Labour’s Asylum Policy in Disarray as Court Orders Closure of Migrant Hotel

Published: 20th August 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Britain’s asylum accommodation strategy has been thrown into chaos after a High Court ruling ordered the closure of a migrant hotel in Essex, fuelling political confrontation, community unrest, and questions over the Government’s ability to manage record Channel crossings. The ruling, centred on the Bell Hotel in Epping, has not only placed hundreds of asylum seekers in limbo but has also emboldened local councils and political figures calling for similar legal action across the country.

The case was brought by Epping Forest district council, which argued that the conversion of the Bell Hotel into a migrant centre constituted a “clear breach of planning permission” because it was no longer operating as a commercial hotel. The High Court sided with the council, granting a temporary injunction and ordering that all asylum seekers must leave the premises by 12 September. The decision has been described by local leaders as a “test case” that could inspire further legal challenges to asylum hotels nationwide.

The Home Office, which attempted unsuccessfully to intervene at the last moment, warned that the ruling risked establishing a dangerous precedent. Its lawyers argued that the closure would “substantially interfere” with the Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers under the Human Rights Act, potentially breaching their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. Despite these objections, the court rejected the Government’s position, citing protests, disruption to residents, and planning law breaches as justification for temporary relief.

The ruling comes amid heightened political tension. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, seized on the judgment to call for nationwide demonstrations outside migrant hotels, urging councils under his party’s control to mount legal challenges of their own. He declared that Epping had shown how “peaceful protests” and pressure on councils could drive migrants out of hotels and force the Government to change course. Several Conservative leaders echoed similar sentiments, with shadow home secretary Chris Philp predicting that “many other councils will now take legal action,” potentially leaving Labour’s asylum accommodation policy in “disarray.

Already, Conservative-run Broxbourne borough council has announced it is seeking legal advice on closing its own asylum hotel, while other local authorities are understood to be considering similar steps. At least 200 hotels across Britain are currently being used to house asylum seekers, a number that has remained largely unchanged despite Labour’s pledge to reduce reliance on temporary accommodation. The Home Office has been under pressure since record Channel crossings reached 28,000 this year, placing further strain on an already overstretched system.

The Bell Hotel has been at the centre of controversy for months. It was first opened to migrants in 2020 under a Conservative government before being closed last year by then-immigration minister Robert Jenrick. Labour reopened the hotel after the general election, citing urgent accommodation needs. Protests intensified last month after Hadush Kebatu, a 41-year-old Ethiopian asylum seeker staying at the hotel, was charged with a series of sexual offences, including against a 14-year-old girl—allegations he denies. The case inflamed local tensions and fuelled opposition to the site’s use, leading to violent protests and further legal scrutiny.

In response to the ruling, Angela Eagle, the border security minister, reiterated Labour’s commitment to phasing out asylum hotels entirely by the end of this Parliament, saying the Government had inherited a “broken asylum system” with more than 400 hotels in use at its peak. She insisted ministers were working with councils and communities to address “legitimate concerns” but declined to comment further due to ongoing proceedings. Labour sources, however, accused Tory and Reform politicians of “fanning the flames” of protest for political ends, pointing out that Epping council had not challenged the hotel’s use under a Conservative government.

The Home Office maintains that the Bell Hotel is “an appropriate site” for accommodating asylum seekers and argued that one alleged criminal case cannot justify collective punishment or eviction. Officials warned that the decision could undermine their ability to meet legal obligations and destabilise accommodation arrangements nationwide. Somani Hotels, the owners of the Bell, are considering an appeal to overturn the injunction, which could delay the eviction process. A full judicial review is scheduled for the autumn, keeping uncertainty hanging over both the residents and the Government’s wider asylum strategy.

Meanwhile, protests are expected to escalate over the bank holiday weekend, with demonstrations planned in Wakefield, Gloucester, Stevenage, Newcastle, and Bristol. Authorities are bracing for potential clashes between anti-immigration groups and counter-protesters. Council leaders across the country are now reviewing planning laws to determine whether similar challenges can be mounted against other asylum hotels, suggesting that the Epping case may become a blueprint for future action.

At the heart of the dispute lies a broader struggle over how Britain balances its legal obligations to asylum seekers with community concerns, political pressures, and the practical challenges of housing tens of thousands of new arrivals each year. The Epping judgment underscores how deeply contested—and politically combustible—the issue has become, raising the prospect of further unrest, litigation, and policy upheaval in the months ahead.