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

During the course of the debate at full Council on 24 July 2025, the Leader said that the Claimant would do “everything that is within our diplomatic and legal grasp … that we can to achieve the objective of the whole of this council, the whole of the community that I grew up on, and we will be working tirelessly to get the government to listen and to close the Bell…”. Following the meeting, Ms Sayers instructed Leading Counsel to advise in writing on the use of the Bell and enforcement options available to the Claimant.

Ms Beardwell’s evidence was that she received counsel’s opinion by email on Saturday 2 August 2025. She forwarded a copy of counsel’s opinion to the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive with a copy to Ms Sayers, suggesting a meeting on Monday 4 August 2025 to discuss it. As Ms Sayers was on leave on 4 August, Ms Beardwell and Ms Sayers discussed the content of counsel’s opinion on the telephone. Ms Beardwell said that Ms Sayers expressed the view, having considered the content of counsel’s opinion and given the urgent prevailing circumstances around the Bell Hotel, that subject to consultation with Cabinet, the most effective, proportionate option was to start proceedings for an injunction and to make an application for an interim injunction.

In her own evidence to the court, Ms Sayer said –

“Leading counsel was instructed to advise in writing, which advice was received via email to me and Barbara Beardwell, the Council’s Monitoring Officer, on the evening of Saturday, 2 August 2025. Legal professional privilege in the instructions to counsel, in the advice received from counsel, and in all comments and discussions thereon is maintained. The Monitoring Officer picked it up on the evening of 3 August 2025 and forwarded the email to me, the Chief Executive Officer and Deputy Chief Executive Officer for their consideration, with a suggestion that we all discuss that advice the following day.

I was due to be on annual leave the following Monday (4 August 2025). However, I had a telephone conversation that afternoon with the Monitoring Officer in which we closely reviewed leading counsel’s advice and considered next steps that were open to the Council.

It seemed clear to me based upon the facts on the ground that the use of the Bell Hotel exclusively for the purpose of placing asylum seekers represented a change of use from it being a hotel, which had been open to reservation by members of the public wishing to stay in Epping (whether for work or for pleasure), with a bar and restaurant open to all in the vicinity, and that had been used for functions such as weddings, to a use in which all those qualities were absent. This made the relationship between the Bell Hotel and those living and working in the area a different, disengaged one.

It also seemed clear to me that having regard to the location of the Bell Hotel, its locality, its previous connection with the local community, and so forth, that this was a “material change” in use.

On my understanding of planning law, neither a stop notice nor a temporary stop notice to bring this use to a prompt end (and have it revert to hotel use) was an available option to the Council, and that an enforcement notice alone would not bring the new use to an end until all appeal avenues had been exhausted – something that could take well over a year.

As it seemed to me, the situation unfolding in and around the Bell Hotel did not allow such a time-frame. I therefore came to the view that, subject to consultation with the Leader and other Cabinet Members, the most effective, proportionate option so far as bringing the planning situation back under control would be by enforcing the planning regime with the only means available to the Council that would see the situation changed in weeks as opposed to potentially one or more years.

There was nothing before me to suggest that, absent action, the current use of the Bell Hotel would draw to a close, whether imminently or in the shorter term. The Home Office had advised the Council in February 2025 that it would only be using hotels for this purpose as long as was absolutely necessary, that the contract had been negotiated on a short-term basis, and that decommissioning itself would take only four weeks. The Home Office plainly had a different idea from me of what “short-term” meant, because four months in and there was still no sign of it coming to an end. Moreover, the manner in which the Home Office had on 13 March 2025 announced its decision to “mobilise” without having waited for the Council’s response to the Home Office’s consultation invitation did not give me any cause to believe that the Home Office would be any more receptive to the concerns of the Council now than it had in March 2025. Indeed, given that the Home Office had implemented its decision, its position would almost certainly have been cemented. Similarly, promises of local engagement by the Home Office had proved to be mostly rhetorical.

