Epping migrant hotel ruling undermines Labour's asylum plans

"Today, Epping Forest District Council finally lost its case with the Home Office over migrant hotels. The council had sought and initially secured an injunction against The Bell Hotel - the former residence of convicted sex offender Hadush Kebatu - on the basis that by contracting with the Government to house asylum seekers, it had breached its planning permissions. Epping Forest's argument was that a commercial hotel becoming full-time immigration housing constituted a "material change of use", and thus required fresh planning permission."

"If contracting with the Home Office was deemed in law to be a "material change of use", it would almost certainly plunge the Government's entire asylum housing policy into chaos. Not only would it swiftly lead to dozens of councils following suit and taking out injunctions against migrant hotels on their own turf, it might even have threatened Labour's new alternative: housing migrants in flats and houses bought up on the private rental market."

"After all, if shifting from taking normal guests to Home Office placements constituted a "material change of use" for hotels, could the same argument not be made if a landlord stopped taking normal tenants? Unfortunately for Epping Forest, the judge appears to have been thinking exactly the same thing. Ruling in the High Court, Mr Justice Mould stated that there was a "continuing need" for asylum accommodation "so that the Home Secretary can fulfil her statutory duties"."

Epping Forest District Council lost its legal challenge against the Home Office over asylum accommodation at The Bell Hotel. The council had obtained an injunction claiming that contracting with the Government to house asylum seekers breached existing planning permissions. The council argued that converting a commercial hotel into full-time immigration housing amounted to a material change of use requiring fresh planning permission. Mr Justice Mould ruled that there was a continuing need for asylum accommodation so the Home Secretary can fulfil statutory duties. The judge found an injunction was not an appropriate means of enforcing planning control and rejected the council's claim.

Read at UnHerd