Bell Hotel background information
The following information has been published to clarify and correct a number of misapprehensions in connection with the planning history of the Bell Hotel.
The information has been distributed to all councillors and is provided here for information to the public.
Why did the council not process the February 2023 planning application, despite its statutory duty to do so?
Application Ref EPF/0337/23 was submitted on 14 February 2023 and subsequently validated on 21 February for the following proposal:
- Temporary change of use until 30 June 2024 or such earlier date as is notified in writing to the council by the applicant from hotel use (Class C1) to use as a hostel for asylum seekers (Sui Generis)
The planning officer, who has since retired from the council, chased the applicant on 24 April for further information that he required in order to make a determination. The applicant responded between 17 and 18 May.
There was a pause in consideration of the application, with representations being received from members of the public throughout June and July. Further queries were then raised by the case officer with the applicant on 8 September with him citing renewed member interest in determining the application. The applicant responded on 28 September and at this time requested an amendment to the proposal to extend the temporary use to 31 December, as opposed to the 30 June initially applied for.
The next development in the case came on 21 March 2024, with the applicant requesting that the application be withdrawn, citing the impending end of the contract with the Home Office and its non-renewal and advising that occupants of the premises will have vacated by that time.
The determination of the application was initially delayed beyond the statutory eight-week determination timeframe as further information was required from the applicant. Once this information was received, the planning service deferred determination whilst consideration was given to a delegated recommendation and arrangements for a referral to the planning committee were considered. The eventual withdrawal of the application brought any further consideration to a close.
Why did the council not reply to Somani’s May 2025 letter, after being told no application would be submitted?
An email was sent by Somani on 15 May 2025, in which they advised officers that they did not intend to submit a retrospective planning application in respect of the alleged unauthorised use of the hotel. This decision was said to have been made under advice from the Home Office and was contrary to Somani’s previous undertaking to make a submission.
The content of this email was discussed with portfolio holders on 16 May, with officers seeking a steer as to how to proceed. It was agreed that the council should be guided by the advice received from the Home Office and that enforcement action should not be taken at that time, with the situation to be monitored.
No response to Somani’s email was provided, and indeed none was requested by the company by way of formal acknowledgement. The council did not respond to this email so as not to prejudice its position with respect to future possible enforcement action.
Why did the council initially agree to 138 residents in April 2025, only to seek to evict them months later?
The council did not, in any capacity, agree to the use of the Bell Hotel for asylum seekers much less agree a number of asylum-seeking residents. The statement made by Lord Justice Bean to this effect is simply incorrect.
Why was no enforcement action taken between 2020 to 2024 when the hotel was twice used for the same purpose?
The use of the hotel to provide accommodation for asylum seekers first commenced on 22 May 2020 during the first national COVID-19 lockdown period. This period of use ceased in early 2021. At this time enforcement action was not taken given the exceptional circumstances of the period and the cessation of the unauthorised use after a relatively brief period.
The use next resumed in November 2022, with an enforcement case being opened in response. An enforcement officer inspected the premises and liaised with the applicant’s solicitors, with the investigation precipitating the submission of a planning application (Ref EPF/0337/23) on 14 February 2023. Following this submission, no enforcement action was taken as is usual in such circumstances as taking action would be tantamount to determining the application. This period of occupation, and the associated breach of planning control, ceased in April 2024.
In April 2025 the use resumed. On 8 April the enforcement team contacted Somani to advise that planning permission was required. An initial indication of intent to submit a planning application was reneged upon by Somani, under advice from the Home Office. The council in response took enforcement action in August 2025, seeking an interim injunction in the High Court following a marked escalation of the impacts of the breach on nearby residents and the wider community.
Why did the council rely on public protests as justification for an injunction, given the risks of incentivising disorder?
A number of issues of local concerns, community safety, and the resultant impact on local amenity of which the protests formed part including the position of the asylum seekers themselves were considered by the council in making its application.
Why did the council choose sudden, adversarial injunction proceedings rather than normal planning enforcement tools or public order measures?
All planning enforcement options were considered, including the issue of an enforcement notice, stop notice, temporary stop notice, breach of condition notice and injunction. It was concluded given the particular circumstances that an application for an injunction was the appropriate option.
Why did the council fail to respond to local media inquiries in July 2025, undermining transparency, but provide a statement only once national media has intervened?
The council’s position has been one of placing the interests of our residents above all other factors. At times this has necessarily included avoiding providing statements which might undermine the council’s legal position in court. We have always however sought to be as open and transparent as is practicably possible but we must be alive to any risks to the use and strength of our legal arguments when releasing media statements.
Keep up to date
Keep in touch with our latest news, service updates and reports.