Keir Starmer’s asylum plans have been plunged into turmoil after a high court ruling blocked people seeking refuge from being housed in an Essex hotel.
Epping Forest district council was granted an interim injunction on Tuesday to stop asylum seekers from being placed at the Bell hotel, following continuing protests nearby.
Thousands of people, including some rightwing agitators, have gathered near the hotel in recent weeks after an asylum seeker living there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in the town.
Ministers are bracing for dozens of legal challenges from other council leaders after the ruling. Home Office lawyers warned the court that the decision could “substantially impact” the government’s ability to house asylum seekers in hotels across the UK.
There were about 200 hotels housing about 30,000 asylum seekers at the end of March.
Insiders at the Home Office admitted the department had been left “reeling” by the ruling. The department is obliged to house asylum seekers until their cases are assessed.
Reacting to the judgment, the border security minister, Angela Eagle, said: “We will carefully consider this judgment. As this matter remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.”
Mr Justice Eyre granted the injunction after hearing the local council’s complaints that planning law had been breached in changing the site’s use.
Epping district council also cited disruption caused by the protests and concerns for the safety of the asylum seekers themselves.
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, 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.
Before the ruling was 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.
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.”
Chris Whitbread, the leader of Epping Forest district council, speaks to the media outside the Royal Court of Justice on Tuesday. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA
Since 2020, there has been greater reliance on hotels to house asylum seekers, with 32,345 being housed temporarily in England and Wales at the end of March this year. Labour has promised to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by 2029 by cutting small boat crossings and building new government-owned accommodation.
Enver Solomon, the Refugee Council’s chief executive, said: “The use of hotels is completely unsustainable – and this ruling shows that the government’s plan to wait until 2029 to end their use is not viable.
“Through our frontline work we see how protests and hostility leave people who have fled war and persecution feeling terrified and targeted in the very places they are forced to live. This makes an already traumatising situation worse and robs people of any sense of safety.
“Instead of relying on costly hotels, the Home Office should partner with local councils to provide safe, cost-effective accommodation within communities. But to end hotel use for good, the government needs to think differently about how we can speed up and improve asylum decision-making.”
The council said last week it was seeking the injunction due to “unprecedented levels of protest and disruption” in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Whitbread had said the situation “cannot go on” but the government was not listening.
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.”
One council leader said he would gather “more detail about what Epping has done” before considering a bid to shut down another hotel thought to be housing asylum seekers.
Corina Gander, the Conservative leader of the borough of Broxbourne council, said crowds had gathered in protest outside the Cheshunt Marriott hotel in Hertfordshire, about six miles from the Bell hotel in Epping.
Gander said the high court’s decision had set a “massive precedent” and added: “It’s just given us this massive boost and precedent that we can do something now.”
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, hailed the high court decision in Epping as a victory and said he hoped it “provides inspiration to others across the country”.
The Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, suggested those housed at the hotel “need to be moved out of the area immediately”, while the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, said “residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town”.
