The Home Office has successfully overturned a court injunction that would have forced asylum seekers out of a controversial Essex hotel, sparking fierce condemnation from Conservative and Reform UK leaders who accused Labour of putting “illegal migrants” above British citizens.
The Court of Appeal ruled this afternoon that asylum seekers can remain at the Bell Hotel in Epping, overturning a High Court decision from last week that had ordered the hotel to stop housing migrants by 12 September. The ruling marks a significant victory for the government but has reignited political tensions over immigration policy.
Robert Jenrick, shadow justice secretary, called the decision “extremely disappointing” and accused Home Secretary Yvette Cooper of using “taxpayer money” to keep the hotel open. “The British Government should always put the interests of the British people first,” Jenrick said in a statement. Starmer’s Government has shown itself to be on the side of illegal migrants who have broken into our country.”
Badenoch Urges Councils to Continue Fight
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch echoed her colleague’s criticism, declaring that “local communities should not pay the price for Labour’s total failure on illegal immigration.” In a rallying cry to Conservative councils, she urged: “KEEP GOING!
Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities,” Badenoch said. “This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end.”
The political firestorm intensified when Reform UK leader Nigel Farage accused the government of using “the ECHR against the people of Epping.” In a characteristically blunt post on X, formerly Twitter, Farage declared: “Illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under Starmer.
Court Battle Over Planning Permission
The legal battle centred on whether the Bell Hotel required planning permission to house asylum seekers. Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, ruled that the temporary injunction granted by Mr Justice Eyre last week should be set aside.
Government lawyers had argued that accommodating asylum seekers was in the “national interest” and warned that the original ruling could trigger chaos across the asylum accommodation system. Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, told the court that blocking the department’s appeal would “substantially interfere” with the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house “very large numbers of, potentially, destitute asylum seekers.
The court heard that the Bell Hotel has housed asylum seekers during three separate periods: from May 2020 to March 2021, October 2022 to April 2024, and since April 2025. Currently, 138 men are accommodated across the hotel’s 80 rooms.
Protests Rock Essex Town
The hotel became a flashpoint for community tensions in July after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, an Ethiopian asylum seeker staying at the property, was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. He denies the charges and is due to stand trial later this month.
The incident sparked weeks of protests outside the hotel, with demonstrators chanting “Save our kids” and “Send them home.” Multiple arrests were made as protests occasionally turned violent, with objects thrown at police and counter-protesters requiring escort from the area.
Chris Whitbread, Conservative leader of Epping Forest District Council, had warned that the situation was placing “an intolerable strain on our community.” The council argued that Somani Hotels, the property’s owner, had breached planning rules by failing to obtain permission for the change of use.
Government Defends Appeal
The Home Office maintained that whilst it aims to end the use of hotels for asylum seekers by 2029, any closure must be done in a “managed and orderly way.” Officials warned that piecemeal court decisions could simply shift problems to other areas rather than solving them.
In court submissions, government lawyers argued that fears about asylum seekers arose from “a very small number of specific incidents” and that migrants did not have a “greater propensity” to commit crime. Becca Jones, director of asylum support at the Home Office, acknowledged residents’ concerns but said they “must be viewed in the context of demands on the accommodation estate.
The appeal ruling comes as pressure mounts on the government’s immigration policy. Currently, around 32,000 asylum seekers are housed in more than 200 hotels across the UK at a cost exceeding £8 million per day.
Wider Implications for Council Challenges
The Court of Appeal’s decision could have significant implications for other councils considering similar legal challenges. At least 30 local authorities, including nine Labour-run councils, were reportedly weighing their options following the original Epping ruling.
Conservative-run Broxbourne Council in Hertfordshire had announced it was seeking urgent legal advice about mounting a similar challenge, whilst South Norfolk Council indicated it would go to court if necessary over an asylum hotel in Diss.
Reform UK had pledged that all 10 councils under its control would “do everything in their power” to follow Epping’s lead. Farage had previously encouraged peaceful protests outside asylum hotels to pressure councils into taking legal action.
Political Battle Lines Drawn
The ruling has crystallised political divisions over immigration policy ahead of what promises to be a contentious parliamentary session. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp condemned the government’s appeal, saying: “It is completely wrong that the Labour government is taking legal action to keep open the Bell Hotel.”
Instead of trying to keep illegal immigrants in expensive hotels, the Conservatives would remove all illegal arrivals, put in place a real deterrent, and ensure towns like Epping are never put in this position again,” Philp added.
The government has committed to clearing the asylum backlog and ending hotel use by the end of this parliament, allocating £200 million in the June spending review to process cases more quickly. However, critics argue the pace of change is too slow and that communities are bearing an unfair burden.
Community Tensions Persist
Local residents in Epping have expressed mixed views about the ruling. Some organised protests calling for the hotel to be closed, citing safety concerns, whilst others have urged calm and warned against extremist infiltration of legitimate demonstrations.
Essex Police confirmed a peaceful protest took place outside the hotel on Thursday evening following the court’s decision, with officers facilitating a march through the High Street. Chief Superintendent Simon Anslow said the force would “continue to facilitate the right to protest when it is both peaceful and lawful.
The Bell Hotel controversy has become emblematic of broader tensions over immigration policy in Britain. With legal challenges likely to continue and political rhetoric intensifying, the debate over how and where to house asylum seekers shows no signs of abating.
As the government presses ahead with its plans to reduce hotel use whilst managing what it calls a “broken system,” communities like Epping remain at the sharp end of a national crisis that has divided opinion and inflamed political passions.
The Home Office has reiterated its commitment to working with local authorities and communities but insists that its legal obligations to house asylum seekers must be met. With more court challenges expected and political opposition mounting, the battle over Britain’s asylum hotels is far from over.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
Image Credit:
Official portrait of Robert Jenrick MP (2024) — photo by Roger Harris / House of Commons, taken on 11 July 2024. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)
