Asylum seekers can remain at Epping's Bell Hotel, the High Court ruled, despite protests. Photo / Getty Images
In the United Kingdom, the High Court has ruled that asylum seekers can continue to be housed in Epping’s Bell Hotel.
The ruling follows anti-immigration protests and counter-demonstrations at the west Essex hotel, prompted by the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl by an asylum seeker.
Justice Mould, a High Court judge, rejected Epping council’s objection to the housing of 138 asylum seekers by the Home Office at the hotel.
The local authority had claimed the hotel’s use for migrants breached planning law and had led to violent protests that were damaging community relations.
Hundreds of people mounted anti-immigration and counter-demonstrations at the Essex hotel after a 14-year-old girl from Epping was sexually assaulted by Hadush Kebatu, an Ethiopian asylum seeker who was jailed and mistakenly released before being deported.
Responding to the judgment through Shane Yerrel, an Epping councillor, the girl’s “devastated” father said he was “so angry”.
The judge found that the council had a “reasonable basis” to argue that the current use of the Bell Hotel required planning permission and was, therefore, a breach of planning rules. However, he rejected the council’s case that its use for asylum seekers was “a flagrant or persistent abuse of planning control”.
He said it was “not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction”.
Epping council is now considering whether to appeal against the decision, while at least a dozen other councils are still threatening to take legal action to close asylum hotels in their areas. Figures for June, the most recent available, show more than 32,000 migrants are being housed in 200 hotels at a cost of £5.5 million ($12.8m) a day.
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said it was a “dark day for local democracy”.
“Labour has once again used the courts to put the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British citizens,” he said.
“Their conduct is disgraceful. Children and women in Epping and many other towns will now continue to be at risk. Labour’s lawyers fought tooth and nail to keep this hotel open, even after a migrant housed there was jailed for sexually assaulting a teenage girl.”
Epping council said it was a “devastating decision for local democracy” where it had been “outgunned” by “an unholy alliance of lawyers for government and big business intent on protecting huge profits and an indefensible asylum policy”.
“Epping council has stood up for principles of local democracy. It has implications for everyone. If the government is determined to ride roughshod over local residents and planning laws whenever it is convenient, the outlook is bleak,” the council said.
It will now consider whether to appeal against the decision.
This week, police put up a ring of steel around the hotel, with the expectation that residents would protest.
Sandra Small, 54, who has lived in Epping all her life, said: “I’m fuming. There’s no consideration for us. There’s been sex attacks and god knows what else, but still they’ve kept it open. I feel sick.”
A source from the Labour Party accused Philp of “some brass neck”, noting that he was the minister who opened all the hotels and Robert Jenrick as immigration minister “bragged about ‘ramping up’ their use”.
“The Tories opened these hotels. This Labour government will close them,” the source said.
A Home Office spokesman said it was “furious” about the number of asylum hotels and would close every single one.
“Work is well under way to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country,” the spokesman said.
“We are working to do so as swiftly as possible as part of an orderly, planned and sustained programme. This judgment allows us to do that.”
The Home Office previously warned that shutting the Bell Hotel “ran the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests” and could mean legal action became a “new norm adopted by local authorities”.
The judge accepted that the “criminal behaviour” of a “small number” of asylum seekers had raised the fear of crime among local residents. But he did not believe this amounted to “serious planning or environmental harm”, which could not be handled by police enforcing public order.
He said the council had not provided any “statistically sound” evidence to demonstrate that asylum seekers were associated with higher crime rates compared with the local population.
The judge also accepted that the legal duty of Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, to provide accommodation for asylum seekers outweighed local concerns and the need to grant the council an injunction.
A dozen councils have instructed their lawyers to investigate potential appeals. Among them are at least four Labour-run authorities, including Wirral, Stevenage, Tamworth and Rushmoor councils.
Last week, Broxbourne council said it planned to take “necessary steps”, including legal action, to stop a hotel, the Delta Marriott in Cheshunt, from being used to house asylum seekers.
Councillors in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire, passed a motion on which said that “Broxbourne residents must come first”. The hotel in Cheshunt has been accommodating asylum seekers since 2022 and was the scene of angry protests in August.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.