TWO councils in similar situations to Warrington have lost bids for High Court injunctions to prevent hotels from housing asylum seekers.

East Riding of Yorkshire Council asked the High Court to continue an interim injunction preventing migrants being accommodated at the Humber View Hotel in Hull, which was granted after it was contacted by the Home Office with a proposal to use the site.

Ipswich Borough Council also asked for the extension of an interim injunction to stop further asylum seekers being placed at the four-star Novotel hotel in Ipswich city centre, where 72 people were already being housed.

It comes after news broke in Warrington that the Fir Grove Hotel in Grappenhall, a popular wedding venue, would close to the public to house migrants.

Warrington Borough Council has said it is ‘very unhappy’ about the move, and that it has taken detailed legal advice on the matter.

However, it was told that a legal challenge would likely be unsuccessful due the incredibly short timescales before the asylum seekers arrive in Warrington – a situation which the council believes has been ‘deliberately constructed by the Home Office’.

Lawyers for the Yorkshire and Ipswich local authorities argued at a hearing earlier this month that there had been an ‘unauthorised material change of use’ under planning rules through the Home Office’s attempts to book accommodation in Hull and Ipswich.

They argued the interim court orders could be extended by four to six weeks ahead of a final hearing on the issues in the cases.

However, in a ruling on Friday afternoon, Mr Justice Holgate refused to extend the injunctions.

Discussing the hotel in Ipswich, the judge said: “It is said that the Novotel is the largest hotel in the centre of Ipswich and that the loss of the accommodation would be damaging to the hospitality and leisure economy of the town, given its close proximity to restaurants and bars.

“It is arguable that this alleged harm is a planning consideration.”

However, he added: “The continuation of the injunction would also cause other important harm in each case.

“The asylum seekers who would be accommodated at these two hotels are entitled to have their claims for asylum dealt with.

“Some will be successful. Some will not. It is not disputed that the merits of those claims are of no relevance in these proceedings.

“What is relevant, however, is the statutory duty of the [Home Office] to provide accommodation for destitute asylum seekers who would otherwise be homeless.”

The judge continued: “In reality, if either or both of the injunctions were to be continued, the Home Office would have to look for accommodation elsewhere.

“It is clear from the evidence that it is difficult to secure hotels suitable for single-use contracts. The supply is limited.”

“I consider that the factors in favour of discharging the injunction clearly outweigh those in favour of continuing it,” Mr Justice Holgate said about both applications.

Friday’s ruling follows a failed bid by Stoke-on-Trent City Council on November 2 to continue an interim injunction preventing migrants from being housed in the 88-room North Stafford Hotel close to the city’s train station.