Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited: High Court refuses planning injunction for asylum accommodation

The High Court has dismissed Epping Forest District Council's application for an injunction to restrain the use of the Bell Hotel as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers, despite finding the Council had a reasonable basis for alleging a breach of planning control. The decision provides important guidance on when courts will exercise their discretion under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Mr Justice Mould accepted the Council's position that the hotel's exclusive use to accommodate single adult male asylum seekers since April 2025 arguably constituted a material change of use from Class C1 hotel use to a sui generis hostel use requiring planning permission. The distinction between hotel and hostel use, acknowledged as "fine" in established authorities, turned on factors including block-booking arrangements, accommodation of a specific cohort with no choice of placement, and loss of public availability.

However, the Court declined to grant injunctive relief, applying the principles established in South Bucks District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558. The judgement emphasised that this was far from a "last resort" case. The Council had never taken conventional enforcement action despite being aware of similar use during previous periods between 2020-2021 and 2022-2024. No enforcement notice had been issued, no stop notice served, and no planning contravention notice deployed.

The degree of environmental harm was found to be limited. Whilst security fencing erected following July 2025 protests caused localised visual harm to the Green Belt and Conservation Area, this was temporary and not integral to the asylum accommodation use itself. The Court rejected assertions that asylum seekers had a greater propensity for criminal behaviour, noting the absence of evidential foundation for such claims. Whilst three residents had been arrested or charged with offences since April 2025, this did not establish a pattern characteristic of the use itself, as distinct from individual conduct.

Significantly, the judgement found procedural deficiencies in the Council's decision-making. The Legal Services Manager's delegated decision on 5 August 2025 lacked the contemporary written record required by the Council's Scheme of Delegation. Neither the Defendant nor the Home Office had been consulted before proceedings were issued, depriving the Council of relevant information about alternative accommodation availability and economic impacts on the hotel owner.

The Court accorded substantial weight to countervailing factors, particularly the Home Secretary's continuing statutory duty under sections 95 and 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers. Evidence showed over 32,000 individuals accommodated in contingency hotels nationally as of June 2025, reflecting ongoing systemic need.

On street protests outside the hotel, Mr Justice Mould held that public opposition, even manifesting in protests, does not itself constitute planning harm. The police possessed adequate powers under public order legislation to manage such protests, which they had deployed effectively.

The Council's claim for declaratory relief was also refused. The Court declined to determine whether the current use constituted development, noting such questions fall properly within the statutory procedures under sections 191 and 195 of the 1990 Act, with appeals to the Secretary of State where decisions are final.

The judgement leaves open conventional enforcement options, including enforcement notice procedures with their attendant appeal rights, or the Defendant's ability to seek retrospective planning permission or a certificate of lawful use.

Copyright & permissions