No action on asylum hotels despite planning breach

No enforcement action will be taken against two accommodation sites for asylum seekers, despite them being found in breach of planning rules by Derby City Council.

The council was told to investigate the hotels following a vote at full council, which was initiated by the Conservatives last year.

The group wanted the authority to follow the lead of Epping Forest District Council, which had staged a legal challenge against a hotel in its area.

The ruling Labour administration in Derby had opposed the idea.

The council had directed its chief executive and head of planning to pursue "enforcement action" if the hotels had broken the rules by "changing use" in becoming asylum accommodation.

In a report released ahead of a meeting of the council next week, the city council said officers had concluded that "the character of the use of both of the hotels amounts, in our opinion, to a material change of use to use as hostels".

However, it also noted that "enforcement action is discretionary".

It said the council should act "proportionately" when responding to suspected breaches because of the potential public harm in doing so.

"In determining whether to take action, [the council] should weigh up whether the level of harm caused by the breach warrants taking action," it added.

The authority concluded that "enforcement action is therefore not considered appropriate given the level of harm, cost to the public purse, wider societal impact and recent case law in the Epping case".

Factors that contributed to the council's decision included there being no complaints against the "use, management or operation" of the hotels, and potential pressures on local housing supply if alternative accommodation needed to be found for the current occupants following the closure of the hotels.

Epping Forest District Council sought to block migrants lodging at The Bell Hotel in Epping by arguing its owner had flouted planning rules.

It was initially awarded a temporary injunction, but this was later overturned on appeal.

In a final decision, the High Court ruled the asylum seekers could stay, and an injunction was "not an appropriate means of enforcing planning control".

It was also said there was a "continuing need" to house asylum seekers with pending asylum claims, "so that the Home Secretary can fulfil her statutory duties".

Derby City Council pointed to the judgement to demonstrate how the case emphasises "the importance of proportionality of action, public interest, and the emphasis on prioritising using conventional enforcement measures before seeking injunctive relief."

"The case also highlights the need to consider broader societal impacts and statutory duties in planning enforcement actions which had not been done in this case," it added.

"Importantly, this judgement serves as a reminder to councils to adopt a balanced approach to enforcement and to carefully consider the necessity and proportionality of seeking injunctive relief in planning control cases."

The Home Office is responsible for the accommodation of asylum seekers across England.

The current Labour government has stated its intention to close the hotels before 2029.

The leader of the Conservatives in Derby, Steve Hassall, criticised the decision not to act as "a political choice dressed up as caution".

"Despite identifying a planning breach, the Labour-run council has chosen to do nothing. Not because it cannot act, but because it has decided not to," he said.

"The report is clear that enforcement powers exist. It is also clear that the decision not to use them is discretionary. In other words, this is not about legality, it is about will.

"Residents were told this motion was unnecessary. Officers have now confirmed the core concern was valid. Hotels are not being used as hotels. Yet Labour's response is effectively to shrug its shoulders and say 'let's carry on'.

"This motion was about fairness, transparency and enforcing the same planning rules that apply to everyone else. What we have instead is a confirmation of breach followed by inaction."

A spokesperson for Derby City Council said: "Closing these facilities would have a substantial impact on council services and the wider community, likely resulting in the occupiers being moved into rented accommodation.

"Recent court rulings, such as the Epping Forest case, provide clear precedent for prioritising statutory housing needs in such circumstances. Taking these factors into account, formal enforcement action is not considered expedient to the public interest at this time."

Follow BBC Derby on Facebook, on X, or on Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] or via WhatsApp on 0808 100 2210.