alternative measures to mitigate the disruption, such as the use of police powers.
Nigel Farage claimed the European convention on human rights had been “used” by the government “against the people of Epping”, though the judge ruled that arguments about a “hierarchy of rights” were “unattractive”.
The Reform UK leader said:
The government has used ECHR against the people of Epping. Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.
He did not specify which part of the case he was referring to.
The Home Office’s lawyers had argued “the relevant public interests in play are not equal”, referring to Epping’s interest in enforcing planning control on the one hand, and the home secretary’s duty which comes from UK obligations under the ECHR on the other.
However, Friday’s ruling says:
Any argument in this particular context about a hierarchy of rights is in our view unattractive.
For more on this topic, read BBC News home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani’s take on the ruling (see 3.29pm BST).
Leader of Epping Forest council calls for calm after court of appeal ruling
The leader of Epping Forest district council has called for calm after the court of appeal ruled asylum seekers can stay at the Bell hotel in Essex.
Councillor Chris Whitbread told Times Radio:
I call for calm. There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non peaceful protests outside the hotel.
He added:
We saw yesterday the government say that asylum seekers have more rights than my residents. I’m really cross with this ruling. Obviously we’ll now reflect on where we are.
Obviously we’re still going to court in October to go for a final injunction and we will be pushing hard to make sure that’s successful, but we will do everything we can still.
This is an awful position for the town … I’m really concerned for the future of the town at the moment.
Speaking outside the London court after the ruling, Ken Williamson, member of cabinet for Epping Forest district council said:
We understand government faces a dilemma, but that should not be at the expense of local communities.
Planning law may seem dull, it might seem boring, but it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government. It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities, and it should not be set aside lightly. The government can still listen.
It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past six weeks, for the trauma and disruption brought upon our community.
The council could still be granted an injunction after a full hearing of the legal claim, which is due to be heard in October.
Reacting to the overturning of the injunction, Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said while the government was successful in its appeal, the reality of using hotels to house asylum seekers is “untenable”. He said:
Waiting until 2029 to end their use is no longer an option.
As long as hotels remain open, they will continue to be flashpoints for protests, fuelling division and leaving people who have fled war and persecution feeling unsafe.
Through our frontline work we see how refugees housed in neighbourhoods, rather than isolated in hotels, are able to rebuild their lives, enter training or work, and contribute to the local economy.
The refugee charity urged ministers to adopt a “one off” scheme granting temporary permission to stay to asylum seekers from countries most likely to be recognised as refugees as a way to close hotels by next year, according to its own analysis.
Speaking on BBC News, the broadcaster’s home and legal correspondent, Dominic Casciani, said from outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the judgment:
To use an analogy from sport, it felt like a wrestling smackdown for the judge who gave this injunction to the council.
This is quite a technical thing because in essence the lower court, the high court, the judge there had the discretion to say: ‘Look, I’ve looked at all the facts and using my discretion, which is why I think an injunction is necessary because the facts on the ground are such that we’ve got a really concerning situation. We’ve got to contain what’s going on there, therefore I think it’s in the best interest to move the asylum seekers out for the time being before Epping Forest district council gets to mount its full case against the hotel owner, which will then ultimately decide the issue one way or another.’
What the court of appeal said today was: ‘No, you got that completley wrong. And the reason you got that completely wrong is because you failed to take into account that there are compelling arguments that the home secretary has to be allowed to make, because she is under a legal duty, imposed by parliament.’
[And] this is the important thing, it’s imposed by parliament, it’s got nothing to do with the European court of human rights or all that stuff you might read elsewhere, this is a duty imposed by parliament to make sure that asylum seekers aren’t sleeping on the streets. So, every day that the home secretary is not finding somewhere to put somebody in a bed, she’s facing potential legal action over that failure to do so. And what the court of appeal said was that the judge who issued the injuction should have taken all of this in to account before issuing his orders to clear the hotel, because how could he otherwise have understood the implications for national policy and effectively what is known as the wider public interest.
… the strength of the argument from the court of appeal … in essence, the practical effects of that are that I think this makes it exceptionally hard for any other council to try and do what Epping Forest [council] have done.
Government reiterats that all asylum hotels will close by the next election, in statement after court of appeal ruling
The Home Office has issued a ministerial statement regarding today’s court of appeal judgment on the use of the Bell hotel. Angela Eagle, minister for border security and asylum said:
We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions. This government will close all hotels by the end of this parliament and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day.
The number of hotels has almost halved since its peak in 2023 and we have brought down costs by 15% saving £700m and putting us on track to save a billion pounds a year by 2028-29.
We are also working hard to relieve pressure on the system and striking back at criminal people smuggling gangs at every stage, including returning more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here, equipping law enforcement with counter-terror style powers and starting to detain small boat arrivals under our groundbreaking deal with France.
It will take some time to fix the broken system we inherited, but the British public deserve nothing less, and we will not stop until the job is done.
Senior Tory Robert Jenrick called the court of appeal ruling “extremely disappointing” and urged councils to still take action to close asylum hotels in their areas.
Shadow justice secretary Jenrick posted on X:
This is an extremely disappointing decision. Yvette Cooper used taxpayer money – your money – to keep open a hotel housing illegal migrants.
The government’s lawyers argued accommodating illegal migrants was in the ‘national interest’. In court they said the right of illegal migrants to free hotels is more important than the rights of the British people.
Well, they are not. The British government should always put the interests of the British people first. Starmer’s government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our county. But this is not a free pass for asylum hotels.
Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they? My team and LawForBorders will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.
There is no acceptable accommodation for illegal migrants. The government should be prioritising Brits in need and deporting every illegal migrant, as the last government should have done and I’ve argued for years.
Senior Conservative James Cleverly suggested that the Home Office was cutting local people out of the loop. The shadow local government secretary said:
I’m sure that Yvette Cooper and the Home Office officials think this is good news. It really isn’t. Cutting local people and their elected representatives out of the loop isn’t a good look.
