Epping Forest Council could have refused planning permission for Bell Hotel over two years ago - but shelved making decision and won't say why

The local council that secured a High Court injunction against asylum seekers living in a hotel in Epping could have resolved the problem long before a series of costly demonstrations broke out, but failed to take decisive action, it has emerged.

On Tuesday Epping Forest District Council won a legal case which means asylum seekers will have to move from The Bell Hotel, by September 12, throwing the government’s asylum policy into disarray as several councils across the country have said they will follow suit.

However, the council has been applauded by some for securing the temporary injunction.

Alex Burghart, Tory MP for Brentwood and Ongar, posted on X: "Huge victory for the Conservative Council at Epping Forest.

"Well done (Council Leader) Chris Whitbread (above) and team - High Court rules asylum seekers must be moved from Epping hotel."

However, it can be revealed that the council commenced action that could have resolved planning issues at the hotel much earlier before stopping the process without any explanation.

Had the Tory council seen the process through it could have potentially seen migrants moved out, or planning matters regularised, long before the series of controversial protests were sparked outside the hotel and without the need for a costly High Court injunction application.

Instead the protests tied up scores of Essex Police officers over at least occasions from July 13 and the council still faces a further High Court hearing to see if the injunction can be made permanent.

The hotel was first used to house asylum seekers from May 2020 after it was approached by Home Office contractor Clearsprings two months after it had to close due to the coronavirus lockdown.

The ten month contract ended in March 2021.

In August 2022 the hotel reopened to the public, but by October that year it entered into another contract with Home Office contractor Finefair to house asylum seekers.

In April this year, after there were arson attacks at The Bell and the Phoenix Hotel, near North Weald, also in the district, Mr Whitbread vowed to get the council to investigate if the use of the hotel for asylum seekers created any planning breaches.

He said: "I have asked for matters of planning authorisation to be explored. In particular what planning permission the hotel owners and Home Office may be operating under and what due diligence was carried out."

However, the council's own planning records show that the authority had looked into planning issues around occupation by asylum seekers at least from November 2022.

That month the district council contacted The Bell's owner Somani Hotels to say it would have to make a retrospective planning application for change of use from a hotel to a hostel for asylum seekers.

A planning statement on behalf of the owner submitted to the council as part of an application for temporary change of use to an asylum hostel for up to 18 months, said: "The application is made following a meeting with John Ayres, (the council's)

Planning Enforcement Officer which was held on 29th November 2022."

It added: "The purpose of the application is to clarify the planning status of using the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers under contract with the Home Office, and to enable the Hotel to ‘bridge’ the current adverse economic climate and eventually resume its normal hotel operations."

The owner did not believe the change of use application was necessary, saying it did not "constitute a material change of use," but made the application nonetheless.

There were five weeks of public consultation, during which Epping Town Council objected to the retrospective nature of the application and argued it should stay as a hotel for the public.

Essex Police supported the application but called for greater security measures in the building to protect the occupants.

According to Town and Country Planning laws standard planning applications must be determined within eight weeks or 13 weeks for significant developments.

The council could have approved or denied planning permission for use of the hotel for asylum seekers by May 2023.

A planning lawyer explained that if a council refused planning permission it could then issue an enforcement notice ordering the use to end in as little as 28 days, meaning the use could have ceased as early as June 2023.

Even if the owner used the 28 days to appeal the enforcement notice, any appeal to the planning inspectorate would likely conclude in six to 12 months, he said.

This could have ended the use by June 2024 at the latest, a year before any protests, if the hotel's appeal was unsuccessful.

Instead, the council left the planning application undetermined for unknown reasons and the owner withdrew it in March 2024 with no further contact from the council.

Publican Adam Brooks, who attended some of the demos, (above picture from his X account) said the council should have acted much sooner.

He said: "If these hotels didn’t have the correct permission to house migrants, why didn’t the councils put their top legal eagles to work before?

"I’ll tell you why, because they didn’t have residents standing up and pushing back before. People power forces change."

Referring to the injunction win, he added: "The people of Epping did this. The council had no choice.

