On August 12, 2025, a fresh chapter unfolded in Epping, Essex, as the Epping Forest District Council lodged an urgent application with the High Court in London. Their aim? To secure an interim injunction that would halt the use of the Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers—a move that has sparked fierce debate and placed the small market town at the heart of a national controversy over immigration, community safety, and government responsibility.
The council’s decision comes after months of mounting unrest. According to BBC News, hundreds of residents have staged protests outside the Bell Hotel since July, expressing their opposition to its transformation into a temporary refuge for migrants. These demonstrations, at times heated and disruptive, have led to 28 arrests related to disorder, with 16 individuals charged. Police officers have reported assaults and damage to their vehicles during the protests, underscoring the tension that has gripped the town.
At the core of the council’s legal argument is the claim that using the Bell Hotel for asylum accommodation is not “akin to a hotel” and therefore violates local planning rules. As stated in documents submitted to the High Court, the council is seeking a declaration to this effect, hoping to force the closure of the facility to asylum seekers within 14 days if the injunction is granted. The council’s Conservative leader, Chris Whitbread, did not mince words: “The current situation cannot go on. If the Bell Hotel was a nightclub we could have closed it down long ago,” he said, as reported by BBC News and echoed by regional outlets.
Whitbread’s concerns are not merely about planning permissions. He points to what he describes as “unprecedented levels of protest and disruption” since the Home Office began placing asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel. “We are frustrated that the Home Office continues not to listen,” he told reporters. “We should not have to take this fight to the High Court, but we are left with no choice. It is now up to the judge.”
One of the most contentious issues fueling local anxiety is the council’s claim that there is no criminal record checking for individuals housed at the hotel—some of whom, they say, may have been in the country for only a matter of days. “There are five schools and a residential care home within the vicinity of the hotel,” Whitbread emphasized. “The use by the Home Office of the premises for asylum seekers poses a clear risk of further escalating community tensions already at a high, and the risk of irreparable harm to the local community. This will only increase with the start of the new school year.”
These fears have been exacerbated by a high-profile criminal case. As reported by BBC News and other outlets, Hadush Kebatu (also identified as Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu in some records), an Ethiopian national and resident at the Bell Hotel, was arrested and charged with sexual assault, harassment, and inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity. Kebatu, who is in custody, denies the allegations and is due to stand trial this month. The incident has been cited by both the council and protestors as evidence of the risks they believe are posed by the current arrangement.
But the story is not just one of protest and opposition. Counter-demonstrators from the group Stand Up To Racism have also been present outside the Bell Hotel, advocating for the rights and dignity of asylum seekers. Meanwhile, the refugee charity Care4Calais has reported that some asylum seekers housed at the hotel are now too frightened to go outside, fearing for their safety amid the ongoing unrest. The charity’s involvement highlights the human toll of the dispute—one that often gets lost amid the legal wrangling and political rhetoric.
The political dimension of the crisis came into sharper focus when Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, visited Epping on August 11. After speaking with local residents, Badenoch painted a stark picture of the community’s mood: “The people who I spoke to are having a lot of concerns about safety. Mothers told me that they’re worried about their daughters going to school. They’re getting harassed. They stopped jogging in the park because there are men lurking in bushes. Communities shouldn’t have to be paying for this. And what I saw in Epping really, really upset me. I can see why many of those people are protesting.” Her remarks, widely reported, have added fuel to an already combustible situation.
The council’s legal move is not an isolated act of defiance. In July 2025, Epping Forest councillors voted unanimously to urge the government to “immediately and permanently close” the Bell Hotel as an asylum processing center. They also called for the phased closure of another site, the Phoenix Hotel in North Weald. Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner Roger Hirst has joined the chorus, urging the Home Secretary to review the use of the Bell Hotel for asylum seekers. Despite these appeals, the council says it has received no substantive response from the Home Office.
The Home Office, for its part, has remained tight-lipped, stating only: “It would be inappropriate to comment while legal proceedings are ongoing.” However, the department has pointed to broader efforts to reduce reliance on hotels for asylum accommodation. The number of such hotels has been cut from 400 in the summer of 2023 to 210 as of August 2025, according to official figures.
Behind the legal and political maneuvering lies a deeper debate about national policy, local control, and the responsibilities owed to both host communities and those seeking refuge. For some residents and leaders in Epping, the presence of asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel is seen as a breach of planning rules and a threat to public safety—one that has already strained local police resources and inflamed community tensions. For others, the protests and the council’s legal action risk stigmatizing vulnerable people and undermining the UK’s obligations under international law.
As the High Court prepares to consider the council’s injunction, the stakes could hardly be higher. The outcome will not only determine the immediate future of the Bell Hotel but may also set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled elsewhere in the country. For now, Epping finds itself at the crossroads of a national debate, with the eyes of policymakers, activists, and citizens alike fixed firmly on the outcome.
However the judge rules, the events in Epping have already left a mark—on the town, its residents, and the asylum seekers whose lives have become entangled in a battle over law, safety, and the meaning of community.