Latest news with #SomaniHotels
Sky News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News
Battle to prevent The Bell Hotel in Epping from housing asylum seekers reaches High Court
A High Court judge is to decide if a hotel has breached planning rules by becoming a site for migrant accommodation. And the case that could have repercussions for councils across the country where asylum seekers are housed in hotels. Epping Forest District Council wants an interim injunction against The Bell Hotel in the town, which is owned by Somani Hotels, to prevent it being used as migrant accommodation, arguing the premises was not operating as intended as a hotel. Lawyers for the council called it "a very serious problem" and said it was creating "a feeding ground for unrest," stating that there is an "overwhelming case for an injunction". Opening the hearing at the High Court in London on Friday, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said it was a problem that was "getting out of hand" and "causing great anxiety" to local people. Protests have taken place outside the hotel after two men staying there were charged with sexual offences in separate incidents, including one involving a 14-year-old girl. Mr Coppel said there was "no agreement between [asylum seekers] and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay... they do not choose the type of room". The hotel "is no more a hotel [to asylum seekers] than a borstal to a young offender", he said. Barristers for the hotel group told the court that an injunction would cause asylum seekers "hardship" and that the move would set "a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions". Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels Limited, said the company did not argue that residents' concerns "are not genuine", but that they did not justify an interim injunction to stop the use of the hotel. "Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning," he said. The council had "not shown any evidence" that it had "grappled with the hardship" that would be caused to asylum seekers, the Home Office and the company if a temporary injunction was granted, Mr Riley-Smith said. 50,000 migrants come to UK More than 50,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats since Sir Keir Starmer became prime minister last July. The barrister told the court that what was happening at The Bell Hotel "is occurring in hotels across the country" and that the Home Office has a "statutory duty" to provide temporary emergency accommodation for asylum seekers. During Mr Riley-Smith's submissions, the judge, Mr Justice Eyre said: "I think I can take judicial notice that there has been no diminution of the need for accommodation for asylum seekers." Migrants were housed at the hotel from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024 and the court heard the council never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use. Council 'entirely wrong' In April 2025, they were once again being placed there and Mr Riley-Smith said that a planning application was not made "having taken advice from the Home Office". In written submissions, the barrister said it was "entirely wrong" for the council to "suggest the use has been hidden from them", saying it was "directly approached in February 2025 by the Home Office before the use began and alerted to the upcoming usage". He said an injunction would be a "draconian step," and warned granting one would cause harm. "The main harm would be the loss of accommodation for asylum seekers currently being housed there under the Home Office's statutory duties," he said. Mr Justice Eyre is due to deliver his decision on Tuesday.
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Council faces wait for ruling on asylum seekers hotel injunction bid
A council will discover on Tuesday whether it has been successful in a bid to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes following a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel after an asylum seeker who was housed at the hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council claimed Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, and that the situation 'could not be much worse'. The injunction sought by the authority, if granted, would require the company to stop housing asylum seekers at the hotel within 14 days. Barristers for the company said the 'draconian' move would cause 'hardship' for those inside the hotel, and that 'political views' were not grounds for an injunction to be granted. They also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. At the end of the hearing, Mr Justice Eyre said: 'I am not going to close my notebook and give a decision now. 'I am going to reflect on this, but we need a decision sooner rather than later.' The judge later said that he would give a ruling at 2pm on Tuesday. He also ordered that Somani Hotels could not 'accept any new applications' from asylum seekers to stay at the site until he had ruled on whether to grant the temporary injunction. The hotel has become the focal point of a series of protests after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, was charged with trying to kiss a teenage girl. Kebatu, who was housed at the hotel at the time of the incident, denies the allegations and is due to stand trial later this month. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said the authority had a 'very serious problem' which was 'getting out of hand' and causing 'great anxiety' to residents. He said this had been caused by a 'breach of planning control' by the company, with the site 'no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender' for asylum seekers. In written submissions, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction', which included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. Concluding his submissions, Mr Coppel told Mr Justice Eyre that if an injunction was not granted, 'Your Lordship will be telling the residents in Epping: 'You have just got to lump it'.' Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant' and that it was 'entirely wrong' for the council to 'suggest the use has been hidden from them'. The barrister told the court the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. In court, he said that while there were genuine concerns among local residents, these had 'expanded' to include 'concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community'. He continued that these 'particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning', and that the concerns of local residents did not 'justify' a temporary injunction.