"It would be nice if that was acknowledged. That’s the feeling on the ground. Without our peaceful movement, this wouldn’t have been pushed for. If the council wants the people of Epping on side, acknowledge their efforts."

Many local councillors would not discuss the "sensitive" matter, but two admitted they had no idea the planning application had even been made.

One Tory councillor said: "I didn't know about the planning application, but I was away until the end of February 2023, so would have missed any meetings. I don't recall it being mentioned after. If they could have taken enforcement action at the time they should have. It's always better to stop something before it starts."

Another Epping councillor, who would not be named or even have their party identified, said: "The application was never even tabled for a committee. I think it was too sensitive and after requesting the application they rather wished they hadn't, so just let it slide into the long grass. It certainly makes you wonder if making a decision two years ago would have put this to bed and avoided these protests and costly High Court battles."

A senior Tory councillor from outside the area, who would also not be named, suggested the council may have left the planning application undetermined to "hoodwink" residents into thinking it was taking action.

He said: "You might ask why did the council make the developer submit an application for a temporary change of use if it did not want to determine the application. But, if the planning authority does nothing it is open to criticism by residents. If a planning application is pending the council cannot take enforcement action until the planning application has been determined."

This, he argued, meant the council could say it was taking action and then delay any outcome by leaving the application undetermined.

He argued: "This is effectively a way of managing the public expectations. The problem being if you did take enforcement action it would likely be appealed and that runs the risks of taking the decision out of the council's control and significant costs. If temporary permission was won on appeal, it would more than likely become permanent. If you don't determine the application, it remains in the pipeline and a precedent isn't set, so you could describe this as misleading the public for the greater good.

In a desperate bid to bring an end to the protests, the council made an emergency application to the High Court for an interim injunction against the use by asylum seekers.

This week Judge Mr Justice Stephen Eyre issued an interim injunction ahead of a full hearing to determine if it should be made permanent.

Asylum seekers have to be removed from the hotel in the meantime by September 12.

According to Somani's skeleton argument, against the council's injunction application, the council failed to determine the application within timescales of eight weeks for standard matters or 13 weeks for significant developments.

The skeleton argument said: "The application was withdrawn on 21 March 2024 (over a year after it was submitted) as the delays in determination had rendered it academic when it became apparent that the use would cease on 26 April 2024 when the Home Office contract came to an end."

According to the document, the Home Office again wanted to use the hotel as asylum seeker accommodation from February 18 2025 and made contact with the council.

There were meetings and communication between the council and Home Office until March 13, with the council advised the occupants would be expected to arrive around end of March.

The document said the council wrote to the Home Office on March 17 objecting to the use for asylum seekers, raising several concerns, but making "no reference to any concern that the use of the Hotel would be a breach of planning control requiring permission."

Asylum seekers arrived in early April and Somani suggested to the council making a new temporary application for change of use, but later withdrew the offer on advice from the Home Office.

The Home Office was using an approach that asylum hotels it was contracting to use were "contracted as exclusive use hotels, not hostels", it said.

Somani offered the council more information about such a use, but did not hear back from its enforcement department, the document said, until after the protests began in July.

The council has been repeatedly asked why the planning application was never determined and why no action was taken against any potential planning breaches from May 2023, to avoid the protests and the need for the injunction.

Mr Ayres and the council leader were also asked to comment.

These questions were sent more than four weeks ago, but, despite repeated requests for comment since, the council has declined to respond, claiming it was too busy dealing with the protests and injunction application.

It also failed to provide the information under the Freedom of Information Act.

A council spokesman said: "As this matter remains subject to ongoing legal proceedings it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage."

It did provide a number of letters Mr Whitbread wrote to Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, calling on the Home Office to stop using both hotels to house asylum seekers, during July this year.

The council also said the authority had consistently objected to the Home Office using both hotels for asylum seekers since their uses started.

Judge Eyres also denied an application by the Home Secretary to be an interested party in the case, thwarting her bid to block the council application.

Somani has indicated it will appeal the decision and the Home Office intends appealing the refusal to allow it to take part in the case as an interested party.

The Home Office has been asked what advice it sought about planning permission requirements before it began using hotels to house asylum seekers.

Tory HQ and the local Conservative association were contacted for comment.