NIGEL Farage has claimed a court decision allowing an English council to remove asylum seekers from a hotel as a “victory”.
The Reform UK leader said he hoped other local authorities would follow Epping Forest District Council in applying for an injunction to block refugees from being allowed to stay in hotels.
The Bell Hotel in Epping was the site of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
On Tuesday, Justice Eyre granted a temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12.
The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to “unprecedented levels of protest and disruption” in connection with asylum seeker accommodation.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch also said the ruling was a “victory” for parents in the area, while the local authority leader insisted there was “a lot of work to do”.
Following the ruling, Farage said: “This is a victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping.
“They do not want their young women being assaulted on the streets. This community stood up bravely, despite being slandered as far-right, and have won.
“They represent the vast majority of decent people in this country.
“I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country.”
Writing on Twitter/X, Badenoch said: “Putting a hotel full of young male illegal immigrants in the middle of a community like Epping was always going to lead to issues. They need to be moved out of the area immediately.
“But Epping is just one of many towns struggling with these asylum hotels.
“Labour have no solution, they’re not smashing any gangs and small boat arrivals are at record highs.
“I do have a plan – bring back a proper deterrent and remove all illegal arrivals immediately, so towns like Epping never have to deal with this again.”
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, Chris Whitbread, leader of Epping council, said: “This is a decision that’s important to Epping Forest, but also important to have councils up and down the country, and it shows that the Government cannot ignore planning rules, just like no-one else can ignore planning rules.”
Whitbread added that the ruling would be subject to appeal but that “all things being equal, the Bell Hotel will be empty by September 12, and that’s really important for the students, residents, businesses of Epping Forest”.
He urged local residents not to protest or “over-celebrate” the ruling, adding: “This is the beginning. It is not the end.”
When asked whether asylum seekers are welcome in Epping Forest, Whitbread said: “We have always been a welcoming community, but obviously, what we need to see in Epping Forest is that the Government treats our residents fairly.
“The use of the Bell Hotel was always considered by ourselves not to be a suitable location, and we warned the Government of that, we warned the last government of that, and we were found to be correct.
It comes as Justice Eyre, in his ruling granting the injunction, said the fear of crime being committed by those accommodated there was a “relevant factor”, albeit one with “limited weight”.
“The arrests have occurred in a relatively short period and have arisen when no more than 138 asylum seekers are accommodated in the Bell at any time,” he said.
“The consequence is that the fear said to be felt by local residents cannot be dismissed as solely speculation based on fear of what might happen from an activity which has not yet begun.”
Justice Eyre said that if Somani Hotels Ltd, the owners of Bell Hotel, had applied for planning permission, then local residents would have had the opportunity to air their concerns.
He said the firm had “sidestepped public scrutiny and explanation” by not applying for permission for change of use of the hotel.
“The defendant did so in the knowledge the claimant as local planning authority took a different view and believed that permission was necessary,” he added.
“It thereby sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made.
“It was also deliberately taking the chance that its understanding of the legal position was incorrect. This is [a] factor of particular weight in the circumstances of this case.”
