An Essex council is asking protesters to end demonstrations outside a hotel housing asylum seekers as it continues to pursue legal action over the property.
Chris Whitbread, the leader of Epping Forest, called for calm and said the Conservative-controlled council could ultimately seek permission to appeal against the overturning of a high court ban on the current use of the Bell.
More than 130 people will be allowed to remain at the property after three judges last Friday set aside a temporary injunction granted to the council.
Whitbread said in his statement on Tuesday that the latest ruling was “not the end of the matter”.
He said Epping had a strong case ahead of a full high court hearing next month to discuss a permanent injunction for the Bell, and was keeping all options open including seeking permission from the supreme court to challenge last week’s ruling.
However, he also issued a call for calm, adding that while he believed most residents supported the council’s legal action, they were also “tired and need some respite” from the disturbances of recent weeks.
While local people have been involved in the protests, far-right activists have also been promoting the demonstrations. Three people were arrested on Sunday during the latest protest outside the hotel.
Whitbread said: “I support the right of local people to peacefully protest. However, after further disturbances and arrests by Essex police, I am approaching the other group leaders on Epping Forest district council and other community leaders to jointly ask protesters to reflect on whether they continue with the twice-weekly local protests.
“If you choose to continue, it should be done considerately and calmly, with awareness of the impact on local residents and the local economy.
“The people of Epping are under great strain. As schools return this week, I appeal to the protest organisers to show restraint and give our families and children some much needed respite.”
An injunction that would have given the Bell’s owner, Somani Hotels, only until 12 September to rehouse the 138 staying there, had been challenged by the company and also by the Home Office.
Judges said the decision to allow the temporary injunction was “seriously flawed” and contained several “errors in principle”. Other reasons given for overturning the interim injunction were that a high court judge should not have given weight in his ruling to protests, including unlawful protests, because that could incentivise further protests and “further lawlessness”.