by
Charlie Winstanley
30th September 2025
The recent Epping Forest court case has exposed the fragility of the UK government’s position on the use of asylum hotels. Although the government has won an appeal against an injunction which would have forced the immediate evacuation of the hotel, should Epping Forest Council win its case to close the hotel on planning grounds, it could precipitate a collapse of the hotel accommodation system overnight, without any clear or palatable alternatives.
No one is a fan of the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. Currently, over 32,000 asylum seekers reside in hotels at an annual cost of £1.3bn. The combined costs of asylum accommodation are projected to cost over £15bn over the next 10 years. Hotels are usually entirely unsuitable for such use, with poor sanitation, safeguarding risks, lack of access to amenities such as kitchens and separate bedrooms, and strains on local services. Combined with this, the procurement of asylum accommodation concentrates its use primarily in some of the most deprived areas of the country, deepening ethnic tension and operating as a magnet for far-right protests. To add insult to injury, the acquisition by the Home Office of housing and hotels often operates in direct competition with local authorities’ search for accommodation to cover their own statutory responsibilities to house those presenting as homeless, increasing prices and fuelling the wider housing crisis. There are currently 169,000 children living in council-provided temporary accommodation, of an estimated 326,000 people overall.
But there appear to be few available alternatives. Social housing is already in short supply, and its use as asylum accommodation is increasingly a site of enmity and worsening political tensions. The 2024 Labour government made significant noise about closing the Bibby Stockholm barge, which housed over 100 asylum seekers, due to unsafe conditions and an outbreak of Legionella. Any return to such methods will be seen as a huge setback in the government’s plans. The use of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) is increasingly a source of disquiet, contributing to rising rents and issues with community cohesion and stock condition.
Despite Labour’s promise to move beyond the use of hotels as asylum accommodation in its victorious 2024 manifesto, over the past 12 months, it has increased. In light of the Epping Forest case, both Conservative and Reform politicians have called for the reopening of camps on military bases, calls that have recently been given further credence with comments by the incoming Home Office Minister Shabnam Mahmoud. Many fear these camps could become permanent fixtures, representing a deep cultural apartheid.
Yet within this seemingly intractable crisis, the government still has some opportunities. Through its commitment to build 1.5m homes over the course of this parliament, it has set itself a target which could serve a dual purpose in replacing asylum hotels. Research from Kate Wareing of Soha Homes suggests that a relatively modest capital grant to housing associations to purchase homes could pay itself back in savings to private landlords and hoteliers in just over six months. A £1bn fund could deliver 11,000 homes, and save £1bn annually after year one. Terms for the funding of new-build properties for the purpose not only of housing asylum seekers, but also of catering to wider temporary accommodation demands, could be developed on a cost-saving basis, helping government to justify the capital spending required for at least part of its commitment on broader housing numbers. Once delivered, these homes could transition from temporary to permanent use, helping the government to deliver its targets for affordable and socially rented homes and contributing to resolving the nation’s wider housing crisis, thus reducing both dependency on costly private contractors and competition in local rental markets.
Current government negotiations on devolution could play a proactive role here. The Home Office is conducting a pilot with local authorities to devolve responsibility for asylum housing procurement. There is significant interest from LAs in possessing more control over this process and mitigating some of the cack-handed placement decisions made by the Home Office (as well as seizing the opportunity for budget savings), yet also substantial trepidation about taking on new responsibilities for such a contentious area of public policy. Worsening this debate is increasing anger over the current asylum dispersal policy, which many feel disproportionately targets poorer areas in deindustrialised areas, which the Treasury regards as offering better ‘value for money’. Capital grant funding, which could not only help place asylum seekers better, but also enable councils to take control of the housing and temporary accommodation crisis more broadly, could be a significant sweetener in negotiations about further devolved responsibilities.
Political pressure to provide fast-acting responses to the asylum accommodation problem may yet stymy long-term solutions. Government is incredibly sensitive to criticisms that it is providing additional services and resources to asylum seekers, and may yet revert to more punitive measures, such as camps, which could have disastrous effects on long-term cohesion efforts.
To manage this political risk, the government needs to reframe asylum accommodation as part of the wider temporary accommodation crisis, reducing the distinction between resources put towards housing asylum seekers and those spent addressing the wider issue of homelessness. The funding model needs to shift from revenue spend on hotels and private accommodation to capital investment in new homes, and potential revenue generation through these assets in the medium to long term. Alongside this, there are further opportunities through devolution to address excessive spending by local government, as well as improve allocation processes and invest in community cohesion and integration efforts. Ending the use of asylum hotels is an opportunity as much as a necessity. In converting the billions currently wasted on private-sector provision into capital investment, government can reduce costs, alleviate the wider housing crisis and create a long-lasting legacy of affordable homes. To do so requires bold leadership, clear and communicable vision, and a commitment to seeing asylum and housing policy in the round.
Charlie Winstanley is Programme Manager, Metro Mayor’s Programme at the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy (RAMP) Project. He is a former political advisor and public and social policy specialist with a background in local government.
Bricking It by Charlie Winstanley is available on Bristol University Press for £29.99 here.
Bristol University Press/Policy Press newsletter subscribers receive a 25% discount – sign up here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles publish.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Policy Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Jochem Raat via Unsplash