Asylum seekers are set to be evicted from an Epping hotel at the centre of angry and violent protests after a High Court judge granted an injunction to the local council.
The Bell Hotel struck a deal with the Home Office to take in asylum seekers after ceasing to operate as a regular hotel, sparking weeks of demonstrations this summer.
Epping Forest District Council made a High Court application for an injunction against the hotel, arguing it is breaching planning laws with its current operation.
On Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre ruled in the council’s favour, in a judgment which could open the floodgates for similar applications around the country to clear asylum seekers out of hotels.
The judge agreed to an interim injunction, ordering that the hotel is cleared of asylum seekers within 28 days. The hotel owners could still mount an appeal, but the evictions and rehousing of the current occupants are expected to go ahead.
Piers Riley-Smith, representing the hotel owners, made a bid to start the appeal on Tuesday, but his application for permission was rejected by the judge.
While making the application, the barrister told the court that the government will now have to find new housing for the occupants of the Bell Hotel, but currently they “don’t know where they will go”.
He added that there is a fear that other councils will now seek to obtain injunctions against asylum seeker hotels, using “the potential for protests” as justification.
Reacting to the news, opposition party leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declared the judge’s decision a victory for parents.
The council leader in Epping, Chris Whitbread, called for calm around the hotel tonight.
“What I call upon the residents tonight is if they decide to go outside the Bell Hotel, don’t protest, don’t over-celebrate. This is the beginning. It is not the end.
“We have a lot of work to do, and we will do everything we can, as I promised the full council, we will leave no stone unturned to work in the interest of Epping Forest.
“The Government have to address the bigger issue of the illegal asylum problem, but in Epping Forest, we will stand up for our residents and we will do our best on their behalf.”
The judge made his ruling after rejecting a last-ditch bid by the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to intervene in the legal battle.
Her barrister, Edward Brown KC, argued an injunction at the Bell Hotel would have a “substantial impact” on the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, and said there is a “powerful public interest” in her being able to intervene to make arguments in the case.
The judge took a dim view of the Home Secretary’s application to join the case being made at 5.23pm on Monday evening, days after the original hearing had taken place.
Mr Brown argued that the granting of an injunction could open the floodgates for similar legal challenges across the country against asylum seeker hotels.
“There’s a risk there could be similar applications made, which would aggravate the pressure on the asylum estate”, he said.
The council’s barrister, Philip Coppel KC, branded the Home Office “thoroughly unprincipled” for making the bid, suggesting it would “derail” the judge’s ruling whether intentional or not.
The judge ultimately concluded that Ms Cooper joining the case was “not necessary” and would result in a significant delay.
“In Epping, the schools resume on September 2 and 3”, he said. “The council is attempting to restore a safe and stable environment for schools, restaurants, and businesses.”
The Bell Hotel has ceased to operate as a conventional hotel, and has instead signed a deal with the Home Office to take in asylum seekers who have to be accommodated.
Last week, the council argued that the current situation is putting local school children in danger and acting as a “feeding ground for unrest and protest”.
The hotel has been the target of regular protests for more than a month after it emerged that an asylum seeker had been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
The perimeter of the hotel is now covered with security fencing, while violent clashes have broken out involving some of the demonstrators.
Bringing the application for an injunction, the council argued that accommodating asylum seekers “is a clear breach of planning control”.
Mr Coppel said court intervention would “restore the safety of nearby residents, in particular students at the five schools within walking distance of the Bell Hotel”, and “remove of the catalyst for violent protests in public places adjacent to the Bell Hotel”.
He said a court order would “allay the serious anxiety being caused to residents within the vicinity of the Bell Hotel”, and also have the effect of “alleviating asylum seeker exposure to violent protests and a placement that provides inadequate resources for their needs.”
The Bell Hotel was built in 1900, on a site which has been used for a hotel for hundreds of years.
During the pandemic, it was used to house asylum seekers and the council said it was told it would eventually return to normal use.
That happened in 2024, but in February this year a new deal was struck between the owners and the Home Office.
Asylum seekers began to arrive on site in April, and the situation exploded on to the public consciousness when one of the occupants, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl at a nearby branch of Dominoes pizza.
He denies the charge and will stand trial this month.
The court has heard about incidents of unrest at protests, including violent disorder in mid-July, graffiti, eggs and fireworks being thrown, and assaults on police and security guards.
A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, 32, has separately been charged with seven offences.
He denies sexual assault after being alleged to have kissed a man on the neck.
He indicated guilty pleas to a further two counts of common assault and four of assault by beating at the hotel between July 25 and August 12.
