Asylum seekers will be removed from an Essex hotel after a council was granted a temporary High Court injunction blocking them from being housed there.
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping.
The injunction sought by the council meant the hotelâs owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days.
The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12.
He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment.
In his judgment, he said that while the council had not âdefinitively establishedâ that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, âthe strength of the claimantâs case is such that it weighs in favourâ of granting the injunction.
He continued that the ârisk of injustice is greaterâ if a temporary injunction was not granted.
A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days.
Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month.
A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel.
The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to âunprecedented levels of protest and disruptionâ in connection with asylum seeker accommodation.
Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation âcannot go onâ but the Government âis not listeningâ.
At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the siteâs âsole lawful useâ was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers.
Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was âwholly unacceptableâ and provided a âfeeding ground for unrestâ.
He said: âThere has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.â
Mr Coppel continued: âIt is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.â
He added: âIt really could not be much worse than this.â
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that âdisagreement with Government policyâ did not justify a âdraconianâ injunction and that there would be âhardshipâ caused to the company and those housed at the hotel.
He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a âfinancial lifelineâ for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.
Mr Riley-Smith said: âIt is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community.
âThose particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.â
Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: âI am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.â
He continued: âHome Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents.
âToday we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.â
Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the âsubstantial impactâ caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers.
Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in âextremely short orderâ would cause a âvery significant operational burdenâ and âparticular acute difficultiesâ for the Government.
But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Officeâs bid, stating that the departmentâs involvement was ânot necessaryâ.
