Written evidence submitted by Eastbourne Borough Council (AAC0026)

Eastbourne Borough Council (EBC) was consulted in Spring 2020 by the Home Office and its contractor Clearsprings Ready Homes (CRH) with regard to the procurement of a hotel in our borough to accommodate asylum seekers in contingency hotel initial accommodation (IA). This was deemed necessary due to the backlog of claims being processed by the HO due to the Covid-19 pandemic and the lack of HO IA at that time.

An agreement was made between EBC, CRH and the HO that a hotel was to be procured, the number of bed spaces would be in the region of 40. Once the hotel opened communication was very good with the HO, CRH and our partners in Health, Police and NGA’s by way of weekly meetings.

However, within a very short period of time 3 more hotels were procured by CRH which we were not advised of or consulted about - we only became aware of them being used by the HO once service users started to approach NGA’s for assistance with clothing, food and immigration advice.

The opening of the 3 subsequent hotels without prior consultation increased the number of service users substantially, within a very short period of time, to around 380 people which put enormous pressure on local services and did not enable us to plan health services, inform Police or NGOs in order to prepare for new the arrivals.

All 4 hotels were located within our designated tourism zone along the seafront which caused major issues with other hoteliers concerned about the impact on tourism and our planning and licensing departments.

At the point when the hotels were being decommissioned by CRH from late 2023 to early 2024 a number of service users were given positive asylum decisions and given notice to leave their accommodation just prior to the closures – this imposed a burden on EBC in terms of homelessness applications. This was contrary to what had been agreed with the HO - when we were initially consulted about the first hotel site because were given an assurance that asylum decisions would not be given whilst service users were in occupation so as not to impose an undue burden on our housing department.

Because we were not given timely information on the numbers who would be given asylum decisions prior to hotel closures we couldn’t adequately plan staffing levels to deal with the number of homeless applications.

Most applicants were single males with no priority need, therefore ultimately no housing duty was owed to them, this resulted in several individuals becoming street homeless.

We are informed by CRH that there are currently 55 bed spaces in our borough currently being used as DA but have not been given the addresses or any information pertaining to them. Once service users receive a positive asylum decision they are required to leave their accommodation. Until recently the notice period was 28 days, this has now been extended to 56 days. The HO, nor CRH, provide assistance to those being made homeless from their accommodation.

Our Recommendations:

More data is required about asylum decisions being fast tracked prior to closures in hotels and when service users are being given notice in DA so that the LA can adequately plan its response to homelessness applications.

Consultation with the LA is necessary around the choice of hotel sites and DA and consideration should be given to the impact on housing services, the local tourism economy, LA planning department, health provision and police services.

Hoteliers and landlords should be required to engage with the police and LA planning department before agreeing terms with Home Office contractors.

Early engagement and consultation by the HO and CRH with the LA, health partners, police and other stakeholders is crucial when hotel and DA sites are being considered so that representations can be made before contracting with hoteliers and landlords – ideally at the point of initial negotiations. Hoteliers and landlords should be required to engage with the LA before agreeing terms with HO contractors.

Jan 2025