The risk of injustice to the residents of the Hotel by being dispersed by 12 September, when the trial of the claim was to take place only some six weeks later, seems to have had oddly little resonance with the judge.(See Full Jugments 19 August below)
The Home Office, and the hotel owners, appealed this decisiont. The government argued that evicting asylum seekers from the hotel would only shift the burden elsewhere.
The situation has become a heated political issue. Critics of the government's asylum policy suggest it is prioritizing the housing of asylum seekers over the interests and concerns of local communities, a charge the government has denied. The Judges gave little weight to the concerns of the local community (See below)
The Council had originally confirmed its agreement to a maximum of 138 residents for the Hotel (There had been 2 other cases where stays had occured).
The Council informed Somani that it would need to seek permission for a change of use of the Hotel. On 15 May 2025, Somani, having taken advice from the Home Office, informed the Council in writing that it would not be submitting a temporary application for a change of use. The Council did not reply. On 11 August, without any prior pre-action notice (either formal or informal) to Somani or the Home Office, the Council issued injunction proceedings - served on Somani on 12 August. Since April 2025 three arrests have been made of residence (some include sexual offences). Since July 2025, there have been largely continuous protests. The injunction is that all 138 asylum seekers currently resident at the Hotel will need to be relocated by 12 September 2025 pending the final hearing in October.
So The Appeal
The Original judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system, and may incentivise local planning authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation from their area to apply to the court urgently before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted. The potential cumulative impact of such ad hoc applications was a material consideration within the balance of convenience.
“the relevant public interests in play are not equal” and that one aspect of this is that the Home Secretary’s statutory duty is a manifestation of the UK’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR again). The protests operated as a ‘trigger’ for the application for the injunction.
If an outbreak of protests enhances the case for a planning injunction, this runs the risk of acting as an impetus or incentive for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around asylum accommodation. At its worst, if even unlawful protests are to be treated as relevant, there is a risk of encouraging further lawlessness. (Mitigate the disruption, use of police powers under the Public Order Act 1986).
Previously in 2023, Where Somani had sought planning consent to change its use, for over a year Epping did not process the application, notwithstanding the statutory duty upon it to do so within eight weeks. If the Council had considered Somani to be in breach of planning laws, it could have taken enforcement measures provided for within the 1990 Act. It did not do so. There was also the risk of injustice to the residents.
I contend the opposite point of view. This decision will increase protests not reduce them. I would also say 3 out of 138 is significant. Hotels are not Hostels. Accomodation should be in secure camps not Hostels. What is also shows is that proper action at the appropriate time is imperitive.
The first duty of the government is to keep citizens safe; is not true.
Since 1999 ECHR trumps UK Law
Fri 29 August 2025.
I would remind the Goverments what it says on their Website.
The first duty of the government is to keep citizens safe and the country secure. The Home Office plays a fundamental role in the security and economic prosperity of the UK.
This statement no longer holds true
This Labour Government has made the biggest mistake. It had numerous options. It chose the worste one. It has now declared war on the British Public. I fear this will not go well. It has now put Illegal Migrants above its own people. I hope there are no further rapes or sex crimes. It gives the illegal migrants the green light to carry on. To frequent our parks, wait outside schools and harass people going about their normal lives. It will be on this Governments head.
It will very good if taxes rise, income comes down, prices go up,house prices come down, interest rates up and the £ tumbles. The doom loop what we borrow is almost the same as interest payments.The IMF becons. Whilst the country is heading for bankrupcy and working people are thrown on the scrap heap illegals will be safe and snug. I'm sure that will make everybody happy or not? 2026 not be good
C1 Hotels prioritize private rooms, extensive amenities, and formal service, offering luxury and comfort for higher budgets.
C2 Hostels, conversely, are budget-friendly, focusing on communal living with shared dormitory-style rooms, kitchens, and common areas to foster social interaction among travelers. The distinction centers on privacy versus community and price point versus luxury amenities.
Left Wing Refugee Supporters but not in my house
They fall under Hostels not Hotels. They are ILLEGAL HOSTELS. The Councils Could have Served Notices when they opened.
The Home Office in it's infinite stupidity has decided to Appeal. It is fighting itself and local communities. The Government (via the Home Office) has now shown its true colour. In putting Illegal migrants above its citizens it has failed in it's primary duty.
Just give in and Implement the ILLEGAL MIGRANT ACT 2023 . The legislation is there. Use it - not repeal it
Labour asylum plans in turmoil after court orders migrant hotel (HOSTEL) closure
Nigel Farage calls for protests to force more councils into taking legal action
It demonstrates the power of peaceful protests. The protestors were not wrong. They were not right wing. Some just simply say the were right. It is more than that. Some Communities were terrorised by the heneus acts of a minority of illegal or irregular economic migrants.
They should never have been allowed to roam the streets at will and unfettered. It's not just that but some say (and I believe they are correct) why give 5* treatment to those that have broken into our country.
They cannot be allowed to be dispersed even further now. Putting them to hostels. It is insane. Secure Camps is the only answer,
Saturday 13 SEPTEMBER 2025
Be there or be square
A peaceful protest where its
'Run up the Colours '
England expects that every man will do his duty
or Great Britain expects that everybody will do their duty
Super Victory. I mentioned this months ago. If you have come across it before. If you know you know. So thats the first problem.