I was reinforced in my view that immediate action was proportionate as it seemed to me that that would assist in the prevention of crime and disorder in the area, including behaviour adversely affecting the local environment, and to abate a further undermining of the quality of life for those living in the area and a further erosion of community cohesion. The Home Office had told the Council in a document called “Hotel Contingency Asylum Accommodation: Local Authority version 2.0” that those being placed at the Bell Hotel had been searched, that there had been “robust security checks and biometric tests at Manston. This includes checks against UK and international police databases” and that “suitability criteria are applied to ensure that the choice of accommodation is suitable for the asylum seeker in question.” Events suggested otherwise. Repeating to Epping residents these sorts of assurances would ring hollow. When it came to exercising its functions so as to do all that it reasonably could to prevent crime and disorder in its area, the Council could not take the Home Office document as the final word on the topic.

I appreciated that seeking an injunction of any kind would have an impact on those placed in the Bell Hotel, but given that the Home Office had told the Council that once in use as an “asylum hotel” it could be decommissioned usually in four weeks and given that the Home Office had access to a wide estate (including Crown land, such as disused military bases) and the Home Office was not advising the Council that that estate could not absorb those placed in the Bell Hotel, the preponderance of factors pointing to rapid enforcement was, I considered, overwhelming.

Accordingly, I reached the view that the Council should proceed with a claim for an injunction together with an application for an interim injunction to end the use of the Bell Hotel for the placement of asylum seekers within 14 days. I appreciated that the court might allow more than 14 days, but what was most important was to get a definite date by which the unlawful use would end, being prepared to be reasonably flexible about the actual number of days allowed.

I agreed that the Monitoring Officer should meet with Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and other relevant Officers of the Council on my behalf, to discuss the contents of leading counsel’s opinion and thereafter, if required, to brief Members on the contents of that opinion and options in order to seek their views as to whether the Council should proceed with a claim for an injunction together with an application for an interim injunction to end the use of the Bell Hotel for the placement of asylum seekers within 14 days”.

Having met on Monday 4 August 2025 with the Chief Executive and Deputy Chief Executive, Ms Beardwell convened a briefing meeting of Cabinet Members which took place on Microsoft Teams at 6.30pm on that day. Ms Beardwell gave the following evidence about that briefing meeting –

“The purpose of the meeting was for me to brief Cabinet Members on the content of counsel’s opinion and the enforcement options, and to seek their views on whether the Claimant should initiate proceedings for an injunction requiring the Bell Hotel to return to its use as a hotel (in the normal sense of the word) allied to an application for an interim injunction. All Cabinet Members were invited to the briefing meeting, together with the Director of Planning, the Chief Executive and the Deputy Chief Executive, and other relevant Officers of the Council.

At the briefing meeting I outlined to the Leader, other Cabinet Members and the Director of Planning the content of Counsel’s Opinion and planning enforcement powers available to the Council, including issue of an enforcement notice, service of a Stop Notice, a temporary Stop Notice, a Breach of Condition Notice, and an application to the Court for an injunction, and why having regard to these in Counsel’s Opinion, with which both Ms Sayers and I agreed, an application for an injunction was the only effective candidate for promptly alleviating the situation in which the Council found itself in. I outlined to Members the statutory framework applicable to an application for an injunction under Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act (‘the Act’), and that while an injunction under this provision can be in mandatory terms, the granting of an injunction by the Court is discretionary, and the consequences of delay. In doing so I informed Cabinet Members that the power to exercise the discretion must be exercised judicially and referred to recent case law on the use of Section 187B of the Act in situations similar to that the Council was currently experiencing. The Director of Planning confirmed he agreed with the position as outlined to Cabinet Members.

I made it clear to all present that so far as the Bell Hotel went, notwithstanding there may be a breach of planning control, whether or not an interim injunction would be granted would depend on a number of facts, and summarised the applicable principles. I explained that the Court would need to be satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried and that if so whether instead an adequate compensation would be damages, and that it was considered the answer to this was “no”, given the extremity of the situation, it was considered by Ms Sayers and myself that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Council.

