Migrants WILL continue to be housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping after local council loses High Court battle

Lawyers for Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) said the housing of asylum seekers is a "material change of use" and has caused "increasingly regular protests."

The Home Office intervened in the case, telling the court the council’s bid was "misconceived".

The Bell became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in the summer after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl in Epping in July.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian national who arrived in the UK on a small boat days before the incident, was jailed for 12 months in September.

He was later mistakenly released from prison and re-detained.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim on Tuesday and said in a judgment that it is "not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction."

EFDC were granted a temporary injunction earlier this year following protests outside the hotel, which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers being housed there beyond September 12.

But this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August, which found the decision to be "seriously flawed in principle."

EFDC then sought a permanent injunction through a three-day hearing last month.

Mr Justice Mould also said in his written judgment about the Bell Hotel: "The claimant’s desire to find a swift resolution to the disruption to public order and the community tensions which followed the outbreak of street protests on July 11 2025 was reasonable.

"It does not however follow that the solution lay in an application for an injunction."

He continued: "Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning of environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection.

"The police have a panoply of powers to manage and regulate street protests and to enforce public order.”

The High Court judge added: "There are countervailing factors in this case which are properly to be weighed in the balance against the planning and environment harm which may reasonably be said to result from the postulated breach of planning control.

"In particular, the evidence before me clearly establishes that there is a continuing need to source contingency accommodation for asylum seekers from hotels to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities under the 1999 Act."

In an 87-page judgment, Mr Justice Mould said: "I have reached the clear conclusion that this is not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction.

"I give due respect to the claimant’s judgment that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises which requires planning permission.

"Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control.

"The breach is far from being flagrant."

A Home Office spokesman said: "We are furious at the level of illegal migrants and asylum hotels in this country.

"This government will close every asylum hotel.

"Work is well underway to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country.

"We are working to do so as swiftly as possible as part of an orderly, planned and sustained programme. This judgment allows us to do that."

Epping Forest council reacted to the ruling, calling the move a "devastating decision for local democracy".

Councillor Ken Williamson said in a statement: “This is a devastating decision for local democracy. We won the moral and ethical arguments, but we were outgunned by bigger and more powerful interests.

“In the interests of political expediency, the Home Secretary can now ignore planning law, the concerns of local councils and their residents.“From the very beginning, our only motive has been to protect and defend the interests of our residents. We knew the Home Office would not like it, but it was important to stand up for our residents. Local people must have some control over local decisions.

“But what we saw in court was an unholy alliance of lawyers for government and big business intent on protecting huge profits and an indefensible asylum policy."

The statement continued: “When they should have focused on the democratic planning system, and our right and proper use of it to protect our district and residents from harm, they chose to focus on technicalities and how we decided to proceed.

“If they are listening, they would do well to consider the wider implications.

“Epping Forest District Council has stood up for principles of local democracy. It has implications for everyone. If the government is determined to ride roughshod over local residents and planning laws whenever it is convenient, the outlook is bleak.

“The Home Secretary can still reconsider. The trauma and disruption experienced by Epping residents and especially the victims and their families at the heart of all this is unacceptable. The asylum system is broken. Fix the real problem. Close the hotels now.

“We are bitterly disappointed. We have pushed as hard as we can and punched well above our weight. It is a sad day, but we will take this judgement back to our councillors. Together we will decide what happens next," the statement concluded.