Balancing Public Interest and Planning Control – Accommodation of Asylum Seekers – Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd
- gintaresaladziute
- 25 minutes ago
- 5 min read
Introduction
The accommodation of asylum seekers continues to raise challenges for both those working to fulfil the need for such accommodation and local authorities. In this article, we examine the recent judgment of Mr. Justice Mould in the case of Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd EWHC 2937 (KB), delivered on 13–15 October 2025. The case involved the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, as accommodation for asylum seekers, and the refusal of the High Court to grant a final injunction under Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990) to prevent this use. We consider the legal issues raised in the judgment, including the application of Section 187B, the criteria for granting injunctions, the role of proportionality and public interest, the consideration of broader societal impacts, and the intervention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD).
Statement of Facts
The case concerned the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, as accommodation for asylum seekers. Epping Forest District Council sought a final injunction under Section 187B of the TCPA 1990 to prevent the use of the hotel for this purpose, alleging a breach of planning control. The High Court refused to grant the injunction, finding that enforcement through Section 187B was neither just nor proportionate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the public interest in maintaining asylum accommodation and the importance of fulfilling statutory duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prevent destitution among asylum seekers. The SSHD sought to intervene in the proceedings but was initially denied intervener status by the High Court. This decision was later overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Law
Section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: This provision allows LPAs to apply for an injunction to restrain an actual or apprehended breach of planning control where it is deemed ‘necessary or expedient’. The court has discretion to grant such an injunction if it deems it appropriate for restraining the breach. However, LPAs are expected to consider conventional enforcement measures before seeking injunctive relief, as failure to do so may influence the court’s decision.
Criteria for Granting Injunctions: In Hillingdon LBC v Guinea Enterprises Ltd, the court outlined three key considerations for granting an injunction under Section 187B:
Whether there is an actual or apprehended breach of planning control;
Whether it is necessary or expedient to restrain such a breach by means of an injunction; and
Which defendants (if any) are the proper persons to be restrained.
Proportionality and Public Interest: The court must weigh the balance of convenience and assess whether the harm caused by the alleged breach of planning control is outweighed by the public interest. Injunctive relief under Section 187B should only be granted when it is necessary and proportionate.
Broader Societal Impacts: The court must consider the broader societal impacts of planning enforcement actions, including statutory duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which aim to prevent destitution among asylum seekers.
Intervention by the SSHD: Under CPR 19.2(2), the court may grant permission for a party to intervene in proceedings if it is desirable to do so to resolve the issues in dispute. The Court of Appeal held that the Secretary of state for the Home Department (“SSHD”) had a pivotal constitutional role and could materially contribute to the judicial decision-making process through evidence and legal argument.
Analysis
The judgment in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd provides significant guidance on the application of Section 187B of the TCPA 1990. The court’s refusal to grant the injunction was based on the principle that injunctive relief should only be granted when it is necessary and proportionate. While the court indicated that the council may have had a reasonable basis to allege a breach of planning control (whilst being critical of the exercise of delegated powers), the court found that the public interest in maintaining asylum accommodation outweighed the planning harm alleged. This aligns with the principle that LPAs should exhaust conventional enforcement measures before seeking injunctive relief.
The court’s decision also reflects the criteria established in Hillingdon LBC v Guinea Enterprises Ltd, particularly the need to assess whether an injunction is necessary or expedient to restrain the breach of planning control. In this case, the court determined that the balance of convenience did not favour granting the injunction, as the harm caused by the alleged breach was outweighed by the significant public interest in providing accommodation for asylum seekers.
The judgment further underscores the importance of considering broader societal impacts in planning enforcement actions. The Bell Hotel’s use as asylum accommodation was deemed critical to fulfilling statutory duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which include preventing destitution among asylum seekers. This public interest consideration was pivotal in the court’s decision to refuse the injunction.
Finally, the intervention of the SSHD in the proceedings highlights the importance of ensuring that all relevant parties are given the opportunity to contribute to the judicial decision-making process. The Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the High Court’s refusal to grant intervener status to the SSHD demonstrates the necessity of considering the constitutional role and potential contributions of intervening parties in cases with significant public interest implications.
Conclusion
The judgment in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd provides a clear precedent for the application of Section 187B of the TCPA 1990, emphasising the importance of proportionality, public interest, and the exhaustion of conventional enforcement measures before seeking injunctive relief. The case also highlights the need to consider broader societal impacts and statutory duties in planning enforcement actions which had not been done in this case. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal’s decision regarding the SSHD’s intervention underscores the importance of allowing relevant parties to contribute to the resolution of disputes with significant public interest implications. This judgment serves as a reminder to LPAs to adopt a balanced approach to enforcement and to carefully consider the necessity and proportionality of seeking injunctive relief in planning control cases.
As a legal professional with extensive experience in housing law, planning regulations, and the accommodation of asylum seekers, Ifath regularly advises clients on these complex and evolving areas. If you are facing challenges or have questions related to housing, planning, or asylum seeker accommodation, please contact us for expert guidance and tailored legal advice.
Ifath Nawaz (Partner)
E: ifath.nawaz@djblaw.co.uk
ABOUT DAVITT JONES BOULD:
Davitt Jones Bould is a national law firm that specialises entirely in real estate. The firm has offices in London, Manchester, and Birmingham ensuring truly national coverage.
The firm is renowned for its high quality legal work and service.
We only recruit experienced lawyers with excellent calibre. As a result, our legal team of around 70 lawyers have an average post-qualification experience that exceeds 25 years. Most have joined us from other City firms, in-house departments and/or senior roles. Our lawyers have advised some of the UK’s most significant land owners including Barclays Bank, HSBC, Credit Suisse, Rolls Royce, The Royal Parks, The Cabinet Office and The Crown Estate. This focus on quality only has led to a 50% male and female Partner rate.
All of our clients are provided with a dedicated client care professional at no extra charge, which ensures that they receive the highest standard of service at all times.
Davitt Jones Bould is regularly selected to advise on high profile projects such as the hosting of the London 2012 Olympic Games by The Royal Parks and the first Sukuk Bond to be entered into by a Western Government on behalf of HM Treasury. Based in London at The Shard and also Manchester, Birmingham and Taunton, we have a national presence.
The firm enjoys top tier rankings in all of the main directories, as well as receiving many awards.
