Epping Forest District Council cannot challenge a decision allowing the Home Office to intervene in its bid to block asylum seekers staying at the Bell Hotel, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The council had initially secured an emergency interim injunction in August to close the hotel to migrants and won a ruling that the Home Office could not intervene, but this was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. Its bid for a permanent injunction was also dismissed earlier in November.
The Supreme Court said the council’s application “does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance,” rejecting the challenge.
The decision was delivered by Lord Reed, Lord Leggatt, and Lady Simler. The Bell Hotel became a flashpoint for protests after an asylum seeker living there was arrested, later convicted, and deported for sexual assaults.
The council argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong to allow Home Office intervention, while the Home Office described the council’s claim as misconceived.Hotel owners Somani Hotels strongly disputed the council’s arguments.
At the High Court, Mr Justice Mould dismissed claims that housing asylum seekers breached planning rules, ruling an injunction was “not an appropriate means of enforcing planning control.”
The council also contended that housing asylum seekers constituted a material change of use and triggered frequent protests, while lawyers for the hotel and Home Office rejected this.
The Bell has housed single adult males since April, including asylum seekers at various periods since May 2020. Planning permission for a temporary change of use was applied for in February 2023 but later withdrawn after remaining undetermined by April 2024.
