Asylum and Migration

← all policy areas

Reform-led county and unitary councils have taken formal positions against Home Office asylum accommodation in their areas.[1][2][3] The instrument differs by council: a full-council motion, a letter to ministers or local MPs, and, in West Northamptonshire, planning enforcement against the hotels themselves.[1][4][3] The opposition centres on accommodation for adults: hotels, houses in multiple occupation and proposed large sites.[1][5][2] On unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the National Transfer Scheme the picture is the reverse: no council examined moved to limit or withdraw.[6][7][8][9][10][11] County Durham planned for more capacity, proposing additional supported accommodation as referrals of unaccompanied children rose.[12]

Key figures

6 Reform-led councils have formally opposed asylum hotels or Home Office migrant accommodation, by motion or executive position
Derbyshire County Council
The motion, carried on a recorded vote 38 votes to 5, resolved that the Council Leader write to Derbyshire's MPs seeking 'a clear and public timeline for when all Asylum Hotels will no longer be used to house asylum seekers', and to Derbyshire's borough and district councils asking them to go no further than the statutory minimum in housing people leaving asylum hotels — including not placing them in Houses in Multiple Occupation where there is no local connection.
“That this Council resolves to request that the Council Leader writes to: - Our Members of Parliament for Derbyshire, asking them to request from the Home Office a clear and public timeline for when all Asylum Hotels will no longer be used to house asylum seekers; and - All borough and district councils in Derbyshire requesting they only meet the minimum duties set out in legislation in relation to housing any individuals leaving asylum hotels, and that it will not go beyond these statutory requirements. This includes not being placed in Houses in Multiple Occupation when there is no local connection.” source ↗
Lincolnshire County Council
At Full Council on 12 September 2025, Lincolnshire County Council voted (as amended) to call on the Leader and Executive to publicly oppose Government proposals to use sites in Greater Lincolnshire for asylum seeker accommodation (including RAF Scampton) and to write to the local MP opposing any such use of RAF Scampton; a Conservative Group motion moved by Cllr R Davies and seconded by Cllr T Dyer was amended by a Reform UK amendment (moved by Cllr R Gibson, seconded by Cllr P Roberts), which was carried by recorded vote 38 for / 14 against / 11 abstentions, and the motion as amended was then RESOLVED (carried), with 12 Conservative councillors recording their votes against the amended motion.
“A motion by the Conservative Group was moved by Councillor R Davies and seconded by Councillor T Dyer as follows: That that this Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Executive to: 1. Publicly oppose any Government proposals to use sites in Greater Lincolnshire for asylum seeker accommodation.” source ↗
West Northamptonshire Council
As carried, the motion resolved that the Council would write to the Home Secretary to express its concerns about the ongoing use of hotels in the area for asylum-seeker accommodation and request full consultation on future decisions, would pursue the Planning Contravention Notices already issued against three hotels in West Northamptonshire, and would call on Government to end reliance on hotels for housing asylum seekers.
“