The recent legal battle at the High Court between Epping Forest District Council (“the Council”) and the Bell Hotel in Essex over its use to house asylum seekers, has highlighted a critical intersection of planning law, asylum policy, and local governance. At the heart of the dispute lies a fundamental question: does housing asylum seekers in hotels constitute a material change of use under UK planning law?
Background
The Bell Hotel, located in Epping, was repurposed by the Home Office to accommodate asylum seekers. Epping Forest District Council challenged this move, arguing that the hotel’s use had shifted from short-term visitor accommodation to long-term institutional housing, an alteration that, in their view, required planning permission for the material change of use.
The Council cited concerns over public safety, proximity to schools and care homes, and a series of incidents including protests, arson, and allegations of sexual assault. These developments, they argued, underscored the unsuitability of the location and the need for proper planning oversight and planning control.
High Court ruling
In a significant decision, yesterday the High Court granted a temporary injunction preventing further placements at the Bell Hotel. The court also denied the Home Office’s request to intervene, stating that its involvement would not materially aid the resolution of the planning dispute.
This ruling reinforces the authority of councils to enforce planning law, even in the face of national policy imperatives.
In addition, the asylum seekers currently staying at the hotel must leave by 12 September 2025.
Use Class and material change of use
Under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended):
- Use Class C1 includes hotels and guest houses.
- Use Class C2 covers residential institutions such as care homes and boarding schools.
- Sui Generis applies to uses that don’t fit into any specific class, often used for unique or mixed-use developments.
The Council argued that the Bell Hotel’s function had shifted from C1 to either C2 or sui generis, due to the long-term housing of asylum seekers and the provision of support services. This, they claimed, constituted a material change of use, requiring planning permission that had not been obtained.
Proceeds of Crime Act implications
Following the judgment, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) has become highly relevant. The High Court found that the hotel’s operators had profited from government contracts while operating in breach of planning law. This opens the door for the Council to pursue confiscation of profits under POCA.
Key implications include:
- Unlawful financial gain: Income earned from the unlawful use of the hotel may be subject to recovery.
- Enforcement precedent: Councils may now use POCA to deter property owners from breaching planning laws for profit.
- Asset recovery: POCA allows for the seizure of assets obtained through criminal or unlawful conduct, including regulatory breaches including planning enforcement.
This marks a significant shift in enforcement strategy, combining civil planning law with criminal financial recovery.
National implications
The case has broader ramifications:
- It has set a precedent for other councils to challenge migrant hotel placements on planning grounds.
- The Home Office may be compelled to seek planning permission before repurposing hotels, potentially slowing down asylum accommodation efforts.
- The ruling highlights the tension between local planning autonomy and central government policy, especially amid a backdrop of a 91,000-case asylum backlog and daily hotel costs exceeding £5.7 million.
- The use of POCA may become a powerful tool for councils to recover unlawful financial gains by breaching planning laws and enforce compliance with planning law.
Conclusion
The Epping Forest case underscores the importance of planning law compliance, even in emergency or humanitarian contexts. With the added dimension of POCA enforcement, councils now have a legal framework to challenge unlawful land use and recover unlawful financial gains received in furtherance of that unlawful use. As similar cases emerge across the UK, this ruling may serve as a legal and procedural benchmark, shaping how migrant accommodation is managed in the future.
For more information please send an enquiry to our planning and the environment team.
Posted:
