Epping Forest District Council’s statement on today’s Court of Appeal judgment over Bell Hotel
Politics / Fri 29th Aug 2025 at 02:36pm
EPPING Forest District Council’s statement on today’s Court of Appeal judgment over Bell Hotel.
“We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s hearing. While Epping Forest has brought the wider asylum seeker debate into sharp national focus, the concern and motivation of Epping Forest District Council throughout has been the wellbeing of our local residents. Where we had clarity and resolution, we now have doubt and confusion.
However, this is not the end of the matter. While the Court of Appeal has lifted the temporary injunction, the case for the final injunction is still to be heard. Our battle on behalf of our residents will continue. A few weeks from now we will be back in court where we trust the strength of our case will still prevail.
Epping Forest has already given the Home Office much cause for reflection. We understand Government faces a dilemma but that should not be at the expense of local communities. Planning law may seem dull. It might seem boring. But it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government. It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities and it should not be set aside lightly.
“The Government can still listen. It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past 6 weeks. For the trauma and disruption brought upon our community.
“The battle is not over, and we will continue the fight – it is nothing less than the people of Epping would expect and deserve”.
Frank
2025-08-29 15:08:39
It’s not a Hotel it’s an unlicensed HMO, Epping took the wrong path, should serve a prohibition order
jarrett
2025-08-29 17:18:08
It was a foregone conclusion with three left wing judges.
David Forman
2025-08-29 20:57:52
The article from Local Government Lawyer explains how Epping Forest District Council's methods were suspect: "the tactics used on the council's behalf were "not only procedurally unfair to Somani, but ought to have reinforced the argument that the delay was a significant factor in the balance against the grant of interim relief". The Court of Appeal meanwhile found that Eyre J "wrongly characterised" the hotel operator's actions. On this point, Bean LJ said: "The judge found as a fact that Somani had acted deliberately in declining to seek change of use permission under planning law after April 2025. He was critical of them taking this line. He was wrong in both respects." Judge in original case got it wrong on a range of issues including the above. A reasonable view is Tory controlled Epping council decided to turn a blind eye about planning when Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak were prime ministers, but got all jobsworth with a Labour government. My evidence is that the Court of Appeal said: "When, in 2023, Somani sought planning consent to change its use, for over a year Epping did not process the application, notwithstanding the statutory duty upon it (the council) to do so within eight weeks". In short, Tory opportunist games backfired. See Local Government Lawyer at https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/62083-home-office-wins-appeal-over-asylum-hotel-interim-injunction
Peter Lamb
2025-08-29 21:06:36
This Labour Government have just confirmed they will be a 1 term disaster and have opened the door to Farage and Reform
David Forman
2025-08-29 22:03:04
It's clear from the court judgement that Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) delayed any enforcement action from July 2020 until August 15 this year when the injunction was heard. On May 15 this year Somani Hotels wrote to EFDC saying they weren't applying for change of use because the Home Office said they didn't need to. EFDC did not take any enforcement action under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The next thing Somani receive is a 1600+ page court bundle together with a detailed skeleton argument prepared by leading and junior counsel in preparation for the August 15 hearing. Lord Justice Bean described EFDC's tactics as "procedurally unfair". LJ Bean concluded that the delay "ought to have reinforced the argument that the delay was a significant factor in the balance against the grant of interim relief" (injunction). Note: The July 2020 date is found in para 9 of the August 19 judgement. See latest court judgement at https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-and-somani-hotels-v-epping-forest-district-council/
AJ
2025-08-29 22:04:18
I don't understand why people are so against these hotels. These people will have somewhere to live while waiting to find out if their asylum claims are successful and are not taking up social housing that others need if staying in an old hotel. If a person is so intent in attacking another, be it child or otherwise (which is why these protests started), where they live will have little to do with their actions surely?
David Forman
2025-08-29 22:10:23
For completeness see the original August 19 judgement below. In the latest action referred to above see paragraphs 41 to 43. Judgement by Judge Eyre: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/epping-forest-district-council-v-somani-hotels-limited/
Hadenough
2025-08-30 09:27:40
AJ, your missing the point completely….WE DONT WANT THEM TO BE SETTLED HERE AT ALL! We do not have the infrastructure (doctors, hospital waiting lists, school room sizes etc) to have them here. Let them stay in the dozen odd safe countries they pass through to get here to claim their free phones, free gym classes, free e-bikes, free food, free accommodation and free money….well not free, us hard working English citizens pay for them!!!!
Kim O'connor
2025-08-30 10:37:52
The government didn't win yesterday. They lost a country, in heart and spirit.
Stuart J
2025-08-30 13:11:01
AJ. The successful asylum seekers, will be expected to be given housing somewhere, that will probably be in a social or housing association property, as it will be extremely unlikely to be an expensive private rental property. And as the majority of these asylum seekers are single males, should they be offended accommodation before our resident British single males, who are already at the bottom of the social housing list.
David Forman
2025-08-31 02:04:20
Stuart J, you are wrong about asylum seekers "probably be in a social or housing association property". The respected think tank Institute for Public Policy Research produced a report in October 2024 on this issue. On page 42 it says: "Private providers (Serco, Mears and Clearsprings), who primarily rent dispersal properties from private landlords." Page 18 says: "Dispersal accommodation, often a flat, family home or shared house, is longer-term temporary accommodation managed by private providers on behalf of the Home Office." Page 25 on poor quality says: "dispersal properties also face issues. Reports have consistently highlighted problems such as poor maintenance, overcrowding and inadequate facilities." The Guardian newspaper highlighted in 2017 "more than half of all asylum seekers (57%) housed by the government are done so in the poorest third of the country". See IPPR report at https://ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Downloads/Transforming_asylum_accommodation_October24_2024-10-23-110312_uryd.pdf Guardian article at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/09/its-a-shambles-data-shows-most-asylum-seekers-put-in-poorest-parts-of-britain
AJ
2025-08-31 08:06:43
Hadenough - This is not the fault of asylum seekers. By far the largest amount of immigration is controlled by government not those on a boat. I agree, immigration has been high for too many years but it is the governments fault at here because they are the ones in control of our schools, NHS, housing and they did not invest (in fact the opposite, they made cuts) in our infrastructure to allow for a quickly growing population. Oh, and if we did not house & feed seekers then crime would go up. Desperate people do desperate things. I for sure would rather these people be in hotels, not social housing, easier to keep track of too.
Leave a Comment Below:
12 Comments for Epping Forest District Council’s statement on today’s Court of Appeal judgment over Bell Hotel: