Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) cannot stop asylum seekers staying at the Bell Hotel after judges reject appeal and uphold earlier High Court ruling.
During a hearing on Friday (13th March), two Court of Appeal Judges ruled the council could not stop asylum seekers from staying at the Bell hotel in Epping.
The local authority tried to appeal against a High Court ruling made in November, which allowed the use of the hotel to continue.
On Friday 913th March), two Court of Appeal judges ruled the case could not go ahead. Lady Justice Andrews and Lord Justice Holgate said the earlier judge had not ‘ducked the issue’ on planning law. They described EFDC’s appeal as ‘unarguable’.
‘The need to provide accommodation for persons present in this county, whether as asylum seekers or otherwise, is plainly capable of being a relevant planning consideration,’ the judges said.
The council previously sought an injunction to stop asylum seekers living at the hotel and had taken legal action against Somani Hotels, which owns the building, arguing the use broke planning rules.
EFDC said housing asylum seekers there was a ‘material change of use’. It’s lawyers also pointed to ‘increasingly regular protests’ linked to the site.
Protests began after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian national who was charged with sexually assaulting a girl in Epping while housed at the hotel, was deported.
Kebatu, who had arrived in the UK just days before the assault, was jailed for a year in September, wrongly released from prison and re-arrested, before being given £500 to leave the country.
The Home Office opposed the legal challenge and told the court the council’s case was ‘misconceived’.
Councillor Chris Whitebread, leader of EFDC, said the council was ‘angry and hugely disappointed by the outcome’. He added: ‘I want to reassure residents that our main priority remains with them and the protection of our communities across the district.’
Mr Whitebread noted the decision ‘represents the end of the court process for challenging the use of the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation’ – meaning the council cannot challenge it further.
In the original High Court decision, Justice Mould said he was not convinced an injunction was the right response.
‘I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control,’ he said.
He also said there was a ‘continuing need’ for hotels to provide ‘contingency accommodation’ for asylum seekers.
Image: Mika Baumeister/UnSplash
In related news:
Leave a Reply