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

In January 2025, CTM in its capacity as a Home Office service provider approached the Defendant expressing interest in resuming use of the Bell to provide asylum accommodation. On 17 February 2025, Mr Tim Ryder, Deputy Director Adult and Family Asylum Accommodation at the Home Office wrote to the Claimant’s and Essex County Council’s Chief Executives informing them that the Bell had been identified by the Home Office and their new accommodation provider, CTM, as a potential source of contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. In his letter, Mr Ryder said that the Home Office wished to arrange a meeting with local authority officials and other relevant partners to discuss the proposed use of the Bell for that purpose. The full text of Mr Ryder’s letter is as follows –

“I am writing to let you know that whilst the Government remains committed to ending hotel use. The Home Office keeps its accommodation estate under constant review and we continue to do everything possible to run our estate as efficiently as possible and to meet our statutory obligation to accommodate asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute.

We are working tirelessly to increase dispersal accommodation across the United Kingdom, and have taken immediate action by restarting asylum processing and establishing our new Border Security Command, we cannot resolve this situation overnight. It remains our commitment to reduce the costs of asylum accommodation, including ending the use of asylum hotels, but the size of the existing backlog means we are forced to use hotels in the meantime.

We have, with Ministerial approval, asked a new accommodation provider CTM, to procure additional contingency accommodation to allow our current accommodation providers to focus on the preferred model of dispersed accommodation. We are confident that this approach will allow us to optimise the use of existing hotel estate to help with any future hotel closures.

We have identified Bell Hotel Epping Forest, CM16 4DG, as a site CTM could stand up and use as asylum accommodation. We are aware that we have previously used this site under a different accommodation provider in the past, and I wanted to confirm to you that we are committed to working with you to determine the suitability of this site and the Strategic Migration Partner for your region will now arrange a meeting with Local Authority officials and other relevant partners to discuss the matter. This initial meeting will also include the relevant accommodation provider and our Service Delivery team in the Home Office. If you wish to have any further conversations regarding this matter with a senior official, please do contact [name and email address]”.

On 20 February 2025, a consultation meeting was held to discuss the proposed use of the Bell as a “stand up hotel” to meet short term asylum accommodation needs. Ms Thompson, Ms Wiggins and Ms Ferdenzi attended that meeting. Also present were other Home Office officials, the Chief Executive of CTM, the Claimant’s Corporate Health and Safety Contingency Planning Officer, the County Council’s Lead Overseas Arrivals Officer, the Projects Manager for the Strategic Migration Partnership for the East of England, a Senior Police Officer from Essex Police and NHS officials. I was shown the minutes of that meeting. Although Ms Thompson mentioned in her evidence parts of the discussion at that meeting which she recalled, she accepted that the minutes were accurate. The minutes indicate that the consultation process was welcomed by those attending. Ms Ferdenzi said that the Bell had a maximum capacity of 198 beds and would be filled on a phased basis, with most bedrooms being occupied on a shared basis. Ms Wiggins raised a concern of the Claimant as to the safety of another hotel in use to accommodate asylum seekers, the Phoenix. She asked how the potential standing up of the Bell would affect continuing use of the Phoenix. The Bell was a “better placed property”. She raised the hope that the Phoenix would close. NHS officials raised concerns as to the ability of local health services, in particular local GP services, to accommodate 198 additional service users. It was agreed that those concerns should be followed up between Home Office and NHS officials. The issue of local community concerns was also discussed. At the close of the meeting, Ms Ferdenzi said that decisions would need to be made quickly. CTM’s safeguarding teams were ready to mobilise and the Bell was being made ready to receive service users. Ms Thompson and her counterpart at Essex County Council took actions to arrange responses to Mr Ryder’s letter.

It is common ground that there was no discussion at the meeting about the lawfulness for planning purposes of the proposal for CTM as service provider on behalf of the Home Secretary to resume the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. There was no discussion at the meeting of whether the resumption of that use would constitute a breach of planning control or be an unacceptable use of the land in terms of its impact on local amenity or the local environment.

