Friday 26 June 2026

The people of Epping are used to disappointment. Only this time they've come prepared - Adam Brooks

The people of Epping are used to disappointment. Only this time they've come prepared - Adam Brooks
Adam Brooks voices his dismay at the High Court's ruling to allow the Bell Hotel in Epping to continue housing asylum seekers |

GB

Adam Brooks

By Adam Brooks


Published: 13/03/2026

- 14:52

The people of Epping are not prepared to stay silent, writes the publican and broadcaster

The latest ruling in the long-running battle over the Bell Hotel in Epping tells you everything you need to know about the sorry state of Britain today.

The courts have now confirmed that Epping Forest District Council cannot appeal the decision allowing asylum seekers to continue being housed at the Bell Hotel.


The Court of Appeal dismissed the council’s challenge as “unarguable,” effectively slamming the door shut on what was the last realistic legal route to stop the site being used as migrant accommodation.

And with that ruling, the legal fight is seemingly over.

The council has spent more than £566,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to challenge what many local residents believe is an outrageous misuse of a hotel in the heart of their community. Now they are also being ordered to pay around £161,000 in additional costs to the Home Office and the hotel owners.

Hundreds of thousands of pounds spent, and the result is the same one many of us predicted from day one.

From what I’ve seen, the Council completely messed this up, with wrong decisions going back to 2023.

The system closes ranks; it’s clearly rigged against us, local people.

Let’s be clear about what this case was about.

Epping Forest District Council argued that the owners of the Bell Hotel had sidestepped planning laws by turning the site into asylum accommodation without the proper permission.

In any normal situation, if a business changes its use without planning consent, the council can and will step in.

But this wasn’t a normal situation.

The High Court ruled previously that because the Home Secretary has a legal duty to house asylum seekers while their claims are processed, the use of the hotel should continue. The judge said blocking it with an injunction would not be an appropriate way to enforce planning control.

Now the Court of Appeal has unfortunately backed that view.

In other words, planning law takes a back seat when the government decides it needs somewhere to put migrants… of course it does.

The judges were also explicit about something else. They said they were not concerned with the merits of government policy on asylum accommodation.

Epping hotel protestsThe people of Epping are used to disappointment. Only this time they've come prepared - Adam Brooks |

Getty Images

More From GB News