Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Respondents) v Epping Forest District Council (Appellant)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0171

Parties

Appellant(s)

Epping Forest District Council

Respondent(s)

Somani Hotels Limited

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal err: (i) in joining the Secretary of State for the Home Department to proceedings concerning the accommodation of asylum seekers in a hotel; (ii) in granting an interim injunction restraining that accommodation; (iii) in the process followed to determine these issues?

Facts

Epping Forest District Council is the local planning authority for the district of Epping. The Bell Hotel (“the Bell”) is located within the district of Epping and is owned Somani Hotels Limited (“Somani”). Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Bell had been used as a hotel for some time and the Bell facilities had been available for use by local people and others. That use had been declining. In March 2020, the Bell closed following the outbreak of the pandemic and the measures put in place to address it. From May 2020 to March 2021, up to 60 of the 80 rooms at the Bell were used to accommodate homeless persons including asylum seekers. During this period, in July 2020 Epping Forest District Council (“Epping” hereafter) received a complaint alleging that there was a breach of planning control at the Bell, with the building being used to place asylum seekers rather than as a hotel. Epping believed that the use of the Bell to accommodate asylum seekers was a material change of use, which is not permitted by planning restrictions. Somani disagreed. In August 2022, the Bell reopened following the lifting of the lockdown restrictions. Since then, any use as a hotel by the general public has been minimal. From October 2022 to April 2024, the Bell was again used to accommodate asylum seekers. In November 2022, a second disagreement between Epping and Somani occurred. In February 2023, Somani submitted a temporary change of use planning application and referred to a contract made under section 98 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which allows the Home Office to provide short-term, emergency accommodation for asylum seekers while their needs are considered. This contract continued until April 2024. Somani then withdrew its application. The current use began in early April 2025. Since then, the Bell has been used to accommodate asylum seekers pursuant to a contract between Somani and CTM (North) Ltd. The asylum seekers were being accommodated pursuant to the duties imposed on the Secretary of State for the Home Department (“SSHD”) under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. In May 2025, Somani advised Epping that it would not be applying for further planning permission because the Home Office had advised that in the government’s opinion the hotel was contracted on exclusive use terms as a hotel, not a hostel, and would not support a change of use application. Epping brought a claim under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 seeking an injunction (a court order prohibiting action) to restrain an alleged breach of planning control, including an interim injunction (a temporary injunction until the outcome of the proceedings). The alleged breach is said to have been by Somani and not SSHD. At issue in those main proceedings are: first, whether there is a breach of planning control; second, whether injunctive relief is appropriate; third, whether the preconditions for the grant of relief by way of interim injunction are made out. This appeal concerns an application by SSHD to be joined as an intervener in the main claim, on the basis that her involvement is necessary to address matters arising under the third issue. In the High Court, Eyre J refused to add SSHD as an intervener to proceedings. SSHD appealed that decision. In the Court of Appeal, Bean LJ, Nicola Davies LJ and Cobb LJ concluded that SSHD should be made an intervener. Epping now appeals that decision to the Supreme Court.