On 26 February 2025, Ms Wiggins emailed Ms Ferdenzi to apologise for the delay in submitting the Claimant’s consultation response to Mr Ryder’s letter. She explained that there had been a change of senior leadership at the Claimant and the response was expected to be ready within the next few days. On the same day, Ms Wiggins emailed Ms Ferdenzi asking for further information which had been sought by the Claimant’s housing officers, including the origin of the asylum seekers and how long they would be expected to stay at the Bell. On the same day, Ms Ferdenzi replied that asylum seekers to be accommodated at the Bell would come from “a mix of existing hotels (where we know more about them) and ‘ringfenced’ hotels (fairly new to the UK)”. She said that she had asked for a quick response from her colleagues to Ms Wiggins’ other questions. On 27 February 2025, Mr Jonathan Blackburn, Head of Service Delivery Large Sites and Continuous Improvement at the Home Office, emailed Ms Wiggins with that response –

“In Liz's absence please find attached the responses to the questions raised below.

To confirm it remains our commitment to conduct a phased introduction of SUs into The Bell Epping Hotel, dependent on several unknown factors in respect of new arrivals into the system, we would hope to scale up number over a 4/5-week period from the point we get agreement to mobilise the site. To ensure we get best value for money and utilise the bedspaces accordingly, the expectation is that unrelated SUs will be required to share a room where the configuration of the rooms allow us to.

As we discussed previously we are unable to confirm exactly where the cohort will be made up from , but the expectation is that there will be a mixed cohort of SAMs, that will consist of SUs that have been in the system and may need to be relocated from other CA sites and new arrivals that have come through Manston or Jetfoil and spent a short period of time in our ring-fenced estate. In terms of the first arrivals, we are working on a proposal to explore relocating SAMs that are currently residing in the Phoenix Hotel and returning that site to a family site, as we are aware that due to demand on bed spaces prior to Christmas we had to mix the cohorts and move several SAMs into that site.

In respect of length of stay, the expectation is that we will keep the length of stay to as short a stay as possible, this will be dependent on a number of factors including availability of suitable Dispersed accommodation that we can disperse people to or they are ready to receive their asylum decision or deemed unsuitable to remain in that site.

The review on Grant Funding for the next FY, is still under discussion, so we are unable to comment on how this will work until April this year, but we will endeavour to keep you updated with any developments.

I can confirm that residents who receive a positive decision on their asylum claim will still receive 56 days' notice prior to Move On. For those that receive a negative decision they will be given 21 days' notice to submit an appeal if eligible or make efforts to leave the UK.

I hope this answer some of the points raised and we will comeback to you once we have clarity on the outstanding matters you have raised. We remain committed to ensuring that we maintain open lines of communication throughout to all partners involved in this site”.

It appears that a further consultative meeting had been scheduled to take place at 4.15pm on 6 March 2025. However, earlier that afternoon Mr Blackburn emailed attendees, including Ms Wiggins and Ms Thompson, to suggest postponement of that meeting, as the Home Office had yet to receive formal consultation responses from either Essex County Council or the Claimant. On 11 March 2025, Ms Thompson emailed Mr Blackburn to say that she had chased for a final response from the Claimant and would get that response to him as soon as possible.

On the same day, 11 March 2025, Ms Ferdenzi emailed Ms Wiggins, Ms Thompson and their counterpart at Essex County Council to inform them that the Home Office was now ready to begin the use of the Bell as contingency accommodation –

“We are ready to commence the stand-up of the Bell, however I am mindful to ensure that you have everything you need before I give CTM the go-ahead. As I mentioned previously, I am keen to keep working closely together on this, particularly during the early weeks and months if necessary to ensure we are working in-step to ensure this hotel works for all parties concerned.

We have had conversations with Epping health colleagues in the last week (and are meeting again today to provide an update), and have made the commitment to establish a health/welfare sub-group to manage any concerns or issues regularly, a proposal they have welcomed. CTM have also met with Essex police colleagues following our previous call, and there are no outstanding concerns there.

Please can you let me know that you are content for us to give CTM the go-ahead for this site, on the proviso that we establish a local [Multi-Agency Forum – MAF] (or stakeholder forum, whichever suits you), in order that we may continue to work in close partnership”.

On 13 March 2025, Ms Ferdenzi emailed those parties who had attended the meeting of 20 February 2025, including the Claimant’s officers, to notify them that mobilisation of the Bell was expected to begin in the week commencing 24 March 2025 –

“Many thanks for working with us on establishing the Bell as an asylum contingency site. We are now in a position to proceed, and are expecting mobilisation to commence mobilisation w/c 24^th March.

As discussed, we will be looking to adopt a phased approach to occupation, and we are looking to start that intake with two tranches of the 56 single adult males (SAMs) that are currently residing at the Phoenix.

