Epping Council has succeeded in acquiring an interim injunction to forestall the usage of the Bell Lodge as asylum lodging pending the ultimate final result of the proceedings. The case is Epping Forest District Council v Somani Inns Ltd [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB). This can be a planning regulation case so don’t count on an excessive amount of from me right here.
Background
The Bell Lodge has been used as asylum lodging since April 2025, beneath a contract between CTM (North) Ltd (one of many firms that contract with the Dwelling Workplace to offer lodging) and Somani Inns Ltd. Use of the resort’s services, together with a restaurant and bar, by native individuals had been declining partly due to the situation on the outskirts of city.
In 2006 the house owners sought planning permission to partially demolish the location and use the remaining as a care residence. Permission was granted after initially being refused, however the adjustments had been by no means made.
Through the pandemic, the resort was used to accommodate homeless individuals, together with those that had been within the asylum system. The resort was re-opened to the general public in August 2022, nonetheless occupancy on the resort was “very tremendously lowered” and any use by “most of the people has been minimal”.
The resort was once more used as asylum lodging from October 2022 to April 2024. It was then closed for a 12 months earlier than its present use from April 2025. Somani gave proof that the contract with CTM offered the resort with a gentle revenue which allowed it to stay financially secure.
The resort has been the main target of far-right exercise and anti-migrant protests since July 2025.
Historical past of planning points
In July 2020 the council had contacted Somani saying that they believed the usage of the resort to accommodate individuals within the asylum system amounted to a change of use. Somani didn’t settle for this however stated that they didn’t intend to proceed utilizing the resort on this method after the pandemic.
Contact was made once more by the council’s planning enforcement workers in November 2022 and Somani utilized for approval for a short lived change in use in February 2023. The appliance was made with out prejudice to Somani’s place that there had been no change in use. The council had not determined the appliance by March 2024 and Somani withdrew it due to the approaching finish of the contract to offer asylum lodging.
Earlier than the beginning of the brand new contract in April 2025 there have been discussions between the Dwelling Workplace, CTM and the council. The council stated that it didn’t assist the usage of the resort as asylum lodging, but it surely didn’t say that this could be a breach of planning management. It was agreed that there could be not more than 138 individuals accommodated on the resort, within the 80 obtainable bedrooms, that means that many individuals should share a small room with somebody they have no idea.
Individuals are not allowed to ask for and even pay for a room improve (not that I can see paying for an improve as an possibility for anybody in receipt of asylum assist, with their £9.95 per week). If somebody needs to spend greater than a day away from the resort they need to get permission from the Dwelling Workplace. Folks should check in day-after-day and the resort is obliged to inform CTM and the Dwelling Workplace is anybody fails to take action for greater than a day. The particular person will then be susceptible to shedding their asylum lodging.
On 8 April 2025 the council’s planning enforcement crew contacted Somani and stated that their place was that they would wish permission for a change of use. On 15 June 2025 Somani stated that they’d not be making use of for this “due to recommendation from the Dwelling Workplace that it regarded the use as being a resort and that it didn’t assist the Defendant [Somani] making an software for permission for change of use”.
The judgment
The council then commenced these proceedings, searching for an injunction beneath part 187B of the City and Nation Planning Act 1990. The council’s argument was that “the usage of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers in the way in which by which that’s being accomplished is a cloth change of use for which the Defendant ought to have however has not obtained planning permission with the consequence that its use on this method is illegal”. This was denied by Somani.
The proof from the council which they stated supported their conclusion that there had been a cloth change of use was that:
there was hurt to the amenity of the native space “from the character of the use [of the Bell] and related, sustained protests and disturbance, heightening the danger and worry of crime, and leading to occupants of the Land being socially excluded from the neighborhood.” Mr Stubbs that there’s as well as “vital detriment to the facilities of close by residential properties … by way of noise disturbance.”
