A court win, a summer of rallies, and a fight over who gets to stay
Across England’s towns and cities, the fight over UK asylum hotels moved from council chambers to the streets. Over the weekend, dozens of anti-immigration protests targeted hotels used to house asylum seekers in Bristol, Leicester, Newcastle, Liverpool, and other towns. Police reported scuffles at several sites and made arrests, while counter-protesters—usually smaller in number—tried to hold their ground.
The spark was legal, not just political. On August 19, 2025, a judge backed Epping Forest council’s effort to close a hotel hosting asylum seekers. For local leaders who argue hotels were switched to “hostel-like” use without proper planning consent, the ruling was the green light they had been waiting for. Within days, more councils said they would pursue their own cases, hoping to force the Home Office to withdraw people from commercial hotels and halt new placements.
Saturday, August 23, brought the sharpest scenes to Horley, a Surrey town by Gatwick Airport. Around 200 anti-migrant protesters gathered outside the Sheraton Four Points, a hotel used for asylum accommodation. About 30 counter-protesters linked to anti-racism groups assembled at the nearby train station. Police formed cordons and escorted the smaller group, separating the two sides and trying to prevent confrontations. Officers said tensions flared at times; arrests were made at different sites over the weekend.
Compared with the violent riots that erupted in August 2024 after the Southport killings, these latest protests were smaller and largely non-violent. But the language was hard-edged, and the numbers were lopsided. In most places, anti-immigration crowds outnumbered counter-protesters by a wide margin, reflecting how the issue has shifted from an administrative headache to a flashpoint for street mobilization.
Behind the noise is a simple reality: roughly 200 hotels across the UK are housing around 32,000 people who claimed asylum after fleeing conflict or persecution. The Home Office turned to hotels as a stopgap when the dispersal system through councils and private landlords failed to keep pace with arrivals and a swelling case backlog. What was pitched as temporary endured, became costly, and turned into a political lightning rod.
Supporters of the court push say councils were sidelined while local services—schools, GP surgeries, housing lists—felt the strain. They frame the Epping Forest ruling as a rebalancing of power: central government shouldn’t be able to repurpose hotels indefinitely. Critics argue a wave of closures without ready alternatives would create chaos—moving families at short notice or leaving people with nowhere to go.
Horley has become a symbol of how quickly this argument can engulf a town. The hotel sits near a major airport, the train line, and residential streets. Residents say they feel overlooked by decision-makers. Refugee support volunteers counter that most hotel residents keep a low profile, are barred from work while their claims are processed, and want stability, not headlines.
Reform UK has amplified the protests and the broader anger around asylum policy. The party currently leads national polling by around 10 points over Labour, according to recent snapshots, and its figures have championed council action and street rallies. That mix—court wins for councils, louder protest networks, and a party benefitting from the backlash—has shifted the political weather.
The Home Office faces a narrow path. Ministers are under pressure to end hotel use, but new sites have always drawn fierce local pushback—whether barges or former military bases—while permanent housing remains scarce. Even when asylum claims are granted, many people struggle to move into private rentals, which means hotel departures can bottleneck. If councils close hotels faster than the system can absorb people, the risk of forced relocations and destitution rises.
Lawyers say the Epping Forest case turns on planning rules and how a hotel is being used day-to-day. Councils argue that mass, long-term placements transform a hotel into something else—more hostel than hotel—and that requires permission. The judge agreed on those facts in that case. Whether other judges do the same will depend on the details of each site: length of stay, number of residents, services on offer, and how the property is managed.
This is why councils are now filing or preparing a wave of applications and injunctions. For them, each win is leverage—either to force the Home Office to move people out or to negotiate stricter limits on numbers and duration. For the Home Office, each loss could mean scrambling for beds elsewhere or reversing placements altogether.
Politics, policing, and what comes next
Police forces spent the weekend in prevention mode. They ring-fenced train stations and hotel perimeters, filmed flashpoints, and shuttled smaller counter-protest groups to and from rally points. Commanders described a low threshold for intervention after last summer’s violence: quick arrests for disorder, tight dispersal orders, and rolling patrols across several towns at once.
What happens next turns on three moving parts:
- Courts: More councils are expected to test the planning argument. If judges keep siding with them, hotel closures could accelerate within weeks, not months.
- Politics: Reform UK is shaping the narrative, Labour is on the defensive, and Conservatives—out of government but still influential locally—are pressing councils to act. National policy could shift again if the polling picture hardens.
- Capacity: The asylum system needs somewhere for people to go. That means quicker decisions, more dispersal to long-term housing, and fewer bottlenecks when claims are approved.
The protests will likely continue as long as the core problem remains: the government leaned on hotels to solve a short-term crisis, then struggled to unwind the dependency. Councils want planning control restored. Protesters want hotels cleared. Refugee advocates want safer accommodation and faster decisions. Those goals pull in different directions.
On the ground, this comes down to timing and coordination. Scale down hotel use too fast, and people get displaced without a plan. Move too slow, and councils keep winning cases and tempers flare on the streets. The Epping Forest ruling didn’t settle the argument. It simply moved it into higher gear.