Epping hotel at centre of anti-migrant protests can continue to house asylum seekers, High Court rules

The council took legal action against the hotel owner, Somani Hotels, claiming that accommodating asylum seekers there breaches planning rules.

Lawyers for Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) said the housing of asylum seekers is a “material change of use” and has caused “increasingly regular protests”.

The hotel was at the centre of anti-immigration protests over the summer after a man being housed there sexually assaulted a 14-year-old girl.

Read more: Tim Davie resigns as BBC’s Director-General amid row over misleading editing of Trump speech - with BBC News CEO also stepping down

The Home Office intervened in the case, telling the court the council’s bid was “misconceived”.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed the claim on Tuesday and said in a judgment that it is “not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction”.

EFDC were granted a temporary injunction earlier this year following protests outside the hotel, which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers being housed there beyond September 12.

But this was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August, which found the decision to be “seriously flawed in principle”.

EFDC then sought a permanent injunction through a three-day hearing last month.

The Bell Hotel became the centre of a national news story earlier this year when Ethiopian national Hadush Kebatu, 41, sexually assaulted a teenage girl while staying in the small Essex town.

Mass, often violent, protests erupted in Epping and across the country in the wake of the incident as people called for migrant hotels to be closed for good.

Just weeks after Kebatu was sentenced, the asylum seeker was accidentally released from prison, leading to a 48-hour manhunt across Essex and London.

In an 87-page judgment, Mr Justice Mould said: “I have reached the clear conclusion that this is not a case in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction.

“I give due respect to the claimant’s judgment that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises which requires planning permission.

“Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control.

“The breach is far from being flagrant.”

He added: “The claimant’s desire to find a swift resolution to the disruption to public order and the community tensions which followed the outbreak of street protests on July 11 2025 was reasonable.

“It does not however follow that the solution lay in an application for an injunction.”

He continued: “Public opposition to the development of land, even if that opposition manifests itself in street protests, is not in itself evidence of planning of environmental harm generated by the development to which there is such strong objection.

“The police have a panoply of powers to manage and regulate street protests and to enforce public order.”

The High Court judge continued: “There are countervailing factors in this case which are properly to be weighed in the balance against the planning and environment harm which may reasonably be said to result from the postulated breach of planning control.

“In particular, the evidence before me clearly establishes that there is a continuing need to source contingency accommodation for asylum seekers from hotels to enable the Home Secretary to

discharge her statutory responsibilities under the 1999 Act.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are furious at the level of illegal migrants and asylum hotels in this country.

“This government will close every asylum hotel. Work is well underway to move asylum seekers into more suitable accommodation such as military bases, to ease pressure on communities across the country.

“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.”