I am very keen that we continue to work closely together to ensure this site is safe and well-managed for both our services users and your local community, therefore I am asking that we commence a MAF approach to this starting from next week. I am also committed to continuing to work closely with local health partners, and am looking to establish a regular meeting going forwards with ICB/NHS and LA health colleagues as discussed with them last week.

Please may I ask for a full list of representatives that would require an invitation to the first MAF and my team will arrange to have this set up for next week. I will also arrange for our health colleagues to establish a regular sub-group call to best manage health and safeguarding matters. It would be helpful to have an LA lead on that sub-group as well, therefore please can you forward me the most appropriate person to participate in those meetings.

In order that CTM are clear on referral mechanisms for those individuals who may need to be referred to adult social services, or for age assessment (should any service users present as under 18), please can you provide myself and Michael (CTM), with those details at your earliest opportunity.

I very much look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure the Bell hotel is a success for both our service users and your local community”.

An email later that day from Essex County Council to the same recipients relayed Ms Ferdenzi’s confirmation by telephone that the Home Office did not wait for formal consultation responses from the local authorities before notifying mobilisation of asylum accommodation.

On the same day, 13 March 2025, Essex County Council’s Chief Executive sent that Council’s formal consultation response to Mr Ryder. She said that it had been helpful to have received clarification that the Home Office’s primary intention was to support single adults only. On that basis, the County Council raised no major objections to the proposed use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. She raised a number of matters to which the County Council as education and social services authority would keep under close scrutiny. She said that the County Council would refer any media or public representations to the Home Office.

On 17 March 2025, the Claimant’s Portfolio Holder Technical Services, Councillor Keska, sent the Claimant’s formal consultation response. He said that the Claimant would not support the recommissioning of the Bell as asylum accommodation and asked that the Claimant’s significant number of concerns be taken into consideration by the Home Office when taking the final decision whether to resume the Bell’s use for that purpose –

“Thank you for your letter dated 17th February 2025 received 18th February, regarding the standing up of the Bell Hotel in Epping as contingency asylum accommodation.

Please see below a response on behalf of Epping Forest District Council, following our consultation with local health partners from the Hertfordshire and West Essex Integrated Care Board and the Epping North Primary Care Network.

We have a significant number of concerns that we would like to advise you on regarding the pressures the accommodation would place on local services.

From the experience of when the Bell Hotel was previously utilized, we know the homelessness service will be put under significant financial pressure, as will our housing service. This is due to high rental costs in the southeast of England and EFDC having to subsidise the shortfall between cost of housing and the financial settlement received from the home office, we therefore seek mitigations for those pressures.

The health system will also face a strain on finances at a time when they are already having to make savings. This is because the pricing tariff for health assessment is less than the cost of the services being delivered, meaning the ICB will be required to fund the shortfall from existing budgets putting further financial strain on services.

From a primary care perspective, the complexity of the patient cohort with high incidence of mental health and safeguarding concerns are dealt with by offering longer appointment times, which reduces the overall number of appointments that can be offered by the practices and reducing access to existing residents. Furthermore, the high turnover in patients contributes to a significant administrative workload as well as diminishes the continuity of care provided to this complex cohort.

With regards to the handover or placement process, if these residents are being moved from existing sites, we would like to see a rigorous process where; initial health screening has already taken place, and the new practice is made aware of any identified medical problems. The health screening should also include vaccination history as we are aware of outbreaks of communicable diseases at some asylum facilities. Furthermore, prescription exemptions (for which this cohort are eligible) would already need to be in place, so as not to add significant administrative burden on practices.

In addition to the concerns regarding the pressure on service we also seek reassurance that the facility has been improved. The building has previously been deemed inadequate and hence has been closed twice before. There were also significant concerns regarding the quality of food in the past commissioning of the hotel, leading to poor nutrition and to further health issues of residents.

We were informed at the meeting that many of the single adult males who would be placed at the Bell will be moved from the Pheonix, and that the Phoenix will then be under capacity. We would therefore like reassurance that the Pheonix will be decommissioned and the families moved to more suitable accommodation rather than have new families placed at the hotel putting further pressure on services in the district.

Finally we are concerned about the potential backlash from our far-right groups and previously had filming by the EDL at the location when it was commissioned previously that created tension within our community.

In conclusion we would not support the recommissioning of the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation, and we trust you will take into consideration our concerns when making a final decision”.

