KB-2025-002908 - [2025] EWHC 2937 (KB)

In early October 2022, the Defendant was approached by another of the Home Office’s service providers, Finefair Limited, seeking to accommodate asylum seekers at the Bell. Mr Salmon’s evidence was that the Defendant contracted with Finefair Limited for that purpose. The contract ran from the end of October 2022 until late April 2024. The contractual arrangements provided for the use of the visitor accommodation at the Bell, 80 bedrooms in total, to accommodate single male asylum seekers, predominantly on the basis of room sharing with two persons sleeping in each bedroom. Mr Salmon said that the Defendant did not make any internal changes to the layout or facilities at the hotel during the currency of this contract. The Defendant had no control of the placement of residents at the hotel. The Defendant was responsible only for laundry services, cleaning and general facilities maintenance.

Mr Stubbs says that the Claimant learnt on 10 November 2022 that the Bell was again being used to accommodate asylum seekers. On that date Mr Stubbs emailed a colleague asking that a new case be opened for the Bell. He said that the case description would be “Change of use of the land to provide accommodation for refugees/asylum seekers”. Mr Ayres was to be the case officer. Mr Stubbs said –

“This is a national problem with several other local authorities finding themselves receiving large numbers of people being relocated by the Home Office. I know that you have previously dealt with the Bell as well. We will need a site visit and then likely PCNs…which I can help with drafting”.

On 15 November 2022, Mr Ayres spoke with Mr Salmon on the telephone. Mr Ayres’ attendance note records Mr Salmon saying that the use had resumed two weeks previously and there were then approximately 70 asylum seekers accommodated at the hotel, a figure that may change. A site visit was arranged for 22 November 2022. Mr Ayres followed up with an email to Mr Salmon saying that he wished to discuss “the current planning issues regarding the change of use of the hotel to use as an asylum hostel” and would be happy to meet a representative of the party who had rented the rooms at the hotel. Mr Salmon replied stating that he had “shared with the Home Office contractor as the ‘use’ of the hotel under the terms of the Government contract is a matter for them and the Home Office rather than us”. He had suggested that the Home Office should be speaking directly with the local authority to address any concerns.

In fact Mr Ayres carried out his site visit on 29 November 2022. Mr Salmon said that following that site visit, the Defendant decided to submit an application for planning permission to use the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers on a temporary basis. The Claimant was informed by the Defendant’s solicitor that the Defendant was to make that planning application in January 2023. On 19 January 2023 the Defendant’s solicitor emailed Mr Ayres to say that the supporting information was still being assembled and the planning application was now to be expected in the first half of February 2023. Mr Ayres said that was fine and thanked him for the update.

On 14 February 2023 the Defendant’s solicitor submitted the Defendant’s application for planning permission for development described as “Temporary Change of Use until 30 June 2024 or such earlier date as is notified in writing to the Council by the Applicant from hotel use (Class C1) to use as a hostel for asylum seekers (Sui Generis)”. The change of use was stated to have begun on 29 October 2022. The existing use was described as “Hotel (Class C1)”.

The planning application was submitted under cover of a letter dated 14 February 2023 from the Defendant’s solicitor to the Claimant. That letter included the following description of the then current use of the Bell -

“Current Use

As at 1 February 2023, the Hotel was being exclusively used to temporarily accommodate 80 male asylum seekers in single and double rooms.

The asylum seekers arrive by coach and their length of stay varies from person to person, with some asylum seekers being relocated by the Home Office within 24 hours of their arrival, while others stay for a longer period.

The Hotel provides 3 meals a day for the residents, and the hotel is staffed by 6 security guards (3 during the day and three during the night), one welfare officer who works Monday to Friday, two cleaners, 3 kitchen staff, 1 receptionist and 1 general manager. In addition, the hotel has recently hired a weekend receptionist so as to maintain 7-day cover.

The Asylum seekers are predominantly young adults. They are not of school age, are healthy and rarely make any demands on local social services. They also have a very strong interest in not causing any difficulties locally, as any breach of the law would be likely to result in a swift conviction and deportation. Hence, as at the date of writing, there have been no complaints directly to the Hotel of any anti-social behaviour by the asylum seekers.

The contract with the Home Office is made under s. 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act). Section 98 allows the Home Office to provide short-term, emergency accommodation for asylum seeker while their needs are considered. Thereafter, the Home Office will provide longer-term accommodation for the asylum seekers at dispersal accommodation around the country under regional contracts with third parties made under s. 95 of the 1999 Act. In practice and based on the Hotel’s current experience, this means that the asylum seekers are accommodated at the Hotel for anything between 24 hours and 3-4 weeks after which, they are relocated elsewhere”.

