The Epping asylum seeker hotel ruling is a planning problem that the government can solve

The High Court ruling on a hotel being used to house migrants in Epping Forest has national consequences. Without urgent action by government, thousands risk being left in limbo and local authorities will find they have worse problems to contend with.

The unassuming Bell Hotel in Epping Forest is an unlikely setting for a national debate. Yet when the High Court ruled that its use as asylum accommodation was “not a permitted use”, the reverberations spread far beyond one corner of Essex. What is essentially a technical planning dispute has the potential to significantly impact the lives of thousands (both the migrants it houses and the wider communities), significantly alter policy and affect property up and down the country.

Already, more than 80 local authorities are reported to be exploring legal action of their own. Political voices are urging councils to follow Epping’s lead and injunctions are being prepared.

We need a more rational approach to resolving the situation. Many local authorities are wasting time, money and reputation pursuing legal challenges they are unlikely to win and it is incumbent on the government to address the problem on a national level.

Read more:

• What the Epping asylum seeker hotel ruling means for Britain
• Scapegoating asylum seekers is not the answer to violence against women and girls
• We need to stop turning on migrants and understand where the real power and blame lies

A planning technicality with national impact

The Epping case turned on a deceptively simple point. Hotels fall under the C1 planning use class – designed for short-term stays, typically booked by the night. Long-term accommodation, particularly for groups such as asylum seekers, sits outside this definition. It is usually treated as the miscellaneous use class, sui generis, but to switch to a different use class requires a change of use application to be made to the local authority.

In theory, such applications can be made. In practice, they are slow, contested and in such cases likely to be stalled by the highly politicised debate. Seemingly, The Bell Hotel’s operator had chosen not to apply for change of use following Home Office advice. The court found that advice wanting, but it also acknowledged the urgent public interest in housing asylum seekers. The outcome was a temporary injunction – a pause, not a resolution.

Yet that injunction is now being seized upon by councils across the country despite the precedent being shaky. What was granted in Epping may not be replicated elsewhere (and furthermore what was granted in Epping may not be permanent). Retrospective applications could succeed in some areas and fail in others. The result would be a patchwork of inconsistent decisions – costly for councils, disruptive for communities and destabilising for those seeking refuge. It would inevitably intensify the already frenzied debate.

Unintended consequences

At the end of March, more than 32,000 asylum seekers were living in hotels – around a third of the total in government accommodation. The numbers are falling, but hotels remain central to the system. Remove them without alternatives and the consequences are obvious: thousands of vulnerable people displaced with nowhere to go.

The alternatives are hardly convincing. Former military sites such as Wethersfield or Napier have proved contentious and expensive. The Bibby Stockholm barge was abandoned after safety concerns. Proposals to disperse asylum seekers into houses of multiple occupation (HMOs) risk greater disruption to local communities, while putting further pressure on a private rental sector already in crisis.

The uncomfortable truth is that hotels, however imperfect, remain the most workable option at least until a more permanent solution is found to the broader problem. Hotels are designed for temporary stays, can be managed securely, and can provide stability at a time of uncertainty. The planning system must therefore be adapted to reflect this reality, rather than resisting it.

The government’s options

The problem is that planning law has not kept pace with national policy. The use of hotels for asylum seekers was always an emergency measure, but one that has lasted long enough to require clarity. That clarity can only come from government.

There are two straightforward options:

• Ministers could extend C1 use to include hostel-type services, as was permitted under the original 1987 use class order.

• Alternatively, they could introduce permitted development rights, allowing hotels to move from C1 to sui generis for asylum use without requiring local authority approval.

Either approach would provide certainty, consistency and efficiency. It would prevent councils wasting resources on litigation and ensure that the planning system reflects the practical demands of asylum accommodation.

Balance, not politics

As the past week has shown, it is easy for the debate over asylum hotels to become emotive. But the role of planning, which is central to this solution, must operate above that noise. In contrast to the evermore frenzied debate, planning is a discipline built on pragmatism and balance – weighing competing needs, finding workable compromises.

If hotels cannot be used, there is no realistic alternative. Former barracks and barges have failed, and dispersing asylum seekers into the private rented sector and HMOs risks far greater disruption. Unless the government acts quickly, we risk seeing thousands of vulnerable people caught in limbo while councils waste resources fighting battles they cannot win.

The Bell Hotel has become a symbol, but it must not become a trap. Unless national clarity is provided, its echo will be heard across England.

Faraz Baber is chief operating officer at planning consultancy Lanpro

Do you have a story to tell or opinions to share about this? Get in touch and tell us more. 

It’s helping people with disabilities. 

It’s creating safer living conditions for renters.

It’s getting answers for the most vulnerable.

Big Issue brings you trustworthy journalism that drives real change. 

If this article gave you something to think about, help us keep doing this work from £5 a month.