The UK government has launched an appeal against a High Court ruling that prevents an Essex hotel from accommodating asylum seekers, warning that the decision could disrupt its national asylum housing policy and fuel further anti-immigration protests.
Government’s Argument
Lawyers for the Home Office told the Court of Appeal on Thursday that blocking the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping Forest risked creating a “chaotic and disorderly” approach to asylum housing across England. Edward Brown KC, representing the government, said the ruling could encourage other local councils to pursue similar legal actions, undermining efforts to phase out the use of hotels in a controlled way.
The government argues that the injunction conflicts with its legal duty to provide housing for destitute asylum seekers. Becca Jones, the Home Office’s director of asylum support, stated that removing 136 occupants from the Bell Hotel would cause “considerable difficulties” in finding alternative accommodation amid already high demand.
The Council’s Case
The case was initiated by Epping Forest District Council, which argued that the hotel’s use as asylum accommodation required planning permission because it represented a “material change of use” from its original function. The council also highlighted community concerns about crime and disruption after protests at the site, which intensified following the arrest of one resident on sexual assault charges.
High Court judge Stephen Eyre sided with the council last week, citing factors such as the long-term stay of residents and the presence of security staff. While he acknowledged local fears of crime and protest disruption, he said these carried only “limited” weight.
Appeal Proceedings
The appeal, brought jointly by the government and the hotel’s owners, was heard by a three-judge panel comprising Lord Justice David Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Stephen Cobb. A ruling is expected on Friday.
Brown argued that Judge Eyre’s decision “substantially interferes” with the government’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, describing his reasoning as “scant.” However, Philip Coppel KC, representing the council, urged the court to dismiss the appeal, saying there was no evidence that the judge’s ruling was flawed.
Wider Implications
The outcome of the case could set a precedent with far-reaching consequences for the government’s asylum housing strategy. Despite plans to move away from hotels, recent figures show that 32,000 asylum seekers were still being housed in such accommodation at the end of June.
As the government struggles to balance its legal obligations with growing public opposition, the Court of Appeal’s decision will play a pivotal role in shaping future asylum housing policy in the UK.
