A High Court judgment delivered on 11 November 2025 has cleared the way for the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, to continue operating as contingency accommodation for asylum seekers. Mr Justice Mould dismissed Epping Forest District Council’s bid for a permanent injunction, ruling that—while planning permission issues exist—the public-order risks of an abrupt closure outweigh local planning concerns. The decision means the Home Office can keep using the 120-bed property, one of roughly 200 hotels supporting Britain’s oversubscribed asylum estate, until alternative large-scale sites such as disused military bases are fully operational.
The case has been watched closely by local authorities nationwide. Councils argue that hotels create policing costs, depress tourism revenue and inflame community tensions; several have filed similar actions. Had the injunction succeeded, it could have set a precedent forcing the Home Office to find emergency accommodation for more than 45,000 people currently in hotels—an outcome officials warned would be “chaotic and costly.”
![High Court allows Epping hotel to keep housing asylum seekers, averting immediate relocations]()
For corporate mobility managers the ruling offers short-term certainty. Employees awaiting asylum decisions or humanitarian relocation can remain near London without disruption, and supply-chain partners that service hotel contracts avoid sudden terminations. However, the judgment also signals that planning disputes will continue to simmer; Justice Mould emphasised that the Bell is still in technical breach and the council may revert to slower enforcement notices.
Practically, firms operating in Essex should expect periodic demonstrations around the site, heightened police presence and potential reputational questions from staff. Relocation providers should monitor local sentiment and ensure transport routes bypass protest flashpoints. Strategically, the ruling underscores the Home Office’s reliance on temporary hotel stock well into 2026, postponing a full switch to large-scale accommodation centres.
Looking ahead, the government’s stated goal remains to close all asylum hotels, but today’s verdict demonstrates the legal and logistical hurdles. Companies with duty-of-care responsibilities for relocated staff or dependants should build contingency budgets for prolonged hotel usage and keep abreast of planning appeals that could still trigger sudden moves.
The case has been watched closely by local authorities nationwide. Councils argue that hotels create policing costs, depress tourism revenue and inflame community tensions; several have filed similar actions. Had the injunction succeeded, it could have set a precedent forcing the Home Office to find emergency accommodation for more than 45,000 people currently in hotels—an outcome officials warned would be “chaotic and costly.”
For corporate mobility managers the ruling offers short-term certainty. Employees awaiting asylum decisions or humanitarian relocation can remain near London without disruption, and supply-chain partners that service hotel contracts avoid sudden terminations. However, the judgment also signals that planning disputes will continue to simmer; Justice Mould emphasised that the Bell is still in technical breach and the council may revert to slower enforcement notices.
Practically, firms operating in Essex should expect periodic demonstrations around the site, heightened police presence and potential reputational questions from staff. Relocation providers should monitor local sentiment and ensure transport routes bypass protest flashpoints. Strategically, the ruling underscores the Home Office’s reliance on temporary hotel stock well into 2026, postponing a full switch to large-scale accommodation centres.
Looking ahead, the government’s stated goal remains to close all asylum hotels, but today’s verdict demonstrates the legal and logistical hurdles. Companies with duty-of-care responsibilities for relocated staff or dependants should build contingency budgets for prolonged hotel usage and keep abreast of planning appeals that could still trigger sudden moves.
