The Home Office cautioned that closing an asylum hotel in Epping could lead to widespread protests nationwide. Government attorneys requested the removal of a temporary injunction mandating the evacuation of migrants from the Bell Hotel. Last week, a High Court ruling prohibited housing asylum seekers at the location after September 12.
Despite Keir Starmer’s pledge to shut down all asylum hotels by 2029, the Home Office emphasized the need for a methodical approach. The department’s representative, Edward Brown KC, informed the Court of Appeal that closing one site would necessitate identifying alternative capacity.
Following the court decision, numerous local councils signaled intentions to challenge asylum hotels in their jurisdictions. The Home Office outlined reasons for avoiding an abrupt closure of asylum hotels to prevent potential disturbances and accommodate the existing asylum seeker population appropriately.
The government raised concerns that shutting the Epping hotel could spark protests in other regions, citing recent violent incidents in Wakefield, London, and Stevenage. Health Minister Stephen Kinnock highlighted the risks of leaving asylum seekers without lodging, emphasizing the importance of managing the closure process responsibly.
The Home Office underscored its obligation under the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent inhumane treatment, prioritizing this duty over local planning disputes. The department stressed the potential cascade effect of closing the Epping hotel, leading to a crisis in housing capacity for asylum seekers nationwide.
The Home Office acknowledged ongoing police investigations into alleged serious crimes by asylum seekers at the hotel. However, they argued that criminal activities were not grounds for immediate closure. The department refuted Epping council’s motives, asserting that the legal action was primarily driven by protests rather than planning concerns.
Mr. Brown KC criticized the council for lacking substantive planning issues at the hotel, suggesting the case was primarily about protest activities. Epping Forest District Council’s decision not to enforce planning regulations due to the peaceful situation was highlighted during the court proceedings.