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

Evidence in support of the claim in the form of signed witness statements was given by the following persons –

Evidence on behalf of the Defendant, in the form of signed witness statements was given by –

Evidence on behalf of the Home Secretary, in the form of signed witness statements was given by –

Evidence on behalf of CRHL, was given in the form of a signed witness statement by Steven Lakey, Managing Director of the company.

I heard cross-examination of Ms Thompson, Ms Beardwell, Ms Sayers and Mr Stubbs on their witness statements. The Claimant’s other witnesses were not required for cross-examination. Of the Defendant’s witnesses, I heard cross-examination of Mr Salmon and Ms Hutchinson-Chambers on their statements. Ms Foster was not required for cross-examination. Neither Ms Ferdenzi nor Ms Jones was required for cross-examination on their written evidence. I heard cross-examination of Mr Lakey on his witness statement.

Both the Claimant and the Defendant were given permission to file and serve evidence of a planning expert. On behalf of the Defendant, Mr Iain Warner BSc (Hons) of Tetlow King Planning Limited gave evidence in a witness statement signed on 26 September 2025. Mr Warner holds a Diploma in Town Planning and is a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. He said that he had been approached by the Defendant to give his professional view on whether there has been a material change of use in relation to the day-to-day operations of the Bell. Mr Warner signed the requisite expert declaration. I note that in paragraph 66 of his witness statement, he characterised his witness statement as being made “in support of the defence by the Defendant to the Claimant’s assertion relating to whether or not there has been a material change of use from hotel to a hostel”. He concluded that there had not been such a change, as a matter of fact and degree. Mr James Rogers, the Claimant’s Applications and Appeals Team Manager in the Development Management Team, gave evidence in a witness statement signed on 29 September 2025. Mr Rogers holds a Postgraduate Masters Degree in Urban and Regional Planning and is also a Chartered Member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Mr Rogers did not sign the requisite expert’s declaration, instead signing his statement as a witness of fact. Nevertheless, he offers his opinion on two matters: firstly, whether a material change of use has occurred; and secondly, whether he would recommend that the planning permission be granted or refused, were an application for planning permission now to be made for permission to use the Bell to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. On 6 October 2025, Mr Warner signed a second witness statement responding matters raised in Mr Rogers’ witness statement.

I indicated during the hearing of this claim that I did not consider that I would be assisted by hearing cross-examination of either Mr Warner or Mr Rogers. I read their respective witness statements with care and am grateful for their observations, particularly in identifying particulars aspects of the former and correct use of the Bell which may inform the question whether there has been a change made in its use and, if so, whether that change is material for planning purposes. Counsel for the Claimant and the Defendant were able to draw on those aspects in advancing their written and oral submissions. I gained rather less help from the discussion as to whether a future application for planning permission to retain the use of the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers would be successful.

At the hearing of this claim, the Claimant was represented by Mr Philip Coppel KC and Ms Natasha Peter. The Defendant was represented by Ms Jenny Wigley KC and Mr Piers Riley-Smith. The Home Secretary was represented by Mr James Strachan KC and Ms Katharine Elliot. CRHL was represented by Mr Chris Buttler KC and Ms Jacqueline Lean. I am grateful to them all for their very helpful written and oral submissions; and to those supporting them for their assistance to the court.