Court of Appeal ruling on Epping asylum hotel to be handed down tomorrow

The court said it aims to issue its judgment at 2pm on Friday 29 August, after hearing submissions from the Home Office and the hotel's operators, Somani Hotels Ltd, during a hearing today. 

Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb also heard responses from the district council.

Mr Justice Eyre granted interim relief to Epping earlier this month after finding the balance of convenience favoured the council's application, in light of the public interest in enforcing planning control and the loss of amenity of local residents.

The High Court judge partly took into account Epping's argument that there had been a breach of planning control – specifically a material change of use for the premises – in determining the balance.

He said the "strength" of the contention "is such that, exceptionally, it is a factor to be taken into account".

Somani Hotels and the Home Office launched appeals against the decision last week.

The Home Office appealed both Eyre J's decision to refuse the department permission to intervene in the interim injunction application and his decision to grant interim relief.

At the Court of Appeal, the Secretary of State for the Home Office (SoS) advanced a range of grounds of appeal including:

• The judge erred in declining to allow the SoS to participate in proceedings, "given her unique institutional competence and her statutory duty to accommodate asylum seekers". The SoS's rights "were clearly affected" and she ought to have been heard on the application.
• The judge erred in holding that there was anything more than a serious issue to be tried on the alleged breaches of planning control, not least having regard to the very limited allegations of planning harm in the Part A claim form and the judge's factual conclusions on those allegations.
• The judge erred in deciding that the balance of convenience at the interim stage favoured short notice closure of a site forming part of critical national infrastructure, namely the national programme for asylum accommodation.

Piers Riley-Smith, who appeared for the hotel operator, meanwhile argued that the pursuit of a planning injunction was "an exceptional step" when the council could have pursued conventional enforcement methods.

He also questioned why an interim injunction was required, given that the hotel has been used to accommodate asylum seekers since 2020.

Adam Carey