Leader of Epping Forest council calls for calm after court of appeal ruling
The leader of Epping Forest district council has called for calm after the court of appeal ruled asylum seekers can stay at the Bell hotel in Essex.
Councillor Chris Whitbread told Times Radio:
I call for calm. There’s been peaceful protests and there’s been non peaceful protests outside the hotel.
He added:
We saw yesterday the government say that asylum seekers have more rights than my residents. I’m really cross with this ruling. Obviously we’ll now reflect on where we are.
Obviously we’re still going to court in October to go for a final injunction and we will be pushing hard to make sure that’s successful, but we will do everything we can still.
This is an awful position for the town … I’m really concerned for the future of the town at the moment.
Speaking outside the London court after the ruling, Ken Williamson, member of cabinet for Epping Forest district council said:
We understand government faces a dilemma, but that should not be at the expense of local communities.
Planning law may seem dull, it might seem boring, but it goes to the heart of the relationship between local communities and good government. It enshrines the rights of local people to have a say within their own communities, and it should not be set aside lightly. The government can still listen.
It needs to understand and take responsibility for the events that have taken place in Epping over the past six weeks, for the trauma and disruption brought upon our community.
The council could still be granted an injunction after a full hearing of the legal claim, which is due to be heard in October.
Key events
Border Security and Asylum minister Dame Angela Eagle said: “Nobody wants to close the Bell Hotel and all other asylum hotels more than me”, reiterating the government’s pledge to do this by 2029.
Asked what her message is for those who say the fight’s not over, she responded: “I think we all want the same thing – which is to get out of asylum hotels”.
Eagle added: “We’ve said they’re not sustainable and we’ve inherited a system with huge backlogs,” the BBC reported.
A temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell hotel in Epping, Essex, has been overturned by the court of appeal. Here we explain what the court decided, and its significance, writes Haroon Siddique and Aletha Adu.
What was the appeal about?
Last week, after an application by Epping Forest district council (EFDC), a high court judge ruled that asylum seekers could no longer be placed at the protest-hit Bell hotel and gave its owner, Somani Hotels, until 12 September to rehouse the 138 remaining there. Mr Justice Eyre granted the injunction, to remain in force until the case could be heard in full in October, after hearing EFDC’s complaints that planning law had been breached in changing the site’s use.
Somani Hotels challenged the decision at the court of appeal, as did the Home Office, which had been refused permission by Eyre to intervene in the high court case.
What did the court of appeal decide and why?
The three justices said both Somani Hotels and the Home Office, which it permitted to intervene in the case, could appeal against Eyre’s decision and quashed the temporary injunction in the meantime.
Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said Eyre had made a number of errors in principle. He said: “The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.”
A protester outside the Bell Hotel in Epping said the Court of Appeal ruling was “devastating” and could “cause civil unrest”.
Carmen, who wore a pink top that said “Pink Ladies Say, The Only Way is Epping, Send Them Home” on it, said she was “very let down” by the ruling.
Speaking outside the Bell Hotel, the Epping resident told the PA news agency: “We come every week – march, protest – and today’s ruling is just devastating, absolutely devastating. It will probably cause civil unrest.
“It’s shocking, it’s like they’ve won. The schools go back next week – the kids will be walking around the back, it’s not good.”
Asked why she was protesting outside the hotel, Carmen said: “To show our support – get them out.
“We’re not racist, and I’m all for things done legally, but these are unvetted 18-30s, maybe some plus.
“We don’t know who they are, we don’t know what they’ve done, but now they’re letting us know what they’re like.”
An Epping councillor said the Court of Appeal ruling was “hurtful” and claims children are “frightened to go to school” in the town.
Shane Yerrell, who represents Waltham Abbey West for Epping Forest District Council, said he was “disgusted” by the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
Speaking outside the Bell Hotel, Yerrell told the PA news agency: “All the local parents felt like there was one big step forward when the High Court agreed to close the hotel and things started to calm down.
“But then for the Home Office and the Government to both appeal and that be accepted today is hurtful.”
In a further statement following the Court of Appeal ruling, Epping Forest District Council said it was “ruling nothing out”, including taking its bid for a temporary injunction to the Supreme Court.
