An interim injunction has been granted by the High Court against the housing of asylum-seekers at an Essex hotel – after the judge found the public interest in the enforcement of planning control was a factor of ‘particular importance’.
The case, involving Epping Forest District Council and Somani Hotels Limited, was heard by Mr Justice Eyre during the summer vacation period last week. Before judgment was handed down yesterday, an application was made by Edward Brown KC, for home secretary Yvette Cooper, to join as an intervener in the case and put forward submissions on the public interest. The application was dismissed by the judge, who said it would not be in the public interest to delay proceedings further.
He also ordered the home secretary to pay £6,000 costs to the council.
Epping brought an application to restrain the use of the Bell Hotel for housing asylum-seekers after a resident there was arrested over an alleged sexual assault. The application for an interim junction was sought on the basis that the way the hotel was being used was a ‘material change’ for which planning permission had not been applied.
In his written judgment, Mr Justice Eyre said: ‘A factor of considerable force in favour of the defendant and against the grant of interim relief is the important public policy objective of accommodating destitute asylum seekers.’
Read more
The judge said the hotel had acted ‘deliberately’ in not seeking planning permission for change of use after receiving advice from the Home Office despite knowing the council took a different view. He added: ‘That position was adopted in good faith and the defendant acted openly.’
However, the judge said the public interest in the enforcement of planning control was a factor of ‘particular importance’. A factor of ‘particular weight’ was that Somani Hotels Limited had ‘side-stepped the public scrutiny and explanation which would otherwise have taken place if an application for planning permission or for a certificate of lawful use had been made’.
The judge said: ‘The strength of the claimant’s contention that there has been a breach of planning control and that the current activity is the result of a material change of use is such that exceptionally it is a factor to be taken into account in the balance of convenience in support of the grant of interim relief.’
Granting an injunction, he added: ‘My conclusion on this issue is that the balance of convenience falls in favour of the grant of interim relief. The risk of injustice is greater if that relief were to be refused and an injunction is ultimately found to be appropriate than if the relief were to be granted and the court ultimately decides not to grant an injunction.’
Philp Coppel KC and Natasha Peter, instructed by Sharpe Pritchard LLP, appeared for Epping Forest District Council; Piers Riley-Smith, instructed by Richard Buxton & Co, appeared for Somani Hotels Limited.
