The Court of Appeal recently delivered judgment in the high-profile case of Somani Hotels Limited -v-Epping Forest District Council (The Secretary of State for the Home Department intervening) [2025] and the EWHA Civ 1134, overturning a High Court ruling in Epping Forest District Council -v- Somani Hotels Ltd [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB). The case raises important questions about planning law and the use of hotels as accommodation for asylum seekers.
What defines a “hotel”?
Most readers will be familiar with the concept of a hotel and the facilities and services typically provided. Expectations may differ; for example, between a basic one-star hotel and a luxury five-star establishment – but the underlying concept of a hotel is generally well understood.
When hotels are used to provide emergency accommodation for asylum seekers, however, the situation is quite different. In the Epping case, the premises were used to house up to 138 asylum seekers. Rooms were often shared, occupants could not request upgrades, and whilst occupants could come and go, absences longer than one day required Home Office approval.
These limitations will not surprise many readers, given that the accommodation is publicly funded. The question before the courts, however, was whether such use still constituted a “hotel” in planning law, or whether it amounted to a material change of use requiring permission.
The Local Authority’s position
Epping Forest District Council, as the local planning authority (“LPA”), argued that the use of the hotel to accommodate asylum seekers amounted to a material change of use under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In its view, the property was no longer operating as a hotel but had effectively become hostel-style accommodation. The Act requires a planning application to be made to the LPA for “development” which is defined as the carrying out of building or other operations, or the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land.
The accommodation of asylum seekers is a highly sensitive and thus a highly controversial, political issue. Citing incidents of public disorder linked to protests outside the premises, the Council applied to the High Court for an injunction requiring the use to cease.
The High Court Decision
Applications for injunctions are usually considered quickly, with a full trial of the issues deferred to a later date. In this case, both parties asked the judge to consider the strength of their respective cases at the interim stage.
The High Court judge granted the temporary injunction, requiring the hotel to stop housing asylum seekers until trial. In reaching this conclusion, he considered factors such as the reported public disorder outside the hotel and the Secretary of State’s statutory duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers.
Importantly, the judge did not decide whether a material change of use had occurred. That question was left for the full trial. The judge also refused the Secretary of State’s application to join the proceedings, preventing her from making representations about her duty to house asylum seekers.
Following the judgment:
- Somani Hotels appealed against the injunction
- The Secretary of State appealed against the refusal by the judge to join her in the proceedings
- The Court of Appeal agreed to hear the appeal urgently
- Councils across the UK began considering similar injunctions to prevent hotels in their areas from being used as asylum seeker accommodation
The Court of Appeal decision
Events moved swiftly:
- The High Court hearing took place on 15 August 2025, with judgment made on 19 August.
- The Court of Appeal heard the appeal on 29 August, handing down judgment on 1 September 2025.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court judge had been wrong to grant the interim injunction and refuse the Secretary of State’s application to join the proceedings.
The injunction was therefore quashed, and the Secretary of State was added as a party to the case.
The Planning Balance vs the Balance of Convenience
Planning authorities and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government must make decisions by weighing all material considerations – a process known as the planning balance. Courts will rarely interfere unless there has been a serious error, such as ignoring relevant considerations or acting unreasonably.
The courts in this case, however, were not conducting a planning balance assessment. Instead, they considered the balance of convenience: the relative impact of granting or refusing the injunction on the parties involved, including asylum seekers, local residents, and the Council.
Looking ahead
It is understood that the full trial of the Council’s application to the High Court for a permanent injunction and a declaration as to the lawful use of the premises is expected to be heard in the High Court in October 2025.
