Dispersal of asylum seekers

Sparked by the Home Secretary’s decision (in November 2024) to procure accommodation at the Ibis Hotel in Coventry, the challenge in R (Coventry City Council) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC (Admin) 2929 was not brought on grounds relating to planning law, but by reference to the Home Secretary’s efforts to achieve full dispersal of asylum seekers across local authorities in the United Kingdom.

In particular, Coventry argued that the decision to “stand up” the Ibis Hotel at a time when the City was already accommodating more than its fair share of asylum seekers, and the Home Secretary’s failure to reduce the number of asylum seekers in Coventry were both in breach of what it contended was the Home Secretary’s policy on the maximum acceptable ratio of asylum seekers to local residents (1:200), and the Service User Development Plan (SUDP) and a Bedspace Demand Plan (BP) for Coventry.

Alternatively, it was argued that Coventry had a legitimate expectation that neither the 1:200 ratio nor the numbers set out in the SUDP and the BDP would be exceeded, and that the Home Secretary’s decisions breached both the Padfield principle and the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Rejecting these arguments, Eyre J held that:

• All statements made by the Home Secretary concerning the 1:200 ratio had to be seen in the context of the Home Secretary’s duty to provide accommodation for asylum seekers who were at risk of destitution. There could be no legitimate expectation that the Home Secretary would act in breach of that duty.
• The fact that the Home Secretary had no control over the number of asylum seekers requiring accommodation was a “potent factor” against reading statements as a representation that there were fixed proportions which would not be exceeded.
• There were a number of authorities in which the 1:200 ratio was exceeded at the date when statements about the ratio were made. It was not realistic to regard those statements as indicating that the position would change immediately.
• Although the statements gave rise to a legitimate expectation that the Home Secretary would work towards the 1:200 ratio, the Home Secretary had not committed herself to achieving full dispersal by any particular date.
• The SUDP and BDP were planning figures which should be seen as targets. Any legitimate expectation or policy in relation to them was at most one that the Home Secretary would genuinely seek to move to the position where the figures were not exceeded.
• Coventry’s complaints about lack of consultation prior to the decision to stand up the Ibis Hotel were academic, given that the use of the Ibis had ceased.
• Although it was desirable, the dispersal of asylum seekers was not an object of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. There was, therefore, no breach of the Padfield principle.
• Coventry’s complaint that the Home Secretary was in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty was artificial and unrealistic.

The decision resolves a long-standing confusion over the status of the 1:200 ratio and is likely to be an important reference point for future public law disputes concerning the placement of asylum accommodation.

Paul Brown KC is a barrister at Landmark Chambers. He acted for the Home Secretary, with John Goss of 5 Essex Chambers.