Court of Appeal Overturns Injunction Restraining Asylum Accommodation at Bell Hotel, Epping
Somani Hotels Ltd owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and a Conservation Area, opposite Bell Common and near schools and a care home. The hotel has 80 bedrooms and has operated as a Class C1 hotel under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987. It closed in March 2020 due to Covid-19, reopened in August 2022 with reduced occupancy, and experienced financial decline. From May 2020 to April 2024, the hotel housed asylum seekers under contracts with the Home Office via providers like Clearsprings/Ready Homes and Finefair Ltd, without any enforcement notices from Epping Forest District Council.
In February 2025, Somani entered
a new 12-month contract with CTM (a Home Office provider) to accommodate up to
138 single adult male asylum seekers starting late March 2025. The Council
raised objections to the Home Office in March 2025 regarding pressures on local
services but not on planning grounds. On 8 April 2025, the Council notified
Somani that planning permission was required, claiming a material change of
use. Somani, advised by the Home Office, responded on 15 May 2025 that no
application would be made, as they believed no material change had occurred. No
enforcement action followed initially.
Protests erupted outside the hotel in July 2025, involving
local residents and external groups, leading to arrests, violence, and police
interventions under the Public Order Act 1986, including fencing and dispersal
orders. Incidents included assaults, graffiti, and thrown projectiles,
resulting in 25 arrests and 16 charges. These protests affected hotel
residents, staff, and the community, prompting enhanced security measures.
On 11 August 2025, the Council
sought an interim injunction under s.187B of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990, alleging the use constituted a sui generis (hostel) change without
permission. Somani had short notice for the 15 August 2025 hearing, which
proceeded without Home Office input. Eyre J granted the injunction on 19 August
2025, restraining the use until trial (scheduled for 13-17 October 2025), but
denied an interim declaration. Permission to appeal was refused. The Secretary
of State for the Home Department (“Secretary of State”) applied to join as a
party but was dismissed, leading to consolidated appeals.
Issues
The key issues before the Court of Appeal were:
- Whether
the High Court judge erred in refusing to join the Secretary of State as a
party under CPR 19.2(2), considering her statutory duties under the
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to provide accommodation for destitute
asylum seekers.
- Whether
the judge wrongly granted the interim injunction under s.187B,
particularly in evaluating the balance of convenience, including factors
like Somani's "deliberate" refusal to apply for permission, the
influence of protests (both lawful and unlawful), and the broader impact
on the Secretary of State 's duties.
- Whether
the judge improperly assessed the merits of the planning breach case,
deviating from American Cyanamid principles.
- The
appropriate weight to give to public protests in the balance of
convenience.
- Whether
the status quo should be preserved, given the ongoing use and challenges
of relocating asylum seekers.
Relevant Statutes:
1. Civil
Procedure Rules 19.2(2)
2. ss.95
of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
3. ss.
98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
4. s.187B
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
Decision
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals. Permission to
appeal was granted to both Somani and the SECRETARY OF STATE. The Secretary of
State's joinder appeal succeeded: the High Court judge's refusal was set aside,
as the SECRETARY OF STATE satisfied CPR 19.2(2) criteria—it was desirable for
her to join due to the dispute's implications for her duties—and she was added
as a party to the High Court proceedings.
The interim injunction was discharged, as the judge's
exercise of discretion was flawed. The court held that the balance of
convenience did not favor the injunction, emphasizing public interest
considerations, the lack of flagrancy in the alleged breach, and the risks of
incentivizing disorder through protests.
Analysis of the Decision
The Court of Appeal, led by Lord
Justice Bean (with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb
concurring), applied a broad interpretation of CPR 19.2(2), drawing on cases
like Betta Oceanway Co Ltd v SC Tomana and Pablo Star Ltd v Emirates Airline.
The High Court judge had erroneously narrowed the dispute to a mere
"planning breach" between the Council and Somani, overlooking its
wider ramifications. The SECRETARY OF STATE's duties under ss.95 and 98 of the
1999 Act—to accommodate over 103,000 destitute asylum seekers as of March
2025—were directly affected, as the injunction would force relocation amid
national capacity strains. The judge misapplied "necessity" instead
of "desirability" for joinder and undervalued the SECRETARY OF STATE's
evidence on hardships, including compliance with ECHR Article 3 (prohibition on
inhuman treatment). Precedents such as R (Blenheim) v SSHD and Ipswich BC v
Fairview Hotels underscored the SECRETARY OF STATE's "right to be
heard" for a fuller balance of convenience, incorporating international
obligations, public safety, and policing costs.
On the injunction, the court
adhered to American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd principles, focusing on serious
questions to be tried, adequacy of damages, and balance of convenience, with
public interest paramount under s.187B (as in South Bucks DC v Porter). The
judge erred by deeming Somani's May 2025 letter (advised by the Home Office) as
"deliberate confrontation" tipping the scales, despite no history of
evasion or surreptitiousness—contrary to guidance that only
"flagrant" breaches warrant such weight. No enforcement options like
a stop notice were available due to the four-year rule under s.183(5), and the
use had persisted intermittently for years without issue.
Protests received critical
scrutiny: lawful ones merited limited weight, while unlawful ones minimal, to
avoid rewarding disorder (echoing concerns about incentivizing lawlessness).
Alternatives like targeted anti-protest injunctions were not explored. The
status quo—ongoing accommodation since March 2025—was undervalued, as
relocation posed systemic risks, including to vulnerable individuals and
national housing efforts (e.g., phasing out hotel use as contingency).
Broader implications include
affirming local authorities' enforcement powers but cautioning against interim
relief that disrupts statutory schemes without holistic assessment. The
decision promotes balanced, evidence-based approaches in asylum-related planning
disputes, ensuring public interests like immigration control and community
cohesion are weighed against enforcement zeal, potentially reducing ad hoc
closures and encouraging dialogue between local and central government.
Link to access the decision: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2025/1134.html
Comments
Post a Comment