Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels: planning permission and asylum accommodation

On 19 August 2025, the High Court delivered its judgement in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited, examining whether accommodating asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel constituted a material change of use requiring planning permission.

The dispute centred on the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, which had operated as a Class C1 hotel under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. Since April 2025, the property housed asylum seekers under Home Office directions pursuant to obligations under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

The council's position

Epping Forest District Council sought an interim injunction, arguing the hotel's use represented a material change requiring planning approval. The council emphasised significant implications for local amenities and community wellbeing, contending the matter demanded immediate judicial intervention given residents' concerns about safety and disruption.

The defendant's defence

Somani Hotels Limited maintained their usage remained within permissible hotel operations. They argued continued provision of reception and catering services preserved the Bell's character as a hotel, negating any requirement for change of use applications.

Material change of use assessment

The case highlighted complexities in interpreting 'material change of use' within planning law. The court emphasised that determining this designation requires fact-sensitive analysis of environmental and community impacts, both on-site and off-site, extending beyond mere lawfulness assessment to examine ramifications for local residents.

Evidence revealed the Bell's evolving role, having previously accommodated vulnerable populations during the Covid-19 pandemic. This history intensified planning law scrutiny, with local residents expressing concerns about potential criminality associated with the demographic shift.

Balancing competing interests

The court grappled with granting interim relief whilst weighing strong public interest in enforcing planning controls against pressing humanitarian needs to shelter destitute asylum seekers. The Home Secretary's statutory duty to accommodate these individuals created a challenging balance between regulatory compliance and humanitarian obligations.

The judgement revealed tensions between local authority planning enforcement powers and national asylum policy implementation. Whilst the council demonstrated likely success regarding alleged planning breaches, the defendant presented substantial counterarguments.

The court's decision

The High Court concluded evidence was insufficient to warrant immediate cessation of operations, particularly given urgent accommodation needs amid national increases in asylum seekers. The court recognised the departure from routine enforcement processes necessitated consideration of humanitarian perspectives alongside legal frameworks.

This decision reflects contemporary challenges facing local authorities managing competing statutory duties. The case demonstrates how planning law intersects with immigration policy, creating complex scenarios where traditional enforcement approaches require careful recalibration.

The judgement underscores courts' delicate role in balancing statutory planning control enforcement against broader social responsibilities. It illustrates how material change of use determinations increasingly involve multifaceted considerations extending beyond conventional planning parameters.

The case establishes important precedent regarding asylum accommodation within existing hospitality infrastructure, highlighting how emergency housing arrangements challenge established planning classifications. It demonstrates the evolving nature of use class interpretations when addressing urgent social needs whilst maintaining planning system integrity.