Last month, in our blog post "When is a hotel not a hotel", we wrote about the planning law implications of interim injunction granted by the High Court temporarily prohibiting the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping for accommodating asylum seekers.
On 29 August 2025, the Court of Appeal overturned Mr Justice Eyre's first instance decision. The Court held that the Home Secretary should be joined as a party to the High Court proceedings; and that the interim injunction granted by the High Court should be set aside. The hotel can therefore continue to be used until the full hearing of the claim in the week of 13 to 17 October 2025.
The Court of Appeal's reasons for overturning the interim injunction were primarily that the "balance of convenience" fell in favour of preserving the status quo and allowing asylum seekers to remain in the hotel for a limited period until the full hearing takes place in October. Particular weight was placed on the undesirability of incentivising protests, and a range of public interest factors including the UK's compliance with international humanitarian and legal obligations towards asylum seekers and the need to avoid their destitution.
It is fair to say that the Court of Appeal's decision sets a precedent such that interim injunctions in other locations are now less likely to be granted. This will no doubt be of considerable relief to the government, who were concerned about the potential flood of claims for injunctions referred to in my original post above.
But the appeal decision offers no precedent value in relation to the separate question of whether a permanent injunction should be granted, because the judgment does not tell us any more about the underlying planning law question of whether or not the use of the Bell Hotel by asylum seekers represented a material change of use for which planning permission should have been obtained. That issue will only be considered in detail at the trial in October. Whether the result will be capable of being applied directly to circumstances at other sites will depend on the extent to which the decision is fact-sensitive, but it is likely to provide a clear indication on the point. Local planning authorities will therefore be watching the High Court's determination of the case with close interest before deciding whether to take enforcement action against asylum hotels in their areas.
In his judgment, Lord Justice Bean was clear that the Court was not concerned with the merits of Government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, in hotels or otherwise. This is fundamentally a political issue rather than a planning problem. But it does highlight the tension between national needs and local impacts, which is frequently at the heart of planning disputes. Anyone who is involved in promoting new homes, new railway lines, airport runways or power stations will be familiar with the complex range of issues that arise. The fear of the unknown and anxiety about local or societal changes are powerful human emotions and should never be underestimated. Understanding why people are apprehensive about developments and explaining their benefits in the context of wider collective needs and common interests is urgently necessary.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