The covering letter then stated the Defendant’s purpose in making the planning application; and made clear that the Defendant’s view was that the then current use of the Bell did not involve a material change in its use -

“The application is made following a meeting with John Ayres, Epping Forest DC's Planning Enforcement Officer which was held on 29th November 2022. It is made without prejudice to my clients' view that the present use of the Hotel does not constitute a material change of use. The purpose of the application is to clarify the planning status of using the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers under contract with the Home Office, and to enable the Hotel to 'bridge' the current adverse economic climate and eventually resume its normal hotel operations.

…

This application for a temporary 18-month planning permission is made without prejudice to Somani's view, that the current use of the Hotel to temporarily accommodate asylum seekers under contract with the Home Office does not constitute a material change of use".

With the covering letter, the Defendant’s solicitor provided a table which showed the annual turnover, gross profit, operating profit and net profit achieved at the Bell for the years 2016 to 2022. For the years 2017 to 2020 inclusive, the Bell was shown to be returning net losses of between £28,881 and £90, 477. For the year 2021, following use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers under the initial CRHL contract which ran until March 2021, the Bell returned a net profit of £605,909.

In a consultation response on the planning application dated 28 February 2023, Essex Police’s Designing Out Crime Office requested an urgent meeting with the applicant to discuss proposed and existing security measures in place at the Bell. This was said to be “due to the likelihood that the vulnerable residents could be susceptible to harm and risk, providing them with a safe and secure place to temporarily reside is therefore imperative for their safety and wider community”. On 4 April 2023, the Defendant’s solicitor emailed the planning officer to inform him that the applicant had met with Essex Police on site on 3 April 2023. The meeting had been positive: the Designing Out Crime team had reviewed the hotel’s security policies and arrangements, and had made recommendations which the Defendant was happy to take forward.

Epping Town Council considered the planning application at their meeting on 7 March 2023. They resolved to object to the planning application, feeling that the change of use was not acceptable and that the Bell “should stay as a hotel especially as there is a lack of such facilities in the local area”.

On 24 April 2023 the Claimant’s planning officer emailed the Defendant’s solicitor indicating that the planning application may be reported to the Planning Committee on 7 June 2023. There then followed email correspondence during May 2023 in which the planning officer asked for further information about occupancy arrangements at the hotel, whether there was a time limit on asylum seekers’ duration of stay at the hotel and whether there was a call on local GP services from occupation of the hotel by asylum seekers. On 17 May 2023, the Defendant’s solicitor responded to the planning officer’s questions. He said that there was no formal time limit on length of stay, but that the contract with the Home Office was to provide short term accommodation under section 98 of the 1999 Act. Maximum occupancy was limited by the number of bedspaces at the hotel. Newly arrived asylum seekers were initially assessed by a private GP on behalf of Finefair. They were then allocated to GPs in the local area. As young men, they were no more likely to use the local medical services than any other young adult male. There was said to be “no evidence that the asylum seekers are placing an unacceptable burden on any local service”. On 18 May 2023, the solicitor followed up with an email stating that the Defendant was willing to provide a private fortnightly GP’s surgery for appointments, and for the same private GP to be available to deal with any emergencies which might arise between those appointments.

The Defendant’s planning application was not reported to the Claimant’s Planning Committee for determination on 7 June 2023. It remained undetermined by the Claimant as local planning authority until March 2024, more than a year after its submission and some eleven months after the expiry of the period of eight weeks within which it was required to be determined under article 34(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015. On 21 March 2024, the Defendant’s solicitor wrote by email to the Claimant’s planning officer notifying him that the then current contract for the accommodation of asylum seekers at the Bell was to come to an end on 26 April 2024, by which date all asylum seekers would have vacated the hotel. The contract was not to be renewed. As the temporary planning permission applied for on 14 February 2023 had thus become “redundant”, the Defendant was withdrawing the planning application. I was not shown any acknowledgment of that email.

Mr Salmon said that the Bell was closed from 26 April 2024 until early April 2025. During that period of just under a year, repairs and further light refurbishments were undertaken to bring the hotel premises up to the standard needed for a local authority contract for homelessness accommodation or another government contract. He said that during that period the Defendant entered into discussions with two London Borough councils with a view to a possible contract to house homeless persons at the Bell.