Share this post:
The Court of Appeal has overturned a temporary injunction that would have forced asylum seekers to leave the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex by September 12.
Led by Lord Justice Bean, a panel of three judges said the earlier High Court order was based on errors including failure to consider the “obvious consequence” for asylum accommodation capacity across the country.
This is that, if the decision on the Bell Hotel was replicated across the country, with dozens of councils copying Epping’s tactic, the result would be systemic collapse: hundreds or thousands of asylum seekers with nowhere lawful to be housed, at risk of ending up destitute or literally living on the streets.
Today’s decision is not the end of the case. The underlying question – whether housing asylum seekers in the Bell Hotel amounts to an unlawful “material change of use” under planning law – will be tested at trial in October.
The Court has now also allowed the Home Office to take part in that hearing, where it had previously been excluded.
Why planning law matters
The case began when Epping Forest District Council secured a temporary High Court injunction on August 19, blocking the Bell Hotel’s use for asylum accommodation.
The judge found that converting the hotel into long-term institutional use amounted to a material change of use, requiring planning permission that had never been sought.
That argument struck a nerve nationally.
Dozens of other councils – Labour- and Conservative-run alike – immediately began exploring similar challenges to asylum hotels in their areas.
If upheld, the Bell Hotel ruling could have set a precedent that reshaped how the Home Office placed asylum seekers across the UK.
The Court of Appeal did not reject that principle today (August 29); it simply said the injunction could not stand ahead of a full trial, given the wider pressures on accommodation.
A broken system on show
As Vox Political argued earlier this month, protests outside hotels like the Bell are symptoms of a deeper failure. The asylum system has been left so under-resourced that:
-
Nearly 70 per cent of asylum claims succeed in the end once appeals are counted, but poor first-instance decisions clog the courts and leave claimants stuck in limbo.
-
Hotel use has become structural, not temporary, after years of missed housing targets and collapsed dispersal schemes.
-
Planning law has become the battleground because ministers relied on emergency stopgaps instead of sustainable capacity.
In short: the crisis is political, not caused by the asylum seekers themselves.
Political fallout
Reaction to the ruling was immediate:
-
Conservatives: Party leader Kemi Badenoch called the ruling a “setback” and urged Tory councils to keep bringing legal challenges against asylum hotels.
-
Reform UK: Nigel Farage falsely claimed the government had “used the European Convention on Human Rights against the people of Epping”; the duty to house asylum seekers comes from British law passed in 1999, not from Strasbourg.
-
The Labour government: Dame Angela Eagle, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, said the appeal was launched so hotels like the Bell could be “exited in a controlled and orderly way,” adding that “nobody wants to close the Bell Hotel and all other asylum hotels more than me”. Labour has promised to end hotel use entirely by 2029.
-
Other voices: The Lib Dems and the Green Party blamed years of Tory mismanagement for leaving councils and communities to pick up the pieces. Jeremy Corbyn said asylum seekers should be housed “in a more humane, sustainable, community-based form of accommodation,” warning that both Labour and Reform were scapegoating minorities.
What happens next
The October trial will decide the real question: whether the Bell Hotel can legally be used this way at all.
If the High Court’s planning ruling is upheld, councils across the country could move to shut down hotel use in their areas.
If overturned, the Home Office will keep its legal cover – but still face a political and financial crisis over rising hotel bills and public anger.
For now, the ruling buys the government breathing space.
But it also highlights the trap Labour finds itself in: to defend its duty to house asylum seekers, it must defend hotels it has promised to close.
That leaves the door wide open for attacks from the right, even as progressives argue that the only way forward is faster decisions, sustainable housing, and honesty about the numbers.
The courts may have reset the clock.
But the structural failures of the asylum system – and the politics built on them – are still threatening to cause a collapse.
Share this post:
Back to the Bell Hotel: asylum-seekers can stay (for now)
Share this post:
The Court of Appeal has overturned a temporary injunction that would have forced asylum seekers to leave the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex by September 12.
