Across the United Kingdom, a new front has opened in the long-running debate over asylum seekers and the use of hotels for their accommodation. What was once a quietly simmering issue has erupted into a full-blown legal and political battle, with local councils, national parties, and protestors all vying for influence over how—and where—those seeking refuge should be housed.
The catalyst for this latest upheaval came on August 19, 2025, when Epping Forest District Council, a Conservative-led authority, secured an interim High Court injunction to halt the housing of migrants at The Bell Hotel, a property owned by Somani Hotels Limited. The council argued that the hotel’s owners had changed its use to accommodate asylum seekers without the necessary planning permission, sidestepping the usual public scrutiny and regulatory process. The High Court sided with the council, demanding the hotel be cleared within 14 days, though the deadline was later extended to September 12, 2025. According to The Guardian, this marked the first time a local authority had successfully used planning law to block the government’s placement of asylum seekers in a hotel.
This legal victory did not go unnoticed. Labour-run councils in Wirral and Tamworth quickly announced they were considering their own legal options, citing concerns about the impact of such hotels on their communities and the need to uphold planning regulations. Paula Basnett, Labour leader of Wirral Council, was unequivocal: "We are actively considering all options available to us to ensure that any use of hotels or other premises in Wirral is lawful and does not ride roughshod over planning regulations or the wishes of our communities. If necessary, we will not hesitate to challenge such decisions in order to protect both residents and those seeking refuge." Tamworth’s Carol Dean echoed these sentiments, adding that under the current Labour government, the number of hotels used for asylum seekers had already halved from 402 to 210, with a pledge to end the practice entirely by 2029.
But it wasn’t just Labour councils taking notice. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch seized on the Epping ruling, encouraging all Tory-controlled councils to follow suit. In a letter to party colleagues, Badenoch declared, "The Epping hotel injunction is a victory for local people led by a good Conservative council working hard for their community. This is the difference Conservatives in local government deliver. Real plans. Real action." Conservative-run Broxbourne Council and the Reform UK-led Kent County Council have both begun exploring their own legal avenues, with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage stating that all councils under his party’s control would "do everything in their power to follow Epping's lead."
The stakes are high. According to BBC News, the number of asylum seekers living in hotels has fluctuated sharply: from a peak of 56,042 in September 2023, the figure fell to 32,059 by June 2025—an 8% rise over the previous year, but still a 43% drop from the height of the crisis. The use of hotels as emergency accommodation for asylum seekers surged during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government’s capacity to house new arrivals in local authority or private housing was overwhelmed. Critics, including Labour spokespeople, point out that the previous Conservative government presided over the peak in hotel use, while the current administration has managed to halve the number of hotels in use and reduce the number of asylum seekers in such accommodation by 20,000 since the peak.
Yet the Epping case has exposed deep fissures in both local and national politics. The Home Office, which oversees the placement of asylum seekers, had argued that blocking the use of The Bell Hotel would have a "substantial impact" on its ability to fulfill legal duties. However, the High Court judge dismissed this argument, stating that the department’s involvement was "not necessary" and criticizing the hotel’s owners for sidestepping public scrutiny by not applying for planning permission. As a result, government ministers are now scrambling to develop contingency plans to move asylum seekers out of The Bell Hotel by the court-imposed deadline.
The ruling has also emboldened activists and protestors. Over the summer, demonstrations against migrant hotels have become a regular occurrence across the UK, with some devolving into violence. The Bell Hotel itself became a flashpoint after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, further fueling local anger and national debate. Police reported that what began as peaceful protests outside the hotel escalated, with officers pelted by eggs and fireworks and vehicles damaged.
For councils considering legal action, the Epping case sets a potentially significant precedent. As Tamworth’s Carol Dean put it, her authority is "carefully assessing" the implications, having previously decided against legal action. Broxbourne Council’s Conservative leader, Corina Gander, told BBC Newsnight, "We do not know who is in that hotel and it has brought an unease to the community." The leader of Reform UK-led West Northamptonshire Council added that his authority was "considering the implications of this judgment to understand any similarities and differences and actively looking at the options now available to us."
However, not all Labour councils are eager to join the legal fray. Newcastle and Brighton & Hove have ruled out court challenges, emphasizing their commitment to providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. As one Newcastle official told BBC News, "We want to provide sanctuary." This divergence underscores the complex balancing act facing local leaders, who must weigh community concerns, humanitarian obligations, and the practicalities of housing vulnerable people.
The government’s long-term plan is to phase out the use of hotels for asylum seekers entirely by 2029. In the meantime, ministers face the daunting task of finding alternative accommodation. Options include repurposing former military sites, flats, or house-shares—each fraught with its own set of political and logistical challenges. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp has called for the use of former military sites or barges instead of hotels, though such proposals have met resistance from both local communities and advocacy groups.
Behind the headlines, the roots of the current crisis stretch back years. The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels was just 1,200 in 2020, but ballooned as the government banned asylum seekers from working in 2003, making it legally responsible for their accommodation. The shift to privatized, short-term housing arrangements during the Cameron-Clegg coalition government’s austerity drive further eroded local authority control, leaving councils and ministers alike scrambling to respond as numbers surged.
Labour, now in government, has focused on enforcement and deterrence, aiming to cut small-boat crossings and speed up asylum decisions. Ministers tout progress: the backlog of asylum claims has fallen, processing rates are up by 116%, and new returns agreements have been signed with several countries. Yet the party’s emphasis on "taking back control" of the system has left it vulnerable to criticism from both the right—who demand tougher measures—and the left, who argue for a more compassionate approach.
As the September 12 deadline for The Bell Hotel looms, the government faces a race against time to relocate those affected and prevent further legal setbacks. The Epping ruling has already shifted the battleground from the streets to the courts, with planning law now a potent weapon in the fight over asylum policy. Whether this marks a turning point or simply the latest chapter in a protracted struggle remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the debate over asylum seeker accommodation in the UK is far from settled.
As councils, ministers, and communities grapple with the fallout, the question of where—and how—Britain should house those seeking refuge will continue to test the country’s politics, values, and capacity for compromise.
