Epping Forest council loses Supreme Court appeal over asylum seeker hotel case
The judges ruled against the council in a legal battle over Bell Hotel planning claims.
Epping Forest District Council has lost its Supreme Court bid to challenge a ruling that allowed the Home Office to intervene in a legal battle over the use of a hotel to house asylum seekers.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused EFDC permission to appeal after a series of legal challenges failed to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex.
The site had become the focus of protests earlier this year after an asylum seeker housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Epping in July. Ethiopian national Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu was later sentenced to 12 months in prison and has since been deported.
EFDC first sought a temporary injunction against the arrangement in August, arguing it breached planning rules for the hotel’s use. Somani Hotels, which owns the site, opposed the claim.
Although High Court Judge Mr Justice Eyre had granted the temporary injunction on 19th August, he refused the Home Office permission to intervene in the case, saying it was "not necessary."
However, the Court of Appeal overturned both decisions on 29th August, ruling that the Home Office could suitably contribute to judicial decision-making and that the initial injunction granted was "seriously flawed in principle."
EFDC challenged the Court of Appeal's decision in the Supreme Court. But permission to appeal was refused this week, with judges stating the case did not raise "an arguable point of law of general public importance."
This comes weeks after the council lost its attempt to secure a permanent injunction through a High Court ruling on 11th November.
During the three-day hearing, EFDC lawyers argued that housing asylum seekers represents a "material change of use" and has led to "increasingly regular protests."
Somani Hotels said it "firmly disputed" the council’s claim, and the Home Office called the challenge "misconceived."
High Court Judge Mr Justice Mould dismissed the appeal, saying an injunction was not a suitable response to any alleged breach of planning rules. He described planning and environmental harm caused by the hotel's use as "limited," and noted its significant role in contingency accommodation for asylum seekers under the Home Secretary’s statutory responsibilities.
Councillors have since voted to appeal this ruling.
The Bell Hotel has served as a site for housing adult male asylum seekers intermittently since 2020. Following a withdrawn planning application earlier this year, EFDC previously did not pursue enforcement during some periods of asylum seeker accommodation at the site.