Tory Councillors Launch Bid To Close Down Cheshire Asylum Hotel After Epping Ruling
4 min read
Tories in Cheshire are pushing to remove asylum seekers from a local hotel after a High Court injunction blocked an Essex hotel from housing them there.
Conservatives there are urging a council to look again at whether it is legal for a local hotel to continue housing migrants "in light of" the Epping decision, in a letter seen by PoliticsHome.
On Tuesday, Epping Forest District Council was granted a High Court injunction to stop migrants from being housed at the Bell Hotel, which is owned by Somani Hotels Limited.
The ruling came after weeks of protests outside the hotel after an asylum seeker living there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
Holly Whitbread, a Conservative councillor in Epping Forest, wrote in The House late last month that the council's opposition to the Bell Hotel being used by the Home Office to house asylum seekers was "rooted in long-standing and genuine concerns about the impact on our town, our public services, and the safety of local people".
She added that local concerns were being hijacked by extremists, like an individual accused of having links to the white nationalist party Patriotic Alternative.
A judge ruled yesterday that it was against the law to continue housing migrants at the hotel, despite a late intervention from the Home Office, because its owners had breached local planning rules. As a result, asylum seekers are set to be removed from the hotel on 12 September.
The injunction has led to warnings that the government could face much wider disruption if other councils pursue legal action following the Epping ruling.
Around 32,000 asylum seekers are being accommodated in 210 hotels nationwide, according to the BBC. They are housed there while awaiting a Home Office decision on their asylum claim.
If more councils launch successful legal challenges, the government may face having to relocate large numbers of asylum seekers.
Conservative councillors in Altrincham are urging Labour-run Trafford Council to use the same legal mechanism used in Epping.
In a letter sent to Trafford Council, local Tories argued that failure to act would be "seen as disregarding both legal precedent and the will of local residents".
"It is a matter of record that the hotel has not applied for, nor been granted, planning permission for a change of use. The question of whether this use constitutes a material change is ultimately a legal matter, but recent case law is highly relevant."
The letter added: "We therefore urge Trafford Council to review its current position in light of the High Court’s judgment.
"Specifically, we ask that the Council takes steps to... reassess whether the Cresta Court’s current use constitutes a material change of use under planning law."
Residents in Altrincham were told about migrants staying at the Cresta Court hotel in October 2024, triggering protests and counter-protests. Up to 300 asylum seekers have been living at the hotel since October.
Nathan Evans, a Conservative councillor in Cheshire, told PoliticsHome: “We are going to be asking the council to explore what route they are going to take on behalf of the residents.
“The only difference between Altrincham and Epping is that there haven’t been serious attacks; that’s the only difference.
“We are near schools. We are near care homes. We are a charter town of historic importance.
“So, we are all the things that Epping is. Do we have to wait for an attack for us to qualify making legal action? That's a farcical position."
A spokesperson for Trafford Council said: “We are aware of the High Court ruling concerning Epping Council and are now awaiting the final details of the judgement before we make any decisions.”
On Tuesday, the Local Government Association, which represents councils across England and Wales, said it was "taking stock" of the Epping ruling and "convening meetings with the Home Office, MHCLG and other partners, including the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to understand how best to support our councils following the decision".
LGA Chair Councillor Louise Gittins said: "It will, of course, be for individual councils to determine what this ruling means for them.
"We know that asylum and resettlement is linked to wider issues such as housing pressures and community cohesion and that the spread of misinformation remains a concern. Councils are working to help keep communities united during this period.
“In the meantime, we continue to stress to government that the Home Office must work much more closely with councils regarding asylum accommodation decisions and on improving the current asylum system in the long-term. Councils understand their places and communities best and the Home Office should be drawing on this experience in any locating decisions and through the existing engagement around asylum and resettlement that the LGA facilitates.”