I outlined the position regarding costs, stressing the point that if the Council were to be unsuccessful in an application to the High Court for an injunction, the “norm” was that Costs followed the event and thus it was likely that in the case of an unsuccessful application the Council would need to pay not only its own costs, but also those of Somani.

There then followed a discussion with and among Cabinet Members. This lasted for approximately 30 minutes. In the course of that discussion, Cabinet Members shared accounts of what their constituents had been reporting to them as regards the community and amenity impact of the latest placement of asylum-seekers was having upon them: this included residents, businesses, and parents. The overriding concern of Cabinet Members mirrored those expressed in the Notice of Motion approved by the Council [on 24 July 2025], that because of the impact the current use of the Bell Hotel was having on residential and public amenity, immediate action should be taken to bring about the ceasing of the use of the Bell Hotel for the accommodation of asylum seekers. At the end of the discussion Cabinet Members were asked to indicate whether or not, given recent events and the ongoing impact on the various facets of public amenity, they were in support that immediate action should be taken by way of an application for an interim injunction. Without dissent all Cabinet Members and the Director of Planning were supportive of an immediate application for an interim injunction.

Following the briefing meeting I spoke with Ms Sayers that evening and relayed a detailed account of the discussion at the Cabinet briefing meeting and my outline to Cabinet Members. I indicated to Ms Sayers that there was unanimous agreement by Cabinet Members at the meeting in support of immediate injunctive action”.

I was told that those attending that briefing meeting were the Leader, Councillors Holly Whitbread, Balcombe, Bedford, Williamson, Matthews, Patel and Rizvi, all of whom were members of Cabinet. Councillor Williamson holds the ‘shaping our district’ portfolio, which includes local plan and planning policy. Amongst officers attending were the Director of Planning and Mr Stubbs. The Cabinet member with portfolio responsibility for community safety services and regulatory services, including development control and planning enforcement, Councillor Keska, did not attend the briefing meeting.

Ms Sayers gave evidence as to the action she took after she had been notified by Ms Beardwell of the discussion and outcome of the briefing meeting –

“I was not present at the meeting, but shortly after the meeting the Monitoring Officer (Barbara Beardwell), who did attend the meeting, telephoned me and gave me a detailed account of what took place. In brief summary, she reported to me that the Leader, other Cabinet members and the Director of Planning had attended the meeting. The Monitoring Officer had outlined the contents of leading counsel’s advice and the risks involved (including costs implications) and had fielded questions. At the end of the meeting the attendees were unanimous in their support for immediate injunctive action. Based on what I was told, I was satisfied that those attending had been properly appraised of the matter and had had a proper opportunity to pose questions and have them answered.

With all that, I took the decision available to me under delegated authority at Part 3 – Scheme of Delegation- Appendix 3 – Delegation to Officers from Full Council - Legal Services Manager at para 8 to proceed to instigate an application for injunctive action under Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

The Monitoring Officer confirmed with leading counsel the instruction to proceed for and on my behalf as Legal Services Manager. Thereafter, I instructed Sharpe Pritchard LLP to represent [the Claimant] in so far as the Court process went.

In considering whether the decision to institute proceedings for an injunction and declaration, including the application for an interim injunction and interim declaration, were within the scope of the powers that the Council delegated to me, I bore in mind inter alia:

(a)

The general expectation that there should be public participation in planning decisions, including participation by those who are, or are going to be, affected by those decisions;

(b)

The duty on the Council to enforce the planning regime;

(c)

What members of the Council knew and understood of the circumstances behind what was being proposed (including adverse considerations);

(d)

The extent and nature of the representations to Council planning officers, both by Somani and the Home Office, and the planning department’s view that planning permission was required;

(e)

The latest developments at and in the vicinity of the Bell Hotel site; and

(f)

The legal advice that the Council had received”.