For whom the Bell (Hotel) Tolls

Until recently, The Bell Hotel in Epping was best known for its 80 modest but comfortable rooms, a reputation for friendly service and being a dependable stop-off for travellers on the Essex–London fringe. This summer, it became something else entirely, the epicentre of a national row over asylum accommodation.

In July, The Bell became a flashpoint. For weeks, thousands of protesters and counter-protesters crowded Bell Common, as police lines and news cameras turned a local hotel into the symbol of a national crisis.

In the aftermath, ministers promised to bring an end to the use of hotels for asylum seekers altogether, describing them as an unsustainable strain on local communities. The solution, they said, would be to use “more suitable accommodation such as military bases”, facilities that could be secured and managed away from town centres.

At the time, it sounded like a pragmatic fix, a way to calm tempers and restore order. Yet as plans for those sites have rolled out, a familiar pattern has begun to emerge. 

In towns from Crowborough in East Sussex to Inverness in the Scottish Highlands, plans to repurpose former military sites for asylum accommodation have sparked fresh protests and political tension. In Crowborough, local Green councillors have criticised the decision to use the town’s barracks, while in Inverness, SNP politicians and Highland councillors have accused the Home Office of imposing the policy without consultation. 

In both instances, the strongest reactions have come from parties traditionally seen as welcoming of asylum seekers. Notably, the Greens in East Sussex have long positioned themselves as pro-asylum, yet their leadership has now signed a letter warning that “accommodating 600 men on one site with no right to work brings significant risks”. Likewise, the SNP-led Highland Council, which has maintained a broadly supportive stance on immigration, has cautioned about the “impact this proposal will have on community cohesion”. 

What both councils object to most is the lack of consultation, both with local authorities and with the communities expected to host these sites. For parties that have rarely had to engage with asylum policy beyond principle or national debate, these situations bring the issue to their doorstep. They are now having to manage its practical realities, and the political consequence among their own constituents. 

These new flashpoints risk reshaping local politics in ways that Westminster may yet appreciate. As national decisions meet local reality, local councils are left to manage the consequences, often without information, resources or time to prepare their residents. The result is mistrust on all sides. 

Whether the issue is asylum housing, housing targets or infrastructure delivery, the lesson is the same, policy imposed from the centre rarely lands well without proper local engagement. Real solutions require early, honest consultation with the communities expected to live with their impact. Only by rebuilding that trust can councils and government hope to move from managing backlash to managing change.