South Wales Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- South Wales Guardian
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024, and that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
The Independent
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Housing asylum seekers at an Essex hotel is becoming a 'very serious problem' which 'could not be much worse', a council has told the High Court. Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
Rhyl Journal
4 days ago
- Politics
- Rhyl Journal
Housing asylum seekers in Essex hotel causing ‘very serious problem', court told
Epping Forest District Council is seeking an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited. It comes after a series of protests in recent weeks outside the hotel, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. Barristers for the council claimed on Friday that Somani Hotels breached planning rules as the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel, stating there was an 'overwhelming case for an injunction'. Somani Hotels is defending the claim, with its barristers telling the court in London that an injunction would cause asylum seekers 'hardship' and that the move would set 'a dangerous precedent that protests justify planning injunctions'. Opening the hearing in London, Philip Coppel KC, for the council, said: 'Epping Forest District Council comes to this court seeking an injunction because it has a very serious problem. 'It is a problem that is getting out of hand; it is a problem that is causing a great anxiety to those living in the district. 'The problem has arisen because of a breach of planning control by the defendant.' He continued: 'There is no agreement between (asylum seekers) and the hotel, they do not choose the duration of their stay… they do not choose the type of room. 'For them, the Bell Hotel is no more a hotel than a borstal to a young offender.' Mr Coppel told the court that the Bell Hotel had not been used as a hotel since the Covid-19 pandemic, and was now 'unrecognisable as a hotel, but for an old sign'. He added that Somani Hotels had not had 'the courage of conviction to seek a certificate of lawful use', which would have 'resolved the matter in its favour'. Mr Coppel also referenced the alleged sexual assault of a teenage girl by an asylum seeker who was placed in the hotel, which sparked a series of protests, and said several schools were in the nearby area. He said: 'Having this sort of thing go on in such a concentration of schools with no measures in place to stop a repetition is not acceptable.' He continued: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' In written submissions for the hearing, Mr Coppel said there was a 'preponderance of factors overwhelmingly in favour of granting an injunction'. He said these included removing 'the catalyst for violent protests in public places'. The barrister added: 'Allowing the status quo to continue is wholly unacceptable, providing a feeding ground for unrest.' He also told the court that the case has been brought against the hotel owner because it is the landowner, and had previously applied for planning permission. Piers Riley-Smith, representing Somani Hotels, told the court in written submissions that the Home Office's contracted service provider, Corporate Travel Management (North) Limited (CTM), should be involved in the case. He said that CTM should be included as it had 'booked the premises and manages and organises the movement and stay of asylum seekers', adding that the injunction bid should be delayed to a later date. He continued that the alleged planning breach was 'not flagrant', and that the 'defendant has not resumed the use knowing it is in breach of planning control and hiding the use from the council'. The barrister told the court that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, and from October 2022 to April 2024, and that the council 'never instigated any formal enforcement proceedings against this use'. He also said that while the company did apply for planning permission for a 'temporary change of use' in February 2023, this was a 'pragmatic attempt to address the claimant's concerns, rather than an acceptance that such a use required planning permission'. This application was later withdrawn as it had not been determined by April 2024, the barrister said. Asylum seekers then began being placed in the Bell Hotel again in April 2025, with Mr Riley-Smith stating that a planning application was not made 'having taken advice from the Home Office'. Mr Riley-Smith also said that the company accepted that since the Southport riots in summer 2024, 'where the perpetrator was mistaken to be an asylum seeker', and the alleged sexual assault in Epping, 'there has been public concern about the use as evidenced by highly publicised violent and disorderly protests'. He continued: 'However, the court should bear in mind – as recognised by the claimant – that these have spread far beyond locals who might have a genuine concern about their area to a wider group with more strategic national and ideological aims, but that does not necessarily mean the concerns are well-founded. 'Fears as to an increase of crime associated with asylum seekers or a danger to schools are common, but that does not make them well-founded.' The hearing before Mr Justice Eyre is due to conclude on Friday.
