Ipswich Borough Council v Fairview Hotels (Ipswich) Limited & Anor [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB)
Ipswich planning injunction hotel hostel is an important section 187B case on alleged hotel-to-hostel changes of use and the high threshold for an urgent planning injunction.
The High Court refused to continue interim injunctions preventing hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers, despite accepting that the councils had an arguable planning case.
Important legal note: Planning Geek is a planning consultancy, not a law firm. This page provides general planning information and is not legal advice. Case law must be read in its factual and legal context and may be affected by later judgments, legislation or policy. Where the original judgment is available, it remains the authoritative source. If the outcome matters to a live case or dispute, take advice from an appropriately qualified planning solicitor or barrister.
Copyright and licensing: Crown copyright and other rights in judgments and source material remain with the relevant rights holders. Where a judgment is reproduced from Find Case Law, it is used under the Open Justice Licence and the source should be acknowledged. Material obtained from other sources is reproduced only where the applicable terms permit it. Planning Geek does not claim copyright in the text of court judgments.
- Neutral citation
- [2022] EWHC 2868 (KB)
- Court
- High Court, King's Bench Division
- Judgment date
- 11th November 2022
- Judge
- Mr Justice Holgate
- Case number
- KB-2022-003788
What Ipswich decided
The joined proceedings concerned hotels proposed for temporary asylum accommodation. The councils argued that the proposed operation would materially change the use from a C1 hotel to a sui generis hostel and sought injunctions under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Mr Justice Holgate declined to continue the interim orders.
Different use classes do not answer the material-change question
The Use Classes Order does not itself establish that a material change of use occurs merely because one activity is within a use class and another is outside it.
The decision-maker must examine the actual character of the use and any planning consequences. Labels such as hotel or hostel are evidence, not the legal test.
A section 187B injunction is an exceptional remedy
The court exercises its own discretion when asked for a planning injunction. The council must show that an injunction is necessary or expedient in the circumstances, not merely that a planning breach may be arguable.
Here there was no persuasive evidence of significant traffic, amenity, environmental or neighbour harm from the proposed temporary use. The public interest in providing accommodation for destitute asylum seekers also formed part of the factual context.
The remedy must be proportionate to the planning harm
Section 187B is powerful because breach of an injunction can lead to contempt proceedings. It should therefore be used proportionately and where ordinary planning enforcement remedies are inadequate or too slow for the harm at issue.
Planning Geek’s enforcement guidance explains the wider statutory framework.
Without-notice applications require particular care
The judgment also reinforces the demanding duty of full and frank disclosure where urgent interim relief is sought without the other side first being heard.
An authority seeking immediate injunctive relief should identify material points both for and against the order rather than presenting only its own enforcement case.
Read the full Ipswich judgment
The full High Court judgment is held in the Planning Geek case law library. Gold Members can open the protected PDF below.
Ipswich Planning Injunction Case Law Page Updated: 10th September 2026