A controversial migrant hotel in Epping will now remain open after the Government won an appeal against an injunction preventing it from housing asylum seekers. 

The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, today successfully overturned a High Court ruling ordering them to remove all 138 residents by next month due to a breach of planning rules.

This morning, a minister had argued the closure of asylum hotels could lead to migrants ‘living destitute in the streets’. But the decision will enrage anti-immigration activists, who staged the latest furious protest outside the Bell Hotel last night. 

Last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted an interim injunction to Epping Forest Council, stopping Somani Hotels – the venue’s owner – from using the building to accommodate asylum seekers beyond September 12.

Other councils, including Labour-run authorities, subsequently announced their intention to seek legal advice over whether they could achieve similar injunctions for hotels in their areas. 

Giving a summary of their ruling, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, criticised Mr Justice Eyre’s decision. 

‘We conclude that the judge made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision,’ he said. 

He continued: ‘The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.’

He added that such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take similar steps as Epping Forest District Council.

He said: ‘The potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.’

The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, today successfully overturned a High Court ruling ordering them to remove all 138 residents

There were fresh protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping last night prior to today’s ruling  

Lord Justice Bean reading out his judgment this afternoon 

At a hearing yesterday, lawyers argued the High Court judge was ‘wrong’ not to let Home Secretary Yvette Cooper challenge the district council’s application. 

The hearing sparked fresh protests, with crowds blocking the road outside the hotel while chanting ‘send them back’ and ‘go home’.

Speaking before the verdict, Health minister Stephen Kinnock claimed a wave of hotel closures sparked by the original High Court ruling could have led to many of their residents becoming homeless. 

‘It’s not a question of if we close the hotels, it’s a question of when and how we close the hotels, and what we don’t want to have is a disorderly discharge from every hotel in the country, which would actually have far worse consequences than what we currently have, in terms of the impact that would have on asylum seekers potentially living destitute in the streets,’ he told Sky News. 

‘And I don’t think any one of the communities that are campaigning on these hotels issue want to see that.

‘So what we are doing is looking to appeal this injunction simply because we’re taking a pragmatic approach to how we want to manage the process, not because we believe that the hotel … per se should stay open.’

Essex Police said there was a peaceful demonstration outside the hotel from around 5pm yesterday, with a group marching to a local school before a section returned to the original protest site.

An order was in place giving officers the power to direct people to remove face coverings or face arrest, while there was also a designated area for the protest.

‘A small section of the group which had returned to the designated site walked out of the area. Officers engaged with them and directed them to return to the designated protest area which they did shortly after,’ the force said.

‘The protest activity had concluded by around 8.30pm.’

Essex Police denied claims protesters tried to ‘storm the hotel’, saying this did not accurately reflect what took place.

Today’s decision was made by the Court of Appeal (pictured)  

Protesters march towards The Bell Hotel this evening, waving England flags and Union Jacks

Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction last week after the authority claimed Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Yesterday, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, argued the hotel was part of ‘critical national infrastructure’ and that providing accommodation to asylum seekers is in the ‘national interest’.

He told the court: ‘There is a national interest in ensuring vulnerable individuals, namely asylum seekers, are accommodated.’

Lawyers for the Home Secretary also warned the ruling could prompt further anti-immigration protests. In written submissions, they suggested it ‘runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests’.

Mr Brown KC said the judge ‘erred’ in ruling the case was simply one of a planning dispute and asked for the Court of Appeal to discharge the interim injunction previously made in the Bell Hotel case.

He told the court: ‘The judge erred in declining to allow the Secretary of State to participate in the proceedings, given her unique institutional competence and her statutory duty… Her rights were clearly affected and she ought to have been heard in the application.’

Mr Brown KC also said in written submissions that at the time of the High Court hearing on August 15, there were 138 asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel, lower than its total capacity of 152.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had appealed against the High Court ruling ordering the Bell Hotel to be closed 

In written submissions for yesterday’s hearing, he said ending the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers ‘requires a structured response’.

Individual injunction bids ‘ignore the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity then needs to be identified elsewhere,’ he added.

He also hit out at councils for using the guise of planning concerns ‘as a means of appeasing local political unrest regarding asylum accommodation’.

He said: ‘This injunction essentially incentivises other authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation to move urgently to court before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted. That creates a chaotic and disorderly approach.’

The Bell Hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.

Another man who was living at the site, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.

The hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021; from October 2022 to April 2024; and since April 2025.

Single males were also housed at the hotel between October 2022 and April 2024 but this year marked the first time the council had taken enforcement action, when it issued legal proceedings earlier this month.