Councillor Keska’s letter did not raise as a concern that the proposed use of the Bell as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers would be in breach of planning control or result in planning or environmental harm which might give rise to the need for enforcement action.

On 19 March 2025, a further meeting took place attended by officials of the Home Office, CTM, Essex County Council, Essex Police, the Claimant and the National Health Service. The meeting was chaired by Mr Blackburn, who provided an update on the Home Office’s plans, stating that the Bell was expected to “go live” on 24 March 2025, but that asylum seekers would not necessarily be accommodated at the hotel from that date. Numbers would be phased over a period of weeks or as demand dictated.

Between 21 March 2025 and 27 March 2025 there were email exchanges in which the Home Office was asked to confirm the date on which new arrivals of asylum seekers at the Bell would begin. On 24 March 2025, Mr Blackburn said that the Home Office’s provisional timetable was to relocate 49 single adult males from the Phoenix hotel to the Bell in two phases on 28 March and 31 March. Thereafter there would be a phased plan for further new arrivals at a rate of 40 persons a week until the hotel was full. The great majority were expected to be newly arrived asylum seekers to the UK.

On 27 March 2025, Mr Blackburn emailed officials at Essex County Council, Essex Police, the Integrated Care Board, local GP surgeries and the Claimant, confirming that the first cohort of asylum seekers would be transferred from the Phoenix to the Bell on Monday 31 March 2025. Ms Thompson and Ms Wiggins were amongst the recipients of that email. Mr Blackburn said –

“I wanted to provide an update on the planned moves of Service Users form the Phoenix Hotel to the Bell Epping Hotel. I can confirm that letters have been issued to the first cohort of Single Adult Males that are due to move on Monday 31st March, this will be 25 in total. CTM will liaise with CRH to ensure collection times and vehicle arrangements are shared to ensure all residents are collected and transferred as planned. Tranche two of the move will see the remaining 24 SUs move on Thursday 3^rd April. The next planned arrivals do not take place until the w/c the 7th April.

To confirm, there are 80 twin rooms at the Bell Epping, meaning maximum capacity will be 160 SUs. CTM are to ringfence 4 of those rooms for maintenance and isolation purposes, but may stand them up as BAU beds depending on demand on the system, but we will not go above 160 residents.

A space has been cleared and made available for Health colleagues to provide onsite or remote surgeries. Residents will be transferred and registered to one of two local GP practices in closer proximity to the Bell Hotel.

We remain committed to working with local partners including statutory bodies and will facilitate any on site visits you deem necessary. All new guests will receive a fu[ll] induction onto their new accommodation and provider in a language they understand, translated versions and interpreters are available upon request.

For any Press Enquires please use the following inbox… [address provided]

In the meantime, if you have any questions you need to ask of HO colleagues please direct email to a dedicated inbox [address provided] and we will respond accordingly. CTM will provide details of the inbox and local contacts once their final team has been confirmed.

In the meantime, please accept my thanks and gratitude for the support you have provided over the past few weeks and we look forward to working with you over the course of the coming week”.

Meanwhile, over the previous weekend (28-30 March 2025) there had been a fire at the Phoenix Hotel. In a further email sent on 31 March 2025, Mr Blackburn said –

“I am confident that members will already be aware of the incident that occurred over the weekend at the Phoenix Hotel. The positive news is that all staff and residents were successfully evacuated, and nobody sustained any injuries. The provider was able to relocate all SUs to alternative accommodation with sites in Heathrow and Reading being mobilised. For more information on where people have been moved to, I would suggest contacting CRH in the first instance, especially for the situation on families that had been accommodated at the Phoenix and are unlikely to return to the area in the immediate future.

The relocation plans for our SAM cohort will go ahead as originally planned. I can confirm that 3 SUs that had been away did present at the Bell Epping last night, so they were accommodated and provided with food, as they were on the travel list to move today. We are expecting a further 20 to arrive during today from Reading and Heathrow. The remainder will arrive on Thursday as planned.

We will endeavour to keep you updated on arrivals at the Bell but would again ask that you liaise with CRH to discuss any questions you may have about the Phoenix”.

Since it reopened on 31 March 2025, the Bell has been used to accommodate single adult male asylum seekers pursuant to the contract between the Defendant and CTM. As at 13 August 2025, there were 138 asylum seekers accommodated at the Bell. As at 24 September 2025, the date on which Ms Hutchinson-Chambers signed her first witness statement, the number accommodated was 115.