Led by Lord Justice Bean, a panel of three judges said the earlier High Court order was based on errors including failure to consider the “obvious consequence” for asylum accommodation capacity across the country.
This is that, if the decision on the Bell Hotel was replicated across the country, with dozens of councils copying Epping’s tactic, the result would be systemic collapse: hundreds or thousands of asylum seekers with nowhere lawful to be housed, at risk of ending up destitute or literally living on the streets.
Today’s decision is not the end of the case. The underlying question – whether housing asylum seekers in the Bell Hotel amounts to an unlawful “material change of use” under planning law – will be tested at trial in October.
The Court has now also allowed the Home Office to take part in that hearing, where it had previously been excluded.
Why planning law matters
The case began when Epping Forest District Council secured a temporary High Court injunction on August 19, blocking the Bell Hotel’s use for asylum accommodation.
The judge found that converting the hotel into long-term institutional use amounted to a material change of use, requiring planning permission that had never been sought.
That argument struck a nerve nationally.
Dozens of other councils – Labour- and Conservative-run alike – immediately began exploring similar challenges to asylum hotels in their areas.
If upheld, the Bell Hotel ruling could have set a precedent that reshaped how the Home Office placed asylum seekers across the UK.
The Court of Appeal did not reject that principle today (August 29); it simply said the injunction could not stand ahead of a full trial, given the wider pressures on accommodation.
A broken system on show
As Vox Political argued earlier this month, protests outside hotels like the Bell are symptoms of a deeper failure. The asylum system has been left so under-resourced that:
Nearly 70 per cent of asylum claims succeed in the end once appeals are counted, but poor first-instance decisions clog the courts and leave claimants stuck in limbo.
Hotel use has become structural, not temporary, after years of missed housing targets and collapsed dispersal schemes.
Planning law has become the battleground because ministers relied on emergency stopgaps instead of sustainable capacity.
In short: the crisis is political, not caused by the asylum seekers themselves.
Political fallout
Reaction to the ruling was immediate:
Conservatives: Party leader Kemi Badenoch called the ruling a “setback” and urged Tory councils to keep bringing legal challenges against asylum hotels.
Reform UK: Nigel Farage falsely claimed the government had “used the European Convention on Human Rights against the people of Epping”; the duty to house asylum seekers comes from British law passed in 1999, not from Strasbourg.
The Labour government: Dame Angela Eagle, the Border Security and Asylum Minister, said the appeal was launched so hotels like the Bell could be “exited in a controlled and orderly way,” adding that “nobody wants to close the Bell Hotel and all other asylum hotels more than me”. Labour has promised to end hotel use entirely by 2029.
Other voices: The Lib Dems and the Green Party blamed years of Tory mismanagement for leaving councils and communities to pick up the pieces. Jeremy Corbyn said asylum seekers should be housed “in a more humane, sustainable, community-based form of accommodation,” warning that both Labour and Reform were scapegoating minorities.
What happens next
The October trial will decide the real question: whether the Bell Hotel can legally be used this way at all.
If the High Court’s planning ruling is upheld, councils across the country could move to shut down hotel use in their areas.
If overturned, the Home Office will keep its legal cover – but still face a political and financial crisis over rising hotel bills and public anger.
For now, the ruling buys the government breathing space.
But it also highlights the trap Labour finds itself in: to defend its duty to house asylum seekers, it must defend hotels it has promised to close.
That leaves the door wide open for attacks from the right, even as progressives argue that the only way forward is faster decisions, sustainable housing, and honesty about the numbers.
The courts may have reset the clock.
But the structural failures of the asylum system – and the politics built on them – are still threatening to cause a collapse.
Share this post:
you might also like
Let’s start the New Year with some hopeful news
More mistakes in the script? Correcting Cameron’s New Year speech
The lies that smashed the unions and destroyed our coal industry