On 19th August 2025 Eyre J handed down judgment on Epping Forest District Council’s application for interim injunctive relief against Somani Hotels Ltd, owners of The Bell Hotel.
Below is a review of the judgment in Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Limited [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB) by Trinity’s David Comb. At the time of writing (28th August 2025) the Court of Appeal is set to consider the Defendant’s appeal.
The Bell Hotel, COVID and Housing Asylum Seekers
Since about 1900 The Bell has stood on the outskirts of Epping. It has 80 bedrooms for guests, a bar, restaurant and conference facilities. In March 2020, amidst the COVID 19 lockdown, The Bell closed its doors. Since then, from time to time, it has operated Home Office funded contracts to house asylum seekers. After a hiatus between April 2024 and April 2025, The Bell began to operate a new contract to house 138 asylum seekers. This development sparked public protest and propelled The Bell into the national spotlight.
Planning Injunctions: s187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990
The application was brought by Epping Forest DC in its capacity as planning authority. The issue at the core of the case was the application of s187B Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA), which provides:
“(1) Where a local planning authority consider it necessary or expedient for any actual or apprehended breach of planning control to be restrained by injunction, they may apply to the court for an injunction, whether or not they have exercised or are proposing to exercise any of their other powers under this Part.
(2) On an application under subsection (1) the court may grant such an injunction as the court thinks appropriate for the purpose of restraining the breach.”
The defendant’s “apprehended breach of planning control” was a change of use at The Bell, away from Class C1 ‘Hotel’. Put another way, the property had been “developed” pursuant to s55 TCPA in a manner that would require planning permission pursuant to s57 TCPA. Epping’s position was that such permission would not have been granted if sought. Whether permission for a development of the land was required was (and is) in dispute between the parties and will be resolved at trial, applying the principles in Ipswich BC v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2868.
Planning Enforcement: Preliminary Issue
Before the Court turned to merits of the interim application for injunctive relief there was a preliminary issue. The defendant argued that the use of s178B TCPA was inappropriate, where the primary enforcement route was to issue an enforcement notice under s172 TCPA, followed by a stop notice under s183 TCPA. Epping resisted this attack, partly on the basis that an enforcement notice takes effect only after 28 days and even then is subject to appeal to an Inspector. However, the Court decided that on any view, s183 TCPA was not available because it was disapplied in respect of “activity [] carried out (whether continuously or not) for a period of more than four years…” (s183(5) TCPA).
In any future cases where the ‘time bar’ does not arise as a point, Courts may be invited again to consider if the s187B power is complimentary to the other powers under the Act (as the words of s187B(1) appear to contemplate); or as the defendant contended, a measure of final resort only.
Interim Injunction: The Merits
On the merits of the application for an interim injunction, the Court (paragraphs [30]-[35] of the Judgment) applied South Bucks DC v Porter [2003] UKHL 26: The power to make an injunction pursuant to s178B TCPA is an original and not supervisory jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court’s power is not restricted to traditional Wednesbury grounds of judicial review; nor however is the Court’s discretion limitless, but is to be applied judicially and with regard to the context that planning decisions are entrusted to be made by democratically accountable bodies on a multi-factorial basis; but nevertheless, the category of factors to which the Court may have regard are not closed and may encompass, for example, personal hardship.
Thereafter, the Court recounted the familiar principles applicable to the granting of injunctions on an interim basis: whether there is a triable issue, whether damages would be an adequate remedy and where lies the balance of convenience ([39], applying American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396).
On the facts of the case, the parties agreed that there was a triable issue and that damages would be insufficient as a remedy. Therefore, the Court had to consider the balance of convenience, having regard to the principles in South Bucks (above).
The Balance of Convenience
The factors identified in favour of granting interim relief:
- The public interest in enforcing planning control. This was afforded heavy weight [106].
- The defendant was on notice that the local authority regarded the use of the hotel to house asylum seekers as a change of use, and the defendant deliberately acted against that position. Again, this was afforded weight. [107]
- The Claimant had a strong prima facie contention that there had been a breach of planning control. [108]
- The fear of crime resulting from the use of The Bell as housing for asylum seekers; the need to address lawful protest at The Bell; and the consequences of actions taken to address unlawful activity at The These factors were all adjudged to be relevant but of limited weight. [109]
It may be noted that the final cluster of factors were not regarded as very significant to the decision on the merits. However, it may be that on appeal, issues such as compatibility with Article 10 ECHR are considered further.
The factors identified as operating against the granting of interim relief:
- There is a strong public interest in housing destitute asylum seekers. “The most important factor.” Coupled with the disruption to the individual asylum seekers, who would have to be housed elsewhere. [114]
- The financial effect on the Defendant. [115]
Noting that the balance of the factors is not an arithmetical process and considering them in the round, the Court concluded that on balance, interim injunctive relief should be granted. [119-120].
It seems likely that planning authorities will be considering with care this judgment and the proceedings in the Court of Appeal.
David Comb
David Comb acts regularly on emergency applications for injunctive relief, and for local authorities, businesses and individuals in cases involving issues of planning control and the exercise of planning powers.