It said: “We do not accept the criticisms of the council which has acted only in the interests of the people of Epping Forest. We are reviewing our position – we are ruling nothing out until we have examined all the options up to and including the Supreme Court.
“Epping Forest District Council has responded to criticism related to earlier use of the Bell Hotel despite this not being relevant to the current legal action.
“The circumstances of the placement in 2023 were very different to those in 2025. In reality the complexity of some planning applications mean that they take much longer than the statutory eight weeks to determine.”
The council added: “In any case it would not have affected the outcome of the application. At any time after the eight-week period, the hotel operator could have appealed against non-determination.
“In the event, the Home Office ceased the use of the Bell as asylum seeker accommodation and it became an academic point.
“To have continued once the use had ceased would seem to have been a waste of taxpayers’ money, especially as we had no reason to believe the Bell would be stood up again.”
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp claimed the Epping hotel case had “seen the Labour government using the courts against the British public”. He said:
The government even brazenly said in court that the rights of illegal immigrants were more important than the rights of local people.
The numbers in asylum hotels were dropping fast before the election – but have risen since because Labour has lost control of our borders.
We need a proper deterrent so that all illegal immigrants are immediately removed on arrival. Then no one would bother crossing in the first place. We had a plan to do this – the Rwanda plan – but Labour scrapped it just before it was due to start. As a result, numbers crossing the channel are now the worst ever.
We have a full-blown border crisis and public-safety crisis – but this government is too weak to take the action needed to fix it.
The full written ruling overturning the temporary injunction which would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel will be handed down remotely on Monday at 4pm, according to court listings.
Before reading a summary of their judgment on Friday, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said their full judgment, running to more than 120 paragraphs, would be handed down later.
The leader of Epping Forest District Council in Essex has questioned whether Bell Hotel owners Somani Hotels “chased” its planning application.
In a summary of their ruling, Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb highlighted that in February 2023 Somani had sought planning permission from the council to temporarily change the hotel’s use to accommodate asylum seekers rather than paying members of the public, but that the council “did not process the application” for more than a year.
Asked why the application had taken so long to process, councillor Christopher Whitbread said he was “not close enough to the detail” to give a “full answer”.
He added: “I think, you know, you have to ask yourself ‘was the company chasing the planning application during that time?’
“In my knowledge of planning applications, if they’ve been delayed, that the company going for the planning application will be chasing the council.
“Did they chase the council? We don’t know.”
The government has “let the residents of Epping down”, the leader of Epping Forest District Council said.
Asked what his message would be to people who may be planning to protest this weekend in the Essex town, Councillor Christopher Whitbread told the PA news agency: “We don’t want to see some violent scenes around the hotel or in the town itself that would that would only help the Government’s arguments, and it’s the Government that have let the residents of Epping down.
“I had numerous conversations with various people around this issue, the Home Office were not helpful.”
He said housing asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel was “not right” for residents of Epping or those living in the hotel itself, adding: “We made that argument to the previous government and eventually they closed it.
“This Government reopened it in April with no real consultation with us, they instructed us that they were going to use it.
“We were instructed on the numbers and such that they were prepared to use it up to, and really they have let down completely the residents of Epping Forest, and I think what underlined it was their legal argument yesterday around the ECHR and the fact that the asylum seekers trump the residents of Epping when it comes to their rights.”
In reaction to today’s verdict, Weyman Bennett, Stand Up to Racism co-convenor said: “The initial judgement was always wrong. It was a concession to racist thugs set on scapegoating and intimidating refugees.”
Kevin Courtney, Stand Up To Racism co-chair, said: “This court judgement is welcome, hateful demonstrations should not determine public policy.
“The far right will seek to use it to stimulate more and more hostile demonstrations targeting asylum seeker in hotels. It’s important that all people of goodwill speak out and peacefully mobilise against this hateful targeting of vulnerable people.”
Protesters have begun to gather outside the Bell Hotel in Epping after the Court of Appeal ruling.
A small number of demonstrators carrying England and Union flags have gathered outside the hotel, with police officers guarding its entrance – which is gated off with metal fencing.
An England flag has been attached to a drain pipe on the side of the Bell Hotel and England flags have also been painted onto signs and a speed camera outside the hotel.
