Epping Council loses bid to appeal asylum hotel ruling with 'no reasons given' as to why

It won the case in the High Court but Home Office lawyers then brought the case to the Court of Appeal, where three judges overturned the injunction.

The council said on Friday that it would seek to appeal the ruling at the Supreme Court.

However, it has been announced that its application to do so has been rejected, with "no reasons given".

Epping Council said it will continue challenging the case and has the option to ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal the judgement.

Council leader Chris Whitbread said: "We believe the Court of Appeal decision to overturn the interim injunction for the closure of the Bell Hotel was wrong.

"The Court of Appeal judges appear to have placed the [home secretary's] duties towards asylum seekers above those of the council to uphold the planning system."

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• 'We're fed up of paying for them!' Britons demonstrate outside migrant hotel following Epping verdict: 'We've had enough'
• Reform UK council begins court bid to shut three migrant hotels - despite Epping 'setback'
• 'We have to save Great Britain!' Grandmother's emotional plea after 'outrageous' Epping migrant hotel ruling

Mr Whitbread insisted that this is "not the end of the matter".

He continued: "We consider we have a strong case for a final injunction. The final injunction hearing is expected to be heard some time in early October."

The council leader also discussed whether twice-weekly protests outside The Bell Hotel should continue.

He said: "The people of Epping are under great strain. As schools return this week, I appeal to the protest organisers to show restraint and give our families and children some much-needed respite."

The hotel has been at the centre of intense controversy after an Ethiopian asylum seeker residing there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl last month, allegations he denies.

Some Epping residents have said they will opt out of paying their council tax following the Court of Appeal decision.

The residents said they would withhold council tax payments even if it resulted in imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal's reversal has sparked fierce local opposition and reignited debates about asylum accommodation across Britain.

GB News' Jack Carson speaks with residents in Epping as they react to the Home Office's victory in overturning the closure of the Bell Hotel

One Epping local said: "It's absolutely disgusting, I'm devastated, I feel like crying.

"We come here every week, show our support, and they've taken it that they've got more rights than us citizens, it is an absolute disgrace."

Another resident said: "There have to be suitable places to put them, not within communities, not scattered about houses. They're unchecked, and that makes them dangerous.

"Quite frankly, the migrants shouldn't be in there. The Government should have had proper detention centres or ex-military bases, where they should have gone, and they should have been fenced in while they're processed."

Sir Keir Starmer admitted he would not want to live next to an asylum hotel, as he insisted he wanted to speed up its closures.

He told BBC Radio 5 Live: "I completely get it. Local people by and large do not want these hotels in their towns, in their place - and nor do I."

The Prime Minister admitted that he was not "angry" about the pace of change, but said he was "frustrated, I get the frustration and anger of voters because they want change."

Sir Keir continued: "I want to deliver that change as quickly as possible."

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper failed to guarantee that illegal migrants would definitely be returned to France in September, despite the Government saying they would go ahead by the end of the month.

When pressed on the issue, she said: "We expect the first returns to take place this month.

"But I've always said from the very beginning on this, it's a pilot scheme and it needs to build up over time."