Two Labour-run councils 'considering all options' to challenge migrant hotel use
The leaders of Wirral and Tamworth councils both say they are considering their legal options in the wake of the Epping case, citing similar concerns about the impact of the hotels on their local communities.
Epping Forest District Council won an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at The Bell Hotel, after arguing its owners did not have planning permission to use it to house migrants.
In a statement, Paula Basnett, the Labour leader of Wirral council, said: "Like many other local authorities, we have concerns about the Home Office's practice of placing asylum seekers in hotels without consultation or regard to local planning requirements.
"We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities.
"Wirral has always been proud of its record in supporting families and those fleeing conflict, but it is unacceptable for the government to impose unsuitable, short-term arrangements that disrupt communities and bypass local decision-making.
"If necessary, we will not hesitate to challenge such decisions in order to protect both residents and those seeking refuge."
Carol Dean, the Labour leader of Tamworth Borough Council, said she understands the "strong feelings" of residents about the use of a local hotel to house asylum seekers, and that the council is "listening to their concerns and taking them seriously".
She pointed out that under the national Labour government, the use of hotels has halved from 402 to 210, with the aim of stopping the use of any hotels by the end of this parliament.
5:43
But she continued: "Following the temporary High Court injunction granted to Epping Forest District Council, we are closely monitoring developments and reviewing our legal position in light of this significant ruling."
Cllr Dean added that they had previously explored their legal options to challenge the use of the hotel but decided against them, as temporary injunctions were not being upheld.
However, the Epping ruling "represents a potentially important legal precedent", which is why they are "carefully assessing" its significance for Tamworth.
11:48
"We fully recognise the UK government has a statutory duty to accommodate people seeking asylum. However, we have consistently maintained that the prolonged use of hotel accommodation may not represent the best approach - either for our local community or for the asylum seekers themselves," she said.
"We will continue to work constructively with government departments and all relevant agencies while making sure the voice of our community is heard at the highest levels of government."
Last night, Conservative-run Broxbourne Council also announced it was exploring its legal options, and the Reform UK leader of Kent County said she was writing to fellow leaders in Kent to explore whether they could potentially take legal action as well.
6:18
Use of Epping hotel 'sidestepped public scrutiny'
The prime minister and the home secretary are under huge pressure to clear the asylum backlog and stop using hotels across the country to house those waiting for their applications to be processed.
Protests have sprung up at migrant hotels across the country. But The Bell Hotel in Epping became a focal point in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Epping Forest District Council sought an interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at the hotel, owned by Somani Hotels Limited, on the basis that using it for that purpose contravened local planning regulations.
The interim injunction demanded that the hotel be cleared of its occupants within 14 days, but in his ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary block, while extending the time limit by which it must stop housing asylum seekers to 12 September.
Somani Hotels said it intended to appeal the decision, its barrister, Piers Riley-Smith, arguing it would set a precedent that could affect "the wider strategy" of housing asylum seekers in hotels.
A government attempt to delay the application was rejected by the High Court judge earlier on Tuesday, Home Office barristers arguing the case had a "substantial impact" on the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers.
But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was "not necessary".
The judge said the hotel's owners "sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made".
He added: "It was also deliberately taking the chance that its understanding of the legal position was incorrect. This is a factor of particular weight in the circumstances of this case."
Reacting to Tuesday's judgment, border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the government will "continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
21 minutes ago
- New Statesman
The Epping ruling deepens Labour's immigration nightmare
Photo byThere is one clear political winner from the Epping asylum hotel ruling: Nigel Farage. True, the technical victor, as so often in English life, may be the Town and Country Planning Order (the owners of the Bell Hotel failed to apply for new planning permission). But that's not something Farage felt obliged to mention, hailing 'a great victory for the parents and concerned residents of Epping'. That's a message that will resonate with an electorate increasingly wondering whether to gamble on the Reform leader (Farage's party has led every opinion poll since May). It was the Bell Hotel that became an emblem of a dysfunctional model after one migrant living there was charged with sexual assault (a second asylum seeker was arrested last week). Confronted by the case between Epping council and the hotel's owners, Home Office lawyers sought to intervene, warning that any injunction could 'substantially interfere' with the department's statutory duty to house asylum seekers and risked 'acting as an impetus for further violent protests'. But the judge, who acknowledged that recent arrests 'form a basis for the local concern', ruled that Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, 'sidestepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made'. The Home Office is barred from appealing and now has less than a month to find alternative accommodation for the hotel's residents. But this practical challenge could be far outweighed by the potential unravelling of the asylum hotel model. Farage has vowed that the 12 councils controlled by Reform will explore similar legal action to Epping, and shadow home secretary Chris Philp has said he would welcome other local authorities doing the same (Labour accuses the Tories of 'rank hypocrisy', noting that Philp was the first immigration minister to move asylum seekers into the Bell Hotel and that Robert Jenrick was the second). Labour knows just how politically toxic the asylum hotel policy – emblematic of the UK's profligate outsourced state – is. Aides speak with authentic outrage of the 'absolute wreck' of a system they inherited as the Conservatives' doomed Rwanda deportation scheme saw processing ground to a halt. The number of asylum seekers accommodated has fallen from a peak of 56,042 in 400 hotels in September 