The second is the Coucil have been negligent in not carry out planning law so they were in a catch 22. (THIRD) The hotels themselves would have to tell their insurance companies.They must have known otherwise the insurance is invalid. So the insurance company could not have insured the building. They did not check to see if planning was in place.
The Fouth problem is are the councils going to be sued by those injured (raped?) or even the Goverment as they were responsible for breaking the law.
The Fifth that as they are in breach revoke their Hotel licence for breach (hostel has already been ruled out). So we are or rather they are then left with building that should be pulled down.( Think house built without PP it gets pulled down at the owners expense) Of course the local council could now purchase the building and repurpose it for housing. 200+ sites spread throught the country. Only Raynor could balls that one up because that's what she has got them by.
Land Value knock 70% off. Of course they could sue the Government but it's the Hotels problem.
Last sixth. How can they pay for hotel repairs when the whole thing is iilegal. Don't make the payment as the contact is null and void.
A Judgement for common sense. I'm surprised the Judge did not take sympathy for the migrants. So our Laws work very well without the ECHR. Secure camps for the illegals with tents for now now unless (Lord)Ali is going to put them up. Starmer could do the same. Go to Mustique (£15,000)and give false donor details again as he did last Christmas SEVEN. Where are they going be housed before they get return to France or where they came from?
a
THE FULL JUDGEMENT 19 August 2025 (15 August)
Epping-Forest DC v Somani Hotels (Bell Hotel)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Epping-Forest-DC-v-Somani-Hotels-Final-Judgment-2.pdf
KEVIN O'SULLIVAN - Rupert Lowe MP
UK Planning Categories, or Use Classes, define types of land and building use for planning purposes. The main classes, post-2020, are
B (Industrial),
C (Residential),
E (Commercial, Business & Service),
F1 (Learning & Non-Residential Institutions),
F2 (Local Community), and Sui Generis (uses not fitting other categories). These categories determine the planning permission required for a change of use, with some changes being allowed under Permitted Development Rights.
Permitted Development Rights (PDRs) allow homeowners to carry out certain home improvements, such as extensions, loft conversions, and installing solar panels, without needing to apply for full planning permission from their local authority. These rights are granted by Parliament through national legislation and provide a shortcut for homeowners by simplifying the approval process for straightforward projects that meet specific size, height, and location restrictions. However, PDRs are subject to conditions and limitations and do not apply to all properties; they are often restricted in conservation areas, for listed buildings, and can be removed in specific areas by an Article 4 Direction issued by the local planning authority.
How PDRs Work
National Framework:
PDRs are a national set of rules that define what types of building work and changes of use are allowed without a full planning application.
Pre-Approved Changes:
Examples of common PDRs include building rear extensions, adding a second storey, or converting a loft, as long as they adhere to the specific guidelines.
Simplified Process:
They offer a simpler, quicker, and less expensive route for homeowners compared to a traditional planning application process.
Key Limitations and Restrictions
Size and Height Limits:
All PDRs are subject to specific conditions, such as limitations on the maximum height and size of extensions.
Protected Areas:
PDRs may not apply or may be more restricted in protected areas like National Parks, conservation areas, and areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Listed Buildings:
Properties that are listed buildings cannot use PDRs for works that would affect their character.
Article 4 Directions:
Local planning authorities can remove certain PDRs in their local area by issuing an Article 4 Direction, requiring planning permission for developments that would otherwise be permitted.
Prior Approval:
Some larger home extensions require a "prior approval" process, which involves the local authority checking details of the plans and notifying neighbours, even though it's not a full planning application.
What to Do Before Building
Check Your Property:
Always check with your local planning authority to confirm your specific rights and whether any restrictions apply to your property.
Consider a Certificate:
You can apply for a "Lawful Development Certificate" to get official confirmation that your project is permitted under PDRs, which is useful if you plan to sell your property in the future.
UK planning law, a local authority issues an enforcement or breach of condition notice to rectify an unauthorised activity, requiring specific steps to be taken within a set period.
These notices must be formally served on the land owner and occupier.
Failure to comply with the notice can result in prosecution in court, a significant fine, or other legal action, but the notice can be withdrawn by the authority before it takes effect.
Service of Notice
Who is served:
An enforcement or breach of condition notice is formally served on the owner, lessee, and occupier of the land, as well as any other person with an interest that the authority deems materially affected by the notice.
Purpose:
To inform the recipient of the breach of planning control and what steps must be taken to resolve it.
Breach of Notice
Effect of Non-Compliance:
If a person fails to take the required steps to comply with the notice within the specified timeframe, it is a criminal offence.
Consequences:
Non-compliance can lead to prosecution, where courts can impose substantial fines.
Withdrawal:
A local planning authority has the power to withdraw a notice at any time before it takes effect.
Effect of Planning Permission on Notice:
If planning permission is granted after a breach of condition notice is served, the notice may cease to have effect if it is inconsistent with the new permission.
Appeals: Recipients of an enforcement notice have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate before it takes effect, typically within 28 days. A breach of condition notice has no right of appeal, except by judicial review.
Compliance period: Notices specify a period for compliance, which must be at least 28 day
Awareness
Advocating for safe communities and families.
© 2025. All rights reserved.
Hyperlinking to our Content:
The following organizations will link to our Website without prior written approval:
Government agencies
STAY ALERT
This is EnglishOffice.uk and Should not be confused with the Home Office