KB-2025-002908 - [2025] EWHC 2937 (KB)
Fecha: 11-Nov-2025
My conclusion
My conclusion
I have reached the clear conclusion that this is 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. The breach is far from being flagrant. Conventional methods of enforcement have not been taken. Taking a broad view, the degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited. The continuing need for hotels as an important element of the supply of contingency accommodation to house asylum seekers in order to enable the Home Secretary to discharge her statutory responsibilities is a significant counterbalancing factor. 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.
My conclusion is limited to the determination of the Claimant’s application for an injunction pursuant to section 187B of the 1990 Act. It remains open to the Claimant as local planning authority to consider the expediency of taking enforcement action by issuing an 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 Claimant for a certificate 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.
- Heading
- Introduction [1]
- Introduction
- The Claimant’s case
- The Bell hotel, its location and current use
- The proceedings
- The evidence
- Legal principles
- Factual background
- 2022-2024 – second period of use as accommodation for asylum seekers
- Resumption of use as contingency accommodation – early 2025 onwards
- Correspondence regarding the need for planning permission – April/May 2025
- Events since 8 July 2025
- The decision to apply for an injunction
- The launch of proceedings and subsequent events
- Discussion
- An actual or apprehended breach of planning control
- The Claimant’s decision to apply for an injunction
- Whether an injunction is an appropriate remedy – the correct approach
- Planning and enforcement history
- Environmental harm and urgency
- Countervailing factors
- Although initially procured by service providers as a short-term measure to deal with an exceptional increase in demand for accommodation during the pandemic, the pace and volatility at which the numb
- Striking the balance – is an injunction a commensurate remedy?
- My conclusion
- Declaratory relief
- Conclusions