Supreme Court refuses Epping Forest bid to challenge Home Office intervention in asylum hotel proceedings

In a decision published on Monday (1 December), Lord Reed, Lord Leggatt and Lady Simler said the council's application "does not raise an arguable point of law of general importance".

Epping Forest initially brought a claim under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, seeking an injunction to restrain an alleged breach of planning control, including an interim injunction blocking the use of the Bell Hotel.

The alleged breach was said to have been by the hotel owners, Somani, and not the Secretary of State.

The council secured an interim injunction in August, but this was later set aside by the Court of Appeal.

The local authority's application to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal centred on the Secretary of State joining as an intervener in the main claim.

The Home Office's application was initially refused by the High Court.

However, the Court of Appeal later concluded that the Secretary of State should be made an intervener.

Epping then sought permission to appeal that decision to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's dismissal comes a month on from the High Court's refusal of a final injunction.

Handing his decision down on 11 November, Mr Justice Mould said he had "not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response", despite giving "due respect" to the council's judgment that the current use of the Bell Hotel constitutes a material change of use.

Epping Forest last week voted to appeal Mould J's decision.

Adam Carey