The council additionally gave proof of three arrests of people that had been on the Bell Lodge, the court docket noting that “these witnesses’ data of these issues derives solely from press studies apparently based mostly on press releases by the police”. The council then gave proof concerning the historical past of protest exercise beginning in July 2025 which was initially peaceable and restricted to native residents however “elevated in scale and got here to contain individuals who had travelled to Epping from elsewhere both to specific opposition to the usage of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers or to specific assist for these accommodated there”.
Somani stated that CTM ought to have been added to the proceedings and the failure to do meant the court docket didn’t have all the data it wanted. The court docket famous that in a number of different comparable instances the Dwelling Workplace contractors had been added, however stated that it was not crucial on this case as Somani’s workers had remained in place working the Bell and there was detailed data from CTM in Somani’s proof.
The court docket stated that:
whether or not the present use of the Bell as lodging for asylum seekers is lawful is determined by the solutions to 2 questions. First, whether or not such use is a change from the permitted use as a resort. Second, whether or not, if there’s such a change, it’s a change which is materials by way of planning concerns.
This software was for an interim injunction lasting till the ultimate determination on the part 187B software. The court docket utilized the strategy in American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396 and stated {that a} “issue of appreciable drive in favour of the Defendant and towards the grant of interim aid is the essential public coverage goal of accommodating destitute asylum seekers”.
Weighed in favour of the council was:
The Defendant was conscious that the Claimant by way of its planning officers had persistently taken the view that if the Bell was lawfully for use to accommodate asylum seekers permission for change of use could be wanted. Initially, the Defendant had indicated that it might search planning permission. That place then modified. The Defendant determined to not search planning permission. It did so after receiving recommendation from the Dwelling Workplace and on account of that recommendation the Defendant adopted the place that planning permission was not wanted and that the usage of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers was not a cloth change of use. … It’s a vital consideration that the impact of the Defendant’s deliberate determination is that until injunctive aid is given the Claimant and the residents of Epping should bear with the results of the usage of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers till the lawfulness of that use has been decided by way of the enforcement course of. If that use is finally discovered to have been lawful (on the footing that the Defendant is true to say that it’s not a cloth change of use) then that won’t have been any detriment. If, nonetheless, the Claimant is appropriate in saying that the use is illegal then there can have been detriment ensuing from the Defendant’s deliberate determination. It’s also related that as a consequence of the Defendant’s deliberate determination there has not been the structured and regarded evaluation of the place by way of the planning course of to which I referred above and which is likely one of the functions of the system of planning management. The drive of that time should be thought-about towards the argument for the Defendant that there was no materials change of use and so no requirement for such consideration.
The court docket gave solely restricted weight to the influence of the protests and the worry of crime being dedicated by these on the resort. The potential monetary influence on Somani was additionally taken into consideration as a related consideration.
It was additionally thought-about that the power of the council’s argument that there had been a cloth change in use operated as a think about favour of granting interim aid.
Though the council solely made the appliance to the court docket on 11 August 2025, the court docket discovered that there had been no inappropriate delay. This was as a result of there had first been a time frame when the council had anticipated that Somani would make the mandatory software, and it was additionally accepted that the council’s considerations had been heighted by the occasions of the previous couple of months.
It was not in dispute that there was a severe concern to be tried and that damages wouldn’t be an enough treatment for the council if interim aid was refused.
Taking the entire above into consideration, the court docket concluded that the stability of comfort lay in granting interim aid. It stated that the danger of injustice was better if interim aid was refused and the case finally succeeded, than the opposite method round. Folks will should be moved out of the resort by 4pm on 12 September 2025.
Conclusion
The court docket stated that “As a matter of actuality even when a shortened timetable had been to be imposed on the events it’s unlikely {that a} last determination on the part 187B software shall be made till in direction of the top of this 12 months”, so will probably be some time earlier than the substantive concern is determined. Appeals additionally appear possible.
Media studies have stated that the Dwelling Secretary tried to intervene within the case solely yesterday, which actually does beg the query – why on earth did the Dwelling Workplace not get entangled on this case earlier, significantly given their place as relied on by Somani?
