High court’s asylum hotel ruling could leave councils with nowhere to house the vulnerable

Epping Forest District Council’s successful application for an interim injunction against the hotel’s owners this week turned on some technical legal arguments concerning permitted uses of land – in particular, whether an "asylum hotel" amounts to a materially different use of land than a regular hotel.

However, the general principles set down are likely to have broader implications for local authorities and how they secure housing for those in need, including homeless people.

National housing crisis

The UK faces chronic shortages of social housing – analysis by the National Housing Federation earlier this year found the number of families on waiting lists in England has increased by 37% since 2015.

While the government’s aspiration to build 1.5 million homes by 2029, its 10-year £39bn Social and Affordable Homes Programme, and planning reforms will ease housing pressures in the long term, they won’t solve the urgent need for more social and low-cost housing in the short term.

Home Office figures published today show that more than 32,000 asylum seekers are currently being housed temporarily in UK hotels. Research from the charity Shelter, meanwhile, found there were 326,000 homeless people living in temporary accommodation in December 2024.

This illustrates the unprecedented pressures confronting public authorities, who have statutory duties to tackle homelessness, and to support those without recourse to public funds who face destitution.

It’s why councils rely heavily on block-booking hotels, and bed and breakfast accommodation, to temporarily house those in need.

What the Bell Hotel injunction means for local authorities

The Bell Hotel injunction is only temporary, and the planning issues at the heart of the case will not be finally determined until a full trial, later this year or early 2026. But in the meantime, the Bell Hotel can’t be used for asylum accommodation.

In granting this temporary injunction, the High Court carefully weighed the public interest in enforcing planning control and the loss of amenity to local residents on the one hand, with the public interest in accommodating destitute asylum seekers on the other. The court ultimately concluded the public interest in controlling the use of asylum hotels was the more important factor in that balance.

The protests at the Bell Hotel did influence the court, which considered fear of crime resulting from the hotel’s use for housing asylum seekers, as well as the impact of both lawful protests and unlawful activity on local residents.

We may see more councils, under pressure from residents, bringing forward similar claims, and we’re already seeing calls for further protests at asylum hotels from some quarters.

However, councils should be mindful of the unintended consequences that may flow from litigation relating to the use of asylum hotels.

The withdrawal of hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation from the market could leave councils in difficulty in meeting their own duties to vulnerable service users, as the people who would otherwise be placed in these hotels will need to be housed somewhere.

A sustainable, long-term solution to the challenges of housing those in need is required nationally. This requires close co-operation between all branches of government.

_______________________

Victoria Searle, principal associate at UK and Ireland law firm Browne Jacobson

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us, email opinion@lbc.co.uk