Holly Whitbread: In the case of Epping Forest v the Home Office we will keep fighting to close the Bell Hotel

Holly Whitbread is Ward Councillor for Epping West and Rural (where the Bell Hotel is located) and the Cabinet Member for Finance and Economic Development.

Friday’s Court of Appeal judgment overturning the interim injunction against the owners of the Bell Hotel is deeply disappointing for the people of Epping Forest.

Perhaps the most shocking moment of the case came when the Government’s legal representatives argued that the rights of asylum seekers outweigh the rights of the people of Epping Forest. This is a disgraceful position, which shows a complete disregard not only for the people of Epping Forest but for British citizens more broadly. The rights and safety of local communities must never be treated as secondary. The Government is failing in its most basic duty to protect its citizens, and we will continue to fight democratically and decently to defend the interests of our residents in Epping Forest and secure the permanent closure of the Bell Hotel.

As a council, we have committed to use all democratic, diplomatic, and legal means available until the Bell Hotel is closed. Following Friday’s judgment, we are now reviewing our position and ruling nothing out, including the possibility of taking this case to the Supreme Court. The case for a permanent injunction will be heard in October.

We reject criticisms of the council, which has always acted solely in the interests of local people, not just in recent weeks but over many years. Conservative-led Epping Forest District Council was one of the first councils in the country to take decisive legal action on behalf of residents to get an asylum hotel closed. We took this step because we know how strongly local people feel and because the continued use of the Bell Hotel is untenable. It is operating without permission, and the consequences of this are unfair on our entire community.

The council has objected to the use of the Bell Hotel for asylum processing for years, pressing the Home Office to close it and raising our objections at every opportunity, which led to the hotel’s closure under the last Government. When the hotel was reopened earlier this year for all-male asylum processing, we were not consulted; we were simply informed. We shared our objections and concerns about the impact of an all-male asylum centre just steps from a school, but the Government repeatedly ignored us, treating Epping Forest residents and the council which represents them with contempt.

It is important to remember that the circumstances in 2023 differed significantly from those in 2025. While some planning applications are complex and can take longer than the statutory eight weeks to decide, this would not have changed the outcome. After the eight-week period, the hotel operator could have appealed against non-determination. The Home Office itself ceased using the Bell as asylum accommodation, making further legal action unnecessary at that time. Continuing legal proceedings at this stage would have wasted taxpayers’ money, particularly as the operator had withdrawn their planning application.

The court judgment also raises questions about potential political bias of the judges who decided the appeal case. Lord Justice David Bean, for example, has a long history of involvement in left-leaning organisations, including as former treasurer of the Society of Labour Lawyers and a founding member of Matrix Chambers alongside Cherie Blair. Public confidence in judicial neutrality is crucial, especially in highly charged cases where the Home Secretary sought to intervene against public sentiment and against the interests of Epping Forest.

As the Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philip said, the Government’s tinkering with the Epping case will not solve the illegal immigration crisis. Only a radical, comprehensive approach can address the problem effectively. The Government must take responsibility, end the use of asylum hotels, regain control of our borders, implement proper deterrents to illegal crossings, stop benefit support for those who come over illegally, speed up processing, and ensure that those asylum seekers in the UK are properly monitored while their applications are being processed.

It is untenable to continue housing asylum seekers in the heart of communities, whether in hotels or scattered across Houses of Multiple Occupation. Epping Forest knows all too well the risks of such policies, with the terrible incidents linked to the Bell, including the alleged sexual assault of a schoolgirl. Local communities should not bear the consequences of Government failures. Processing centres must be located on the outskirts of communities, with proper monitoring in place.

The Conservative Group on Epping Forest District Council stands alongside genuine local residents who continue to protest peacefully against the Bell’s operation. While they exercise their human right to protest, we will continue to work hard behind the scenes on behalf of all residents to find a solution, working closely with our council officers and legal team to get the Bell Hotel closed.

This is not just about one hotel in one town. It is about fairness, consent, and the right of communities to be heard. As Conservative Party Leader Kemi Badenoch MP has said, councils facing similar challenges should explore available legal routes to protect their residents. Initiatives such as Lawyers for Borders, which is being led by Robert Jenrick MP, provide legal support for councils and communities resisting asylum hotels.

Our Conservative-led council will continue to stand up for the people of Epping Forest until the Bell Hotel is closed permanently.

The post Holly Whitbread: In the case of Epping Forest v the Home Office we will keep fighting to close the Bell Hotel appeared first on Conservative Home.