2023 to 32,345 in 210 hotels (with costs falling from £3bn to £2.1bn), and the government intends to end their use entirely by the time of the next election in 2029. But even before yesterday's ruling, some in Labour were warning that far faster action was required. Last month, one influential MP told me that the government should 'requisition Duchy of Lancaster land and build temporary Nightingale accommodation' (along the lines of the hospitals constructed during the Covid-19 pandemic). That same MP now blames a 'vacuum of leadership' for leaving the courts to rule on what voters see as a 'moral and political matter'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe For Labour, the painful irony of the ruling is that it comes just as the government is trying to tell a better story on immigration. Last month, ministers agreed a 'one in, one out' asylum deal with France that they hope will deter Channel crossings and only today announced a new agreement with Iraq to return illegal migrants. Instead, Labour is left to rue the slow breakdown of a system that it did not design but must now own. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Zarah Sultana reveals a fault line in Your Party] Related
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Is Labour really failing on immigration and asylum hotels?
Councils across England are weighing up legal challenges after the High Court's decision to block a hotel in Epping from accommodating asylum seekers. The ruling blocks asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in the Essex town, and current residents must be removed by September 12. On Wednesday, several local authorities, including some run by the Labour Party, said they were considering their options to take similar action. The ruling has resulted in another wave of criticism directed at Sir Keir Starmer and his Labour government over immigration, with opposition parties repeatedly accusing the government of failing to adequately tackle the issue. Yet amid backlash and local council tensions, the figures show that Labour has already made significant steps to move away from the use of hotels. The multi-billion cost of housing asylum seekers in hotels has dropped markedly from its peak in 2023. Last year (2024/5), the cost for hotel bills was at £2.1bn, down by a third from £3.1bn in the previous year. The smaller bill is a result of multiple factors, most notably the reduction in the asylum backlog. The average daily cost for housing each asylum seeker in a hotel has gone down from £176 to £170 per person. This still remains higher than previous years. The government has also made efforts to reduce the proportion of asylum seekers housed in hotels, moving them towards other types of accommodation. Figures from March show 32,345 asylum seekers out of over 100,000 were being accommodated in hotels, with the remainder housed in temporary accommodation including council-owned homes and a former airfield. Just 30 per cent are staying in hotels, which is meant as a contingency - or temporary - measure. Government accounts show that costs are likely to remain similar this year, with £2.2bn requested by the Home Office to asylum housing costs; suggesting that the number of asylum seekers is unlikely to fall significantly. In February, Home Office permanent secretary Sir Matthew Rycroft said the department was aiming to 'get to zero' asylum hotels by the end of this parliament in 2029. In 2022, the government began plans to use 'large sites' like cruise ships and ex-military bases to accommodate asylum seekers. Among these are the Bibby Stockholm barge, which was shut down last year, and former RAF airfield Wethersfield which now houses 588 people as of early 2025. But a review last year found that these sites cost more than hotels as a way to house asylum seekers. Nonetheless, hotels cost around six times more on average than other types of accommodation, according to analysis by the Migration Observatory; at £170 a day compared to £27 a day. Yet most of the time, the government is forced to place people in hotels due to a lack of capacity, with a shortage of accommodation and a substantial –albeit decreasing – asylum backlog. The asylum backlog stood at 78,745 cases at the end of March – a 13 per cent drop from December, and down 41 per cent from the mid-2023 peak. Yet the sizeable backlog, which is still higher than pre-2022 levels, represents a host of ongoing costs for the government as people wait for a decision on their asylum claims. Most asylum seekers are still waiting over six months for an initial decision on their claim, although waiting times have improved compared to the same time last year. The majority of people in the backlog are Afghan, Pakistani and Iranian nationals, according to the Migration Observatory. The UK's asylum backlog is the fifth largest in Europe. Where are asylum seekers staying in the UK? Now, over 8 in 10 local authorities host some asylum seekers, Home Office figures show. This is a significant rise over the last decade. Accommodation for asylum seekers varies by region. In the North East of England, just 5 per cent are housed in hotels, while in London hotels make up the majority of accommodation (65 per cent). Epping Forest council is within the East of England region, which has 41 per cent of migrants housed in hotels. However, being in Essex, the council is on the edge of London which has a higher concentration of asylum seekers than the rest of the UK. Around 140 migrants were being housed in The Bell Hotel in Epping, according to BBC reports, all of whom must now leave by September. Though the hotel has provided accommodation for the Home Office for several years, occupancy has fluctuated, with figures in March showing just 28 asylum seekers housed across Epping Forest hotels. Reform leader Nigel Farage has called on other councils to seek 'Epping-style injunctions' against the use of hotels to house asylum seekers, adding: 'It is high time that the outrageously expensive asylum hotel scheme, which nobody in Britain ever voted for, was brought down by popular demand.' The recent pushback has come amid record levels of small boat crossings to the UK. Labour's education minister Baroness Jacqui Smith has admitted that the high numbers are 'a problem that, up until this point, we haven't managed to tackle'. People coming on small boats make up an increasing proportion of asylum applications. Last year, a third of the UK's asylum claims came from small boat migrants. In 2025 so far, over 26,000 migrants have already crossed the English Channel, higher than summer levels in any year to date. In fact, figures at mid-August have nearly exceeded the entirety of 2023 (29,437). Meanwhile arrests of people smugglers who enable the crossings were down last year, according to National Crime Agency data obtained by The Independent. The shadow home secretary called Labour's failure to 'smash the gangs' an 'abject failure'. This suggests that small boats migration could be the highest on record over 2025, bringing with it a slew of new asylum claims; since almost all irregular migrants apply for asylum.
