Ted Newson: The Epping migrant hotel ruling is a dark day for local democracy

Ted Newson is a politics graduate and a political commentator for Young Voices.

The British government and British people could not be more out of step right now. While the government claims to want to close migrant hotels and “smash the gangs”, they seem incapable of doing either. This coincides with public concerns about mass immigration ranking as the most important issue in recent YouGov polling. As Keir Starmer and his government double down on their inaction on immigration, framing critics as far-right, it is no wonder that government approval has sunk to a woeful -54 per cent.

Last week, The Bell Hotel in Epping faced a final judgment from the Court of Appeal as to whether it could house migrants. While a High Court injunction sought by Epping Forest District Council would have stopped migrants from being housed there, the Home Office ultimately stepped in to challenge this local government decision, ignoring the concerns of both the council and local people.

This verdict sends a message to the people of Epping that their concerns do not matter. Much of the Home Office’s case rested on the rights of hotel residents trumping the quality of life for local people and the logistical challenges that rehousing the migrants would create. 

After an asylum seeker housed in the nearby migrant hotel was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl in July, protests erupted in Epping, focusing on The Bell Hotel. This highlighted problems with migrant housing being located only a few hundred metres from a secondary school. As locals voiced their concerns, council leaders responded, eventually securing an injunction against the government, which would relocate the migrants from the hotel to elsewhere.

As the local government acted, central government resisted and ultimately got its way. Despite the council not being consulted about a migrant hotel, and the building itself lacking explicit permission to house migrants over long periods of time, the government ran roughshod over local sentiment and continues to dictate to the local area from Westminster. The verdict shows that the decisions of elected councils can be overturned with ease, leaving residents wondering what real influence they have.

As an Essex resident, the first asylum hotel I saw in person was The Bell in Epping. Unassuming from the outside, I noticed the metal fences and high-vis-clad security. If locals were given the chance to have their say and voted in favour, would such protections have been necessary?

As it happens, local concerns about housing, services, and infrastructure were brushed aside, fuelling resentment rather than fostering integration. If the public or local council had at least been given a choice of buildings where migrants could be housed, it would have partially legitimised local government. For now, the power of local councils appears largely superficial and cannot be properly exerted on pressing issues. The government must include local councils in discussions over migrant hotels or face mass disillusionment in local democracy. 

The principle of localism is one championed by Conservatives. It suggests that power closer to the people, in the form of local government, is better positioned to deal with concerns than central government. The Conservative Party must stress the value of people being able to speak to local councillors in order to effectively challenge government policy, and counter the Labour Party’s tendency to impose policies from above. Leaving Labour unchallenged would risk depressing public confidence and fostering further anti-democratic sentiment, which Onward recently raised as a concern for the future.

This reliance on hotels reflects the Government’s failure to plan asylum accommodation sensibly, with local authorities treated as obstacles rather than partners. Britain now struggles to keep up with asylum applications, especially as Channel migrants employ strategies such as “losing” their mobile phones and passports to prevent the state from establishing their country of origin. The British state needs to develop methods of housing migrants that are less intrusive for local communities and less costly.

Allowing unvetted migrants to wander around local communities is a public safety concern. To address this, the government must accelerate the process of differentiating legitimate asylum claims from those posing as vulnerable people. Furthermore, it must challenge the perception of Britain as a soft touch. The BBC reports that migrant housing costs are expected to rise to over £14 billion over the next ten years. With the public angry, they must look to other countries for different approaches. France’s Centres d’accueil et d’orientation (CAOs), for example, provide migrants with safe, temporary accommodation, meals, and basic services at a fraction of the cost of Britain’s system, housing them in purpose-built, temporary facilities rather than costly hotels or visible public spaces. This could offer one solution for the government, rather than alienating councils and voters alike.

Going forward, more decisions on divisive issues such as migrant housing must be put before local councils. To sideline them is to leave whole communities ignored by the government, which will only fuel further social disorder. Local democracy is far from perfect, but to circumvent it entirely is a fool’s errand.