A ban on housing asylum seekers at a protest-hit hotel would have a “serious impact” on the government’s ability to house refugees and could incite further demonstrations, the court of appeal has heard.
The Home Office and the owners of the Bell hotel in Essex have launched an appeal against the temporary injunction granted to Epping Forest district council (EFDC) last week.
They are seeking to challenge a high court ruling that will stop 138 asylum seekers from being housed there beyond 12 September. Three senior judges will make a ruling on Friday.
The Bell hotel has been in the public eye in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month, leading to a string of protests and counter-demonstrations. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu is on trial this week and denies the offence.
Last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted EFDC the interim injunction after the authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules.
But on Thursday, the Home Office and Somani Hotels argued the council had effectively conceded that the application was “only ever about protest”.
The court heard EFDC had known for years that the hotel could have been in breach of planning regulations, but had not taken enforcement action against Somani Hotels because the situation had been “unproblematic”.
Robin Green, representing the authority, said: “A decision not to take enforcement action at one point in time does not mean it cannot take a different decision at a later point in time if circumstances change. On the evidence, circumstances had undoubtedly changed.”
The hotel has housed single adult male asylum seekers since April 2025, and from October 2022 to April 2024. It had also accommodated asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021.
On behalf of the Home Office, Edward Brown KC said the statement amounted to an admission on the part of the council that the planning decision had really been about putting an end to the protests.
He said: “Epping has effectively conceded before this court that this was, in truth, only ever about protest.”
Brown said the interim injunction was “simply the wrong tool” for stopping asylum hotel demonstrations.
Somani Hotels’ lawyer Piers Riley-Smith told Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb on Thursday, there were “other and more appropriate” solutions to the council’s concerns.
In evidence referenced during Thursday’s hearing, a senior Home Office official said the interim injunction would risk “encouraging other local authorities” to seek similar measures.
The statement read: “The Home Office understands that local residents have concerns about the use of the hotel, which have been heard. However, those concerns must be viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate.
“Granting the interim injunction sought risks setting a precedent which would have a serious impact on the secretary of state’s ability to house vulnerable people; both by encouraging other local authorities to seek such interim injunctions pending the outcome of substantive planning law complaints and those who seek to target asylum accommodation in acts of public disorder.”
The Home Office’s director of asylum support, Becca Jones, said the loss of 152 bed spaces at the Bell hotel would be a major issue.
“In this context, and at this time, the loss of 152 bed spaces is significant when considering the Home Office’s legal duty to house people who would otherwise be destitute,” she said. “The availability of the hotel is also important in enabling the secretary of state to meet her duty to accommodate future asylum seekers going forward, in circumstances where the pressure on available properties is significant and increasing.”
Alongside the challenge to the interim injunction, the government is also seeking to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s decision not to allow it to intervene in the case. The council opposed the appeal bids.
