This week, Epping Forest District Council secured an interim High Court injunction preventing the Bell Hotel from being used to accommodate people seeking asylum.  

An interim injunction is a temporary Court Order that stops an action from happening until a full Court hearing takes place. In this case, the Order means that the Bell Hotel can no longer house those seeking asylum. Those already accommodated must be moved out by the Home Office by 4pm on 12thSeptember 2025.

The ruling comes after months of escalating tension. The Bell Hotel became the focal point for violent demonstrations following an alleged sexual assault by a resident. Far-right groups seized on the incident to stir unrest, leading to clashes with police and several arrests. 

Against that backdrop, the injunction has taken on great significance.  It represents the first clear example of a local council successfully challenging the Home Office’s hotel-based asylum model through the Courts.

What the Court actually decided

The Bell Hotel case was not about immigration policy but about planning control. The Council argued that converting a functioning hotel into longer-term asylum accommodation was a ‘material change of use’, which required planning permission. The hotel’s owners, Somani Hotels, disagreed with this.

The Judge weighed two competing duties: the State obligation to house destitute people seeking asylum and the local authority’s responsibility to enforce planning law. On balance, the Judge ruled that the Council’s case had merit, at least temporarily until the Court could fully examine the issues.

The Order stops the Bell Hotel from being used without planning permission and requires the relocation of residents. However, it does not create a nationwide ban on people seeking asylum being housed in hotels. 

Each case will depend on its own facts, and the Home Office still has the power to procure hotel rooms elsewhere. 

Politically, the ruling has landed with a lot of impact. Within hours, Councils across the country, of different political colours, have said that they are considering their options and deciding whether to challenge hotel use for those seeking asylum on planning grounds.  

Media has picked this up suggesting that this will be a reason to close asylum hotels elsewhere.  The Home Office warns this could undermine its duty to accommodate and this could trigger more legal battles.

The human cost of relocation

For those seeking asylum currently living in the Bell Hotel, the injunction means another sudden upheaval. 

Families will be moved, children will lose school places, healthcare arrangements will be interrupted and relationships with lawyers and local support networks will be disrupted and, in many cases, broken. 

This pattern is not new. Those seeking asylum have long faced disruptive transfers between hotels, often at short notice and without clear explanation. 

Why hotels were used—and why they are failing

The Home Office turned to hotels because of a huge backlog in asylum decision making and a chronic shortage of available housing. While hotels provided an immediate stopgap, they were never designed for long-term use.

At the peak of hotel use in 2023, 51,000 people seeking asylum were housed in hotels across the country, costing approximately £8 million a day.  This figure has now dropped this year to around 32,000.

The drawbacks are now impossible to ignore. People living in hotels are often isolated from schools, healthcare and community networks and living with little privacy. Families are frequently uprooted at short notice, disrupting education and medical care. The use of large hotel sites in smaller towns has also triggered local resentment, which has been exploited by racist extremist groups.

Towards sustainable alternatives

The injunction has intensified calls for a shift away from hotels. The Government has already pledged to end the use of asylum hotels by 2029.  This injunction may mean that they have to move this aim further up their ‘To Do List’. They need to invest in sustainable alternatives now.

One option is to expand dispersal housing models, through partnerships with local authorities. Councils already manage social housing and integration services and spreading accommodation across ordinary neighbourhoods helps prevent resentment and encourages communities to feel more closely connected.  

There is also untapped potential in the UK’s housing stock. There are more than 265,000 long-term empty homes in the UK. Refurbishing and bringing these properties back into use would not only provide stable housing for those seeking asylum but also benefit local families in need.

Community sponsorship schemes are another promising approach. Piloted in the UK since 2016, they allow groups of residents, charities, or faith organisations to support and house those seeking asylum. Such schemes improve integration outcomes and reduce hostility because newcomers are welcomed into established networks.  

Investment into sustainable alternatives makes significant sense,  The cost of providing decent accommodation in communities (on average £20 a night) is far lower than forcing people to be accommodated in hotels (on average £158 a night).  

Advice for those seeking asylum currently in hotels

For those currently living in hotels, the uncertainty created by injunctions like the Bell Hotel case can feel overwhelming. There has been much media coverage and the situation will feel worrying for many. 

While the legal battles unfold, people still have rights and options for support. Those seeking asylum are entitled to basic subsistence support and accommodation under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. This has not changed. 

We will see how this develops over the next few months.  We don’t know if there will be other injunctions across the country or if this will be a one-off. Its important that we don’t panic.  In the face of more uncertaintly and much media commentary, the more we can stay grounded and connected, the more we can prepare for what will come. The more we stay connected together, the more we are able to challenge the racist far right that seek to exploit the situation for their own benefit.

For now, we wanted to reach out to our communities with what we know so far.  To let you know that support organisations are already coming together to plan ways to support those in hotels.  You are not alone.  

We are stronger together.  We will keep you updated as more develops.

Conclusion: more than a planning dispute

The Bell Hotel injunction does not mark the end of asylum hotels but it does signal a new legal and political reality. Councils now have a tool to challenge the Home Office’s reliance on hotels and ministers face growing pressure to develop credible, sustainable alternatives.

At its heart, this is not only a question of planning law but of dignity and humanity. The UK must decide whether to persist with costly, unstable hotel-based housing, or to invest in models that provide stability, integration, and respect. The ruling at the Bell Hotel forces that choice into the open.

What comes next will reveal whether the government is prepared to treat asylum accommodation not as a crisis to be managed, but as a system to be built with foresight, legality, and compassion.

We are grateful to Vick Guberska- Sleiman for the use of the image.