The quiet market town of Epping, Essex, has found itself thrust into the national spotlight, as legal battles, political arguments, and public protests swirl around the continued use of The Bell Hotel to house asylum seekers. On September 2, 2025, the Court of Appeal refused Epping Forest District Council’s application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, effectively upholding a previous ruling that allows asylum seekers to remain at the hotel. The move has deepened divisions within the community and left council leaders vowing to fight on, even as calls for calm grow louder.
The controversy began in mid-July 2025 when The Bell Hotel became the epicenter of protests and counter-protests. The catalyst: an asylum seeker residing at the hotel, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, was charged with multiple offences, including the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. Kebatu, 38, denies all charges, which include two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity, and one count of harassment without violence. His trial began in late August and is expected to conclude soon, according to Sky News.
In the wake of the charges, Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) sought to block the continued housing of asylum seekers at the hotel. The council initially secured a temporary High Court injunction that would have forced the removal of 138 asylum seekers by September 12. However, this legal victory was short-lived. The Home Office and the hotel’s owners, Somani Hotels, successfully challenged the injunction at the Court of Appeal, which overturned the order in late August. The council’s subsequent application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused, with the Court of Appeal providing "no reasons" for its decision, as reported by BBC News and confirmed in an EFDC statement.
Chris Whitbread, the Conservative leader of Epping Forest District Council, has been vocal in his criticism of the Court of Appeal’s decision. “We believe the Court of Appeal decision to overturn the interim injunction for the closure of The Bell Hotel was wrong,” Whitbread stated, as quoted by multiple outlets including BBC News and Sky News. He continued, “The Court of Appeal judges appear to have placed the Secretary of State’s duties towards asylum seekers above those of the council to uphold the planning system. It is the planning system that provides an orderly forum for local concerns about the use of land to be debated, decided and enforced, consistently with published policies. Overriding that system by forcing the council to accommodate the Secretary of State’s ‘wider interests’ weakens that system, and only serves to encourage disorderly means of expression.”
Despite this setback, Whitbread insists the fight is not over. “This is not the end of the matter. We consider we have a strong case for a final injunction. The final injunction hearing is expected to be heard some time in early October. In the meantime, the council is keeping all our options open, including seeking permission from the Supreme Court to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.” The council maintains that the use of The Bell Hotel for housing asylum seekers is in breach of planning control and is not in the best interests of local residents, workers, or visitors.
The legal wrangling has been matched by tensions on the ground. Protests and counter-protests outside The Bell Hotel have become a regular feature since Kebatu was charged, with emotions running high on all sides. Some residents support the council’s efforts to close the hotel to asylum seekers, while others urge compassion and adherence to due process. Whitbread acknowledged the diversity of opinion, saying, “As I walk through Epping, people talk to me. There are all shades of opinion, but I sense most residents support our action to close the Bell Hotel. However, I also get a sense that they are tired and need some respite from the disturbances that have taken place in the last few weeks.”
The demonstrations have not been without consequence. On September 2, Essex Police charged Sarah White, 40, of Chigwell, and Scott Davey, 32, of Nazeing, with breaching a Section 14 order that restricted where protesters could assemble. In addition, a 22-year-old man from Epping was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage, linked to an incident where a banner was allegedly set alight. Earlier in the summer, Martin Peagram pleaded guilty to violent disorder after a protest at the hotel on July 17, and was warned by Judge Jamie Sawyer that an immediate prison sentence was likely, as reported by Sky News.
With the start of the school term, Whitbread has appealed to protest organizers and participants to act with restraint and consideration. “If you choose to continue, it should be done considerately and calmly, with awareness of the impact on local residents and the local economy. The people of Epping are under great strain. As schools return this week, I appeal to the protest organisers to show restraint and give our families and children some much-needed respite,” Whitbread urged, echoing sentiments reported by BBC News and ITV News.
The Home Office, for its part, has defended its actions, arguing that the placement of asylum seekers at The Bell Hotel is in line with national obligations and the pressing need to accommodate individuals awaiting decisions on their asylum claims. Somani Hotels, the property owner, has maintained that it has acted within the law, a position ultimately backed by the Court of Appeal’s ruling.
As the legal and social drama continues, Epping Forest District Council has not ruled out a direct application to the Supreme Court, the UK’s highest court of appeal. The council is also preparing for a full High Court hearing in early October, where it will seek a permanent injunction to prevent the hotel’s continued use for housing asylum seekers. The outcome of that hearing could have significant implications not just for Epping, but for councils across the country grappling with similar issues of housing, planning, and public sentiment.
The situation in Epping is emblematic of broader national debates about asylum policy, the limits of local authority, and the challenges of balancing humanitarian responsibilities with community concerns. For now, the town remains on edge, awaiting the next chapter in a saga that has tested the resilience of both its institutions and its people.
