The High Court’s decision to block a hotel in Epping from accommodating asylum seekers will not suddenly end their use nationwide.
But could it be a gateway for similar decisions elsewhere?
Individual councils may try to use the decision to stop the use of asylum hotels in their area, which could be a headache for the Home Office.
There is also a question, in the words of the government’s own lawyers, of whether the ruling risks causing “further violent protests around other asylum accommodation”.
Monday’s ruling came after the council argued the hotel had breached local planning controls by changing its use, and that in turn had led to events that changed the area – unlawful protests, fear of crime, concerns for 1,800 children going to school from September.
It partly came down to a sense of community – and how it had been potentially impacted in Epping by the change in the hotel’s use, which its owners denied was unlawful.
Mr Justice Eyre’s conclusions took those concerns into account, although he said that lawful protests that had happened in the town could never be a “veto” on how to apply planning rules.
But he added that the council’s evidence was that the hotel’s alleged unlawful use had affected what is known as “amenity” – that is, the generally-understood quality or character of an area or community.
“[Local] Fear of crime resulting from the use of the Bell, the need to address lawful protests and the consequences of the actions taken to address unlawful activity are relevant factors in support of interim relief,” said the judge.
In other words, the council showed him some limited evidence of impact, rather that just a fear of impact, and that justified a temporary injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
If other councils want to use the ruling, they can’t just knock on the court’s doors to ask that asylum seekers are removed from a hotel because they fear protests.
The judge made clear there has to be some evidence of harm.
If they can show protests have caused clear harm, they might have a chance.
And that’s what worries the Home Office.
If the on-off protests continue, peppered around the country, there could be many more cases like Epping as ministers try to meet their commitment to end hotel use by the end of the Parliament.
What are the government’s alternatives?
The current housing strategy has evolved piecemeal.
The national “dispersal” plan places asylum seekers in private accommodation around the UK – the hotels are on top.
Critics say that local councils, schools and GPs are not properly warned and some of the poorest people in each community end up in competition with the Home Office for the cheapest private renting.
All governments have turned to ad hoc solutions – including under the Conservatives the Bibi Stockholm barge once moored in Dorset and temporarily-converted military sites, such as Napier barracks in Folkestone, Kent.
Both were criticised as unsuitable and ill-thought out.
Officials have at times looked at buying old student halls. That would be closer to French and Spanish local reception centres, run by independent organisations on behalf of government.
The only plan never tried at scale is a network of purpose-built accommodation centres – or “camps” as some would prefer them to be.
Germany created this kind of basic dormitory-style accommodation designed to accommodate people for up to 18 months with essentials like healthcare and education.
Twenty years ago, Tony Blair’s government began working on such a plan but it was later dropped amid local opposition at the first potential sites, but also because asylum numbers were coming under control.
How did we get here?
There are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotel accommodation across the UK in around 210 hotels.
That’s down from a peak of 56,000 in 400 hotels before the general election.
Those hotels are being used because there has been an unprecedented backlog in the number of people waiting for a decision on their claim for asylum.
In 2014, 87 out of 100 asylum applicants got a decision on their future within six months.
Those people were either being settled and had permission to pay their own way by getting a job, or they were facing removal from the UK.
By 2021, that decision rate was down to six out of 100.
The backlog was growing largely because the Home Office scrapped a target in 2018 for how quickly to process cases.
The end of the pandemic led to a global rush in movements, and the UK began seeing more and more arrivals as people smugglers built a trade on the English Channel.
The backlog hit 132,000 cases by 2022, according to official figures. The Home Office was running out of its standard supply of private accommodation and began buying up more and more hotel space.
The management of all of this was further complicated when in 2023, the last government stopped processing applications from people arriving in small boats, hoping it would send some of them to Rwanda instead.
All of this is now costing around £5.4bn a year – twice as much as the bill in 2021-22.
That brings us to the legal battles.
In 2022 a string of councils attempted to prevent hotels being used by the Home Office. They largely failed.
In one case, Ipswich Borough Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council had argued that hotels in their patches were being illegally changed into hostels – pretty complex issues relating to local planning controls.
Those local authorities and others were seen off by the Home Office and its contractors because the courts legally took into account the bigger national picture.
Ministers have a duty imposed by Parliament to safely house asylum seekers awaiting a decision and the evidence showed they had few good options.
Great Yarmouth successfully blocked the use of hotels on its seafront, saying that breached its local tourism plan – but that was fact-specific and of little legal use to other concerned councils.
