At the Council Meeting on 17 September 2025, Cllr Hassall brought a motion called “Asylum Hotels, Planning Compliance and Local Housing Impact” . It was done “… in the interests of fairness, safety, and the protection of Derby’s communities”

The pre-amble of the motion stated:

“While the city recognises its duty to act lawfully and with compassion, it is also vital that local residents are not placed at a disadvantage through decisions made by central government.”

This initiative was off the back of the Epping Forest District Council ruling which was focussed on enforcing planning law.

[In short the Epping ruling established that, whilst the hotel was classified as a C1 use (hotel) under planning law that longer term use by a single group of people rendered it, potentially, a hostel, or similar, and not within the scope of C1. This was found to be the case in the Epping Forest judgement however it was overturned on a technicality.

This could have been resolved by submitting a retrospective planning application for change of use]

Hassall’s motion sought to give the Council power to enforce planning law; which it already has.

It is entirely correct that any person or organisation that operates outside of the planning regulations should be subject to challenge or enforcement, whether it be a hotel housing Asylum seekers, a hotel being used by the Council to house homeless people in the City, or Councillors with personal interests in Houses of Multiple Occupancy.

It is simply a planning matter; nothing to do with who is being housed. As Hassall stated this is “not about race, or skin colour.”

However, the motion implies that by, enforcing a technicality in planning categories, Derby will be somehow be safer. The underlying assertion is that Asylum seekers are inherently dangerous; this is a myth pedalled by Reform.

Cllr Graves (Reform) in his speech, ignored the planning angle and resorted to scaremongering

“It is quite evident now that these asylum hotels are not being used to help people flee persecution, violence or conflict but housing opportunists, economic migrants, and an element of criminal migrants. We cannot tell which is which because the government does not know. I question whether they are genuine or bona fide when they have left France to get here”.

CLLR GRAVES FACT-CHECK: UK crime statistics do not record the individuals immigration status. This is confirmed by the Office for National Statistics. There is nothing to substantiate this claim.

On the assumption that the Hotels were closed down then the motion mandated that the people could not be moved…

“…either into Derby Homes housing stock, HMOs or other affordable housing and that housing Derby residents be a
reaffirmed priority. Responsibility for asylum accommodation must remain directly with central Government, not at the expense of local households”

Before the use of hotels, Asylum Seekers were housed in privately run HMOs. Using hotels, avoids the very issue that Hassall is concerned about. The hotels, in question, were never used to house Derby people.

The motion then stated clearly:

“…that Derby City Council will not support the displacement of asylum seekers from hotel closures into Derby’s
local communities…”

Hassall has a short memory.

At the 12 October 2017 Planning Committee (of which Cllr Hassall was a member), an application was approved to change the usage of the Laverstoke Court student accommodation block into a residence for 225 Asylum seekers right in the centre of ” Derby’s local communities”

Comment

This motion is built on the back of the bigotted assumption that all Asylum Seekers are a danger to society. It stereotypes a whole population of people by virtue of their immigration status. A very dangerous and insidious precedent.

Hassall’s motion showed it’s true colours and its vindictive nature in section 4 when it stated that, in the event that hundreds of Asylum Seekers are displaced from hotels that they can’t be housed in Derby, even in privately owned accommodation – so much for the free market…and compassion!

His motion took further from the Reform “playbook” by suggesting that “Derby residents be a reaffirmed priority”

CLLR HASSALL FACT CHECK: Asylum Seekers are not, and have not, been part of the wider Council Housing system and therefore are not taking a priority over Derby residents. This is factually incorrect.

Hassall’s motion is politically motivated opportunism.

POSTSCRIPT

The irony is that if the Laverstoke Court accommodation that Hassall voted on to turn into flats for Asylum Seekers, had been made available to Derby Homes ( like Milestone House) then it would have truly been a “victory for Derby Residents”. If the 2 hotels are closed then the Home Office will no doubt disperse the same Asylum Seekers people into HMOs throughout the City.