When Epping Forest District Council voted to appeal a High Court ruling that let the Bell Hotel in Epping continue housing asylum seekers, it wasn’t just about zoning laws—it was about trust, timing, and trauma. The decision, made on Wednesday, November 25, 2025, came after a heated council meeting where emotions ran high and legal logic clashed with public outrage. The council’s move to challenge Mr. Justice Mould’s November ruling is now the latest flashpoint in a months-long battle over how local authorities respond to national immigration policy.
The Turning Point: A Crime That Changed Everything
The tension around the Bell Hotel didn’t explode overnight. It simmered for months after the hotel reopened in April 2025 under a contract with CTM (North) Ltd to house asylum seekers. But everything shifted in July 2025, when Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian national staying at the hotel, was charged with sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl in Epping. The case gripped the town. Protests erupted outside the hotel. Local residents, many of whom had previously accepted the hotel’s role as temporary housing, now felt betrayed. Kebatu was sentenced to 12 months in prison in September 2025—only to be mistakenly released and deported before the sentence could be served. The error didn’t just raise questions about the asylum system. It made people wonder: if someone who committed a violent crime could slip through the cracks, what else was being missed?Planning Law vs. Public Safety: The Legal Battle
At the heart of the dispute is a technicality that’s become anything but minor: whether converting the Bell Hotel from a private hotel into asylum accommodation counts as a “material change of use” under planning law. Epping Forest District Council says yes. The hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels, insists no—claiming it’s still operating as a hotel, just with a different clientele. The council’s planning officer, Mr. Stubbs, had flagged the issue as early as April 2025. But here’s the twist: the council didn’t act until August. That six-month delay became a critical flaw in court. Mr. Justice Mould didn’t dispute the technical breach. He acknowledged the hotel’s use had changed. But he ruled that no serious harm had been proven—and that the council’s inaction undermined its moral authority to demand an injunction. “The council knew since February,” he wrote, “but waited until after public outcry to act.” The court called it a case of “opportunistic enforcement.”The Court of Appeal’s Warning: Don’t Let Fear Drive Policy
The council’s earlier attempt to shut the hotel down had already been crushed once—in August 2025—by the Court of Appeal. Judges Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Cobb were blunt. “Local concern about alleged criminal wrongdoing by some asylum seekers is no reason to require the immediate closure of accommodation housing many other individuals,” they wrote. Their ruling warned that granting emergency injunctions based on public pressure could set a dangerous precedent: if one town shuts down asylum housing because of a single crime, others will follow—and the system will collapse under chaos. The Home Office’s argument carried weight: the interim injunction had already triggered copycat protests at other sites. The judges didn’t dismiss the council’s concerns. They just said the law doesn’t operate on fear. And that’s where the council now finds itself—caught between the public’s demand for safety and the legal system’s demand for consistency.Why the Delay Matters More Than the Law
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: this isn’t the first time the Bell Hotel housed asylum seekers. Between March 2020 and early 2021, and again from November 2022 to April 2024, the same arrangement existed. And back then? No complaints. No enforcement notices. Council representative Green admitted as much: “The situation had then been tolerable and unproblematic.” So why the sudden urgency? The answer lies in the timing of Kebatu’s arrest. The council didn’t act because of a legal breach. It acted because of a headline. That’s not illegal—but it’s not legally persuasive either. The court saw it as a reactive, not a principled, stance. And in planning law, perception matters as much as fact.What’s Next? Two Appeals, One Uncertain Future
The council is now fighting on two fronts. First, it’s appealing Mr. Justice Mould’s refusal of a permanent injunction. Second, it’s waiting to hear whether the Supreme Court will hear its challenge to the Court of Appeal’s August ruling that overturned the interim injunction. That decision is expected before the end of December 2025. Meanwhile, the council is quietly exploring other legal avenues—like pursuing planning enforcement actions against Somani Hotels for alleged breaches unrelated to the asylum use. Could they argue the hotel’s fire safety standards are inadequate? Or that signage violates local ordinances? Those are the kinds of tactical moves local authorities make when the big legal doors are shut.The Bigger Picture: When Local Power Meets National Policy
This isn’t just about one hotel in Essex. It’s about the growing fracture between local communities and national asylum systems. Councils are being asked to manage housing for people they didn’t choose, under rules they didn’t write. And when a crime occurs, they’re blamed—not the Home Office, not the contractors, but the local council. The Bell Hotel case exposes a system where responsibility is fragmented, accountability is blurred, and the public is left feeling powerless. Some experts say the answer lies in clearer national guidance. Others argue councils need more resources to manage housing transitions. But right now, Epping Forest District Council is doing what it can: fighting in court, listening to residents, and trying to restore a sense of control.It’s a small town with a big problem. And it’s not alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why didn’t the council act sooner if they knew about the asylum use since February 2025?
The council admitted it didn’t consider the use a legal breach until after public protests intensified following Hadush Kebatu’s arrest in July 2025. Legal documents show they waited six months before filing their claim, a delay the High Court called “unfair” and “opportunistic.” Had they acted in February, they might have had stronger legal standing—but they chose to wait until public pressure mounted.
Is the Bell Hotel legally allowed to house asylum seekers?
Technically, no—under planning law, converting a hotel to asylum accommodation requires permission. But legally, yes—because no court has ordered its closure. The High Court acknowledged the breach but refused to intervene, saying the harm wasn’t severe enough to justify an injunction. Somani Hotels claims it’s still operating as a hotel, and the Home Office supports that interpretation.
What role did the Home Office play in this dispute?
The Home Office advised Somani Hotels that planning permission wasn’t required—a claim the council didn’t verify until days before filing its lawsuit. The Home Office also defended the hotel’s operation in court, arguing that local outrage over criminal acts by individuals shouldn’t override the rights of hundreds of other asylum seekers. Their position has consistently been that housing decisions are national, not local, responsibilities.
Could the council shut down the hotel using other laws?
Possibly. While planning law failed them, the council is exploring health and safety violations, fire code breaches, or licensing issues. For example, if the hotel lacks proper fire exits for a high-occupancy building, or if noise or waste management violates local regulations, those could be grounds for enforcement. These are slower, more technical routes—but they’re still open.
What happens if the Supreme Court refuses to hear the appeal?
If the Supreme Court declines, the Court of Appeal’s August 2025 ruling stands, meaning the interim injunction was rightly overturned. That leaves only the appeal against Mr. Justice Mould’s November ruling. If that also fails, the Bell Hotel can legally continue housing asylum seekers indefinitely unless Somani Hotels voluntarily changes its use or the Home Office terminates the contract.
How common is this kind of conflict between councils and asylum accommodation?
Increasingly common. Since 2023, over 20 local councils in England have challenged the use of hotels for asylum housing in court, citing similar planning breaches. But only three have won any legal relief—and none have permanently closed a site. Most cases fail due to delays, lack of evidence of harm, or the courts’ reluctance to interfere with national housing policy.