High Court rejects full injunction for Epping asylum hotel

In Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd, Mr Justice Mould found that while the hotel use breached planning control, it did not cause serious harm and is not a case where an injunction is "just and convenient".

The council first secured an interim injunction in August, following protests in Epping over the hotel's use.

The Home Office successfully appealed that order in the Court of Appeal, and the High Court has now refused to grant a final injunction.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed the council's application despite finding that the council had a reasonable basis for its view that the current use of the hotel requires planning permission and is therefore in breach of planning control.

He ultimately concluded that the claim was not a case "in which it is just and convenient for this court to grant an injunction".

"I give due respect to the Claimant's judgment that the current use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers constitutes a material change in the use of those premises which requires planning permission.

"Nevertheless, I have not been persuaded that an injunction is a commensurate response to that postulated breach of planning control."

He said the breach was "far from being flagrant", adding that the planning and environmental harm cause by the hotel's current use is "limited".

The need for hotels as an important element of supply and contingency for the Home Office's asylum accommodation programme was meanwhile a "significant counterbalancing factor", the judgement said.

He continued: "This is decidedly not a case in which there is an abuse of planning control resulting in serious planning or environmental harm which now demands an urgent remedy. In my judgment, it is not appropriate to grant an injunction on the Claimant's application for the purpose of restraining the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers."

Mould J's conclusion was limited to the determination of the council's application for an injunction pursuant to section 187N of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

He said that it "remains open" to the claimant to consider the experience of taking enforcement action by issuing and enforcement notice.

"It is also open to the defendant to reconsider whether it would be appropriate to apply for retrospective planning permission or to apply to the council for a certification of lawfulness of the existing use of the Bell pursuant to section 191 of the 1990 Act.

"Each of those possible courses of action would enable the planning issues raised by this case to be evaluated by the local planning authority, through the transparent and consultative decision-making processes with public participation which apply under the 1990 Act and its attendant regulations."

Mould J went on to decline to grant the declaratory relief sought by the council.

Adam Carey