Asylum seekers are to be removed from a hotel that has attracted repeated violent far-right demonstrations after a high court judge granted a temporary injunction blocking them from being housed there.
Mr Justice Eyre granted the injunction against the owners of the Bell hotel in Epping, Essex, after hearing the local council’s complaints that they had breached planning law by changing the site’s use.
Epping district council also cited disruption caused by the protests, which came after two people staying at the hotel were charged with sexual offences, and concerns for the safety of the asylum seekers themselves.
Lawyers for the hotel’s owners had argued the council was trying to stop the protests and that no planning concerns justified taking the “exceptional step” of issuing an urgent order to close down the hotel, rather than dealing with the matter via conventional enforcement action or at a final injunction hearing.
Sitting at the Royal Courts of Justice on Tuesday, the judge agreed with the council that an urgent order was required to stop the hotel housing asylum seekers. He said the hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels Ltd, had until 12 September to comply.
The hotel has been at the centre of violent far-right protests since an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month.
A second man who was staying at the site, Mohammed Sharwarq, a Syrian national, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.
Speaking after Tuesday’s ruling, the council’s leader, Chris Whitbread, said: “I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news. This is not the end of the matter. Having obtained an interim provision, the next stage is for the council to return to the court and seek a permanent injunction.”
Enver Solomon, the Refugee Council’s chief executive, said: “Everyone agrees that hotels are the wrong answer. They cost the taxpayer billions, trap people in limbo and are flashpoints in communities.”
He said protests that had flared up against the sites left vulnerable asylum seekers feeling terrified, adding: “This makes an already traumatising situation worse and prevents people from feeling safe.”
He said the government should stop relying on hotels and work with local councils to “provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities. But ultimately, the only way to end hotel use for good is to resolve asylum applications quickly and accurately so people can either rebuild their lives here or return home with dignity.”
At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said the site’s “sole lawful use” was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was “wholly unacceptable” and had provided a “feeding ground for unrest”.
He said: “There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell hotel to place asylum seekers. It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.” He added: “It really could not be much worse than this.”
The council argued that using the hotel to house asylum seekers, rather than as a conventional hotel, was a breach of planning law.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said “disagreement with government policy” did not justify a “draconian” injunction and that there would be hardship caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He said contracts to house asylum seekers had been a “financial lifeline” for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022 when it was open to paying customers.
“It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning,” he said.
Prior to the ruling being handed down, the judge declined a last-minute application from the home secretary to intervene. A barrister for the home secretary argued that a ruling in the council’s favour would have a substantial impact on her statutory duty to house asylum seekers while their cases are considered, among other concerns. But the judge said the home secretary’s intervention was unnecessary and would merely use up court time.
After handing down his ruling, Mr Justice Eyre refused Somani Hotels leave to challenge it. Riley-Smith cited the ruling’s “wide-reaching ramifications”, including the “precedent that would be set” and the impact it could have “on the wider strategy of the [home secretary] in relation to the housing of asylum seekers in hotels as part of meeting their statutory duties”.
Somani Hotels could still ask the court of appeal for the go-ahead to challenge the ruling. - The Guardian
