Yesterday, the High Court granted a temporary injunction preventing further migrant placements at the Bell Hotel in Epping, a significant decision with wide implications, according to planning law specialists at national law firm Clarke Willmott LLP.
In addition, the ruling stated that the asylum seekers currently staying at the hotel must leave by 12 September 2025, and the Court also denied the Home Office’s request to intervene, stating that its involvement would not materially aid the resolution of the planning dispute.
Lawyers say this ruling is likely to serve as a legal and procedural benchmark, shaping how migrant accommodation is managed in the future.
Michelle Spark, partner in the planning and environment team at Clarke Willmott, said: “At the heart of this dispute lies the fundamental question, does housing asylum seekers in hotels constitute a material change of use under UK planning law.
“It highlights the tension between local planning autonomy and central government policy, especially amid a backdrop of a 91,000-case asylum backlog and daily hotel costs exceeding £5.7 million.
“This latest ruling reinforces the authority of councils to enforce planning law, even in the face of national policy imperatives.
“The case has much broader ramifications than just the Bell Hotel in Epping. It has set a precedent for other councils to challenge migrant hotel placements on planning grounds.
“The Home Office may now be compelled to seek planning permission before repurposing hotels, potentially slowing down asylum accommodation efforts.”
Like countless other hotels across the country, The Bell Hotel, was repurposed by the Home Office to accommodate asylum seekers. Epping Forest District Council challenged this move, arguing that the hotel's use had shifted from short-term visitor accommodation to long-term institutional housing, an alteration that, in their view, required planning permission for the material change of use.
The Council cited concerns over public safety, proximity to schools and care homes, and a series of incidents including protests, arson, and allegations of sexual assault. These developments, they argued, underscored the unsuitability of the location and the need for proper planning oversight and planning control.
Epping Council argued that the Bell Hotel’s function had shifted from C1 (hotels and guest houses) to either C2 (residential institutions such as care homes or boarding schools) or sui generis (uses that don’t fit into any specific class, often used for unique or mixed-use developments), due to the long-term housing of asylum seekers and the provision of support services.
Following the judgment, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) has become highly relevant. The High Court found that the hotel’s operators had profited from government contracts while operating in breach of planning law. This opens the door for the Council to pursue confiscation of profits under POCA.
Louise Clifton, associate in the planning and environment team at Clarke Willmott, said: “With the added dimension of POCA enforcement, councils may utilise the existing legal framework to challenge unlawful land use and recover unlawful financial gains received in furtherance of that unlawful use.
“The councils use of POCA may deter property owners from breaching planning laws for profit. POCA also allows for the seizure of assets obtained through criminal or unlawful conduct, and these include planning regulatory breaches.
“This marks a significant shift in enforcement strategy, combining civil planning law with criminal financial recovery.
“The Epping Forest case underscores the importance of planning law compliance, even in emergency or humanitarian contexts. As similar cases emerge across the UK, we may expect to see more local councils challenging these placements on planning grounds.”
Clarke Willmott is a national law firm with offices in Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, London, Manchester, Southampton and Taunton.
