There are growing concerns that asylum seekers awaiting decisions on their applications could soon be moved out of hotels and into alternative accommodation, such as private rental Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs). This possibility has stirred debate among property experts, local communities and government officials about the best and most sustainable way forward.
Recently, a temporary injunction issued by the High Court halted the placement of asylum seekers in The Bell Hotel in Epping. This ruling was based not on social or political grounds, but specifically on planning regulations. The case has now become a reference point for wider discussions about how planning laws interact with the urgent need for asylum accommodation.
According to Faraz Baber, the chief operating officer of the planning consultancy Lanpro, while the case was framed as a local dispute, it touches on national issues. At the heart of the matter lies a technical question of planning law: what legally constitutes a change of use, and how does this impact the wider property market, local authorities, and central government policies?
Baber highlights that under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, hotels are classified as C1 Use Class. This classification is intended for establishments designed for short-term stays, typically on a nightly basis. Once hotels begin to accommodate individuals for extended stays, such as asylum seekers awaiting decisions, they may no longer fit within this definition.
When a property is no longer used within its designated use class, planning law usually requires a formal change of use. This involves submitting an application for approval from the local authority. While technically possible, Baber stresses that in practice, such applications are often long, complex, and highly contentious. They can take months to process and are frequently met with significant public objections.
The injunction granted in Epping Forest demonstrates how contentious these planning disputes can become. Baber notes that this case cannot be seen in isolation. Many other hotels across the country are already being used to accommodate asylum seekers in a similar way, meaning they too could face legal challenges or community resistance in the near future.
He warns that what started as a local disagreement could quickly escalate into a much larger national issue. If similar injunctions are sought elsewhere, planning regulations could become a major flashpoint between local authorities, residents, and central government.
One alternative the government may consider, according to Baber, is the use of private rental HMOs. These are properties where multiple tenants live in separate rooms but share communal facilities such as kitchens or bathrooms. Dispersing asylum seekers into HMOs could reduce reliance on hotels, but it also raises new challenges.
Baber points out that placing asylum seekers in HMOs would mean dispersing them across residential neighbourhoods. This approach risks creating disruption within communities, as residents may raise concerns about safety, integration, and the effect on local housing markets. Local authorities would face the difficult task of balancing asylum accommodation needs with maintaining community cohesion.
The situation is further complicated by the Renters’ Rights Bill, which is expected to become law in the near future. This legislation will introduce new rights and responsibilities for tenants and landlords, changing the dynamics of the private rental sector at a sensitive time.
With many private landlords already considering leaving the rental market due to regulatory pressures and financial challenges, Baber suggests that the government offering long-term, guaranteed rents for asylum seekers could appear attractive. However, this also risks drawing private housing stock away from local renters and further tightening an already strained rental supply.
This creates a serious overlap between two major policy areas: the housing shortage and asylum accommodation. Planning law, Baber argues, is struggling to keep pace with the demands of social policy, and without clear solutions, tensions will continue to rise.
The only long-term way to address the issue, Baber suggests, would be to make changes to planning law itself. Specifically, he argues that the Secretary of State, Angela Rayner, could move to amend the Use Classes Order. This amendment would allow hotels within the C1 category to accommodate longer-term residents, such as asylum seekers, without requiring a formal change of use.
Such a reform would provide clarity and consistency for local authorities, property operators, and communities. While this would not solve all issues immediately, it would create a more stable and predictable framework for handling asylum accommodation.
However, even if this legal adjustment were to be introduced, Baber notes that it would still take time to pass through Parliament and come into effect. With Parliament set to return from its summer recess shortly, the question of asylum accommodation is likely to become a pressing issue once again.
Download NOW
4 Simple Steps To Becoming Wealthy Through Property