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
As St George's Cross protests grow, what are the rules on flying flags?
F lags. Troublesome, tribal things that can be used as an assertive statement of ideological, religious, national or ethnic supremacy. We see that in Northern Ireland with nationalists and loyalists commandeering lamp posts as flag poles and painting the kerbstones green-white-and-orange or red-white-and-blue, with matching folk murals glorifying martyrs and battles. It's something that seems to be spreading to parts of England, too. But a flag can also be an innocent, joyous emanation of a shared identity and values – as when the Lionesses did England proud. Vexillology can be a highly vexing matter, as we witnessed when the royal family insisted on protocol after the death of Diana, Prince of Wales and having the royal standard flown at full rather than half mast, later giving in to public pressure. In fact, there are official guidelines to help us navigate this newly popular method of free expression… What does the government say? The official guidance is issued by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and dates back to when Boris Johnson was premier and started making ministers put flags in the background of every public appearance and on any and every public building. It was only a partial attempt to boost confidence in the dismal post-Brexit life of the nation. Anyway, Angela Rayner is in charge of flags now, and so the guidance should probably be read in an Angela Rayner accent: 'Flags are a very British way of expressing joy and pride – they are emotive symbols which can boost local and national identities, strengthen community cohesion and mark civic pride. The government wants to see more flags flown, particularly the union flag, the flag of the United Kingdom. It is a symbol of national unity and pride.' Great. What can we fly? Almost anything in principle, within the rules, but probably not the terrorist stuff, not even in private, given that it would be likely taken as promoting violence. The list of flags that do not require consent (proving they don't contravene other rules or laws) include: any country's national flag; the Commonwealth, UN or other international body of which the UK is a member; any British island, county, city, village, or borough; the Scottish and Irish saltires; armed forces flags; the flag of St George (England – but not additionally adorned with eg a bulldog, Nigel Farage, St George himself or the name of a football team). Curiously, the evocative and lovely Welsh Dragon flag isn't specifically covered in the guidance, but we may assume it's OK. On that basis, then, when, as planned, Palestine is officially recognised as a sovereign state by the United Kingdom, the now familiar design can be waved around with the full backing of the government. On the other hand, the European Union's starry flag now technically requires consent, as does the 'Ulster banner', the old Northern Ireland flag featuring the red hand emblem, much favoured by some unionists and loyalists but no longer formally recognised (if it ever was). What about the rainbow flag? It's one of a number that also don't require consent but need to conform to a few rules on the size of flagpoles and their position. Corporate and sports flags and the NHS logo fall into this category. The 'progress' flag, a more 'inclusive' adaptation of the rainbow flag and the trans flag aren't mentioned. What can't we fly? 'Any flag not identified above requires express consent from the local planning authority before it can be flown.' So that includes the EU and Wales, and party political ones among others – but not Palestine. Can I have a flagpole? You can have two on on the roof of your house if you want, or in the grounds, provided one is from the list that don't require permission: 'No restrictions on the size of any character or symbol displayed on the flag, except where a flag is flown within an area of outstanding natural beauty, area of special control, the Broads, conservation area or a National Park (referred to elsewhere as 'controlled areas') where the characters may be no more than 0.75m in height (0.3m in height in an area of special control).' Elsewhere, eg on the outside wall, requires permissions. You are referred to the regulations governing the flying of flags set out in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007 (as amended in 2012 and in 2021).
