A High Court judge is to decide if a hotel has breached planning rules by becoming a site for migrant accommodation.
And the case that could have repercussions for councils across the country where asylum seekers are housed in hotels.
Epping Forest District Council wants an interim injunction against The Bell Hotel in the town, which is owned by Somani Hotels, to prevent it being used as migrant accommodation, arguing the premises was not operating as intended as a hotel.
Lawyers for the council called it “a very serious problem” and said it was creating “a feeding ground for unrest,” stating that there is an “overwhelming case for an injunction”.
Opening the hearing at the High Court in London on Friday, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said it was a problem that was “getting out of hand” and “causing great anxiety” to local people.
Protests have taken place outside the hotel after two men staying there were charged with sexual offences in separate incidents, including one involving a 14-year-old girl.
Mr Coppel said there was “no agreement between [asylum seekers] and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room”.
What do Ukrainians think of Trump-Putin Alaska summit?
Clampdown on social media ads for Channel crossings unveiled
Man suffers cardiac arrest on boat trying to reach UK
The hotel “is no more a hotel [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender”, he said.
Barristers for the hotel group told the court that an injunction would cause asylum seekers “hardship” and that the move would set “a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions”.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said the company did not argue that residents’ concerns “are not genuine”, but that they did not justify an interim injunction to stop the use of the hotel.
“Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning,” he said.
The council had “not shown any evidence” that it had “grappled with the hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers, the Home Office and the company if a temporary injunction was granted, Mr Riley-Smith said.
50,000 migrants come to UK
More than 50,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats since Sir Keir Starmer became prime minister last July.
The barrister told the court that what was happening at The Bell Hotel “is occurring in hotels across the country” and that the Home Office has a “statutory duty” to provide temporary emergency accommodation for asylum seekers.
During Mr Riley-Smith’s submissions, the judge, Mr Justice Eyre said: “I think I can take judicial notice that there has been no diminution of the need for accommodation for asylum seekers.”
More on this story:
Man denies sex assault charges
Epping protests the ‘latest flashpoint’
Migrants were housed at the hotel from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024 and the court heard the council never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use.
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
Council ‘entirely wrong’
In April 2025, they were once again being placed there and Mr Riley-Smith said that a planning application was not made “having taken advice from the Home Office”.
In written submissions, the barrister said it was “entirely wrong” for the council to “suggest the use has been hidden from them”, saying it was “directly approached in February 2025 by the Home Office before the use began and alerted to the upcoming usage”.
Be the first to get Breaking News
Install the Sky News app for free
He said an injunction would be a “draconian step,” and warned granting one would cause harm.
“The main harm would be the loss of accommodation for asylum seekers currently being housed there under the Home Office’s statutory duties,” he said.
Mr Justice Eyre is due to deliver his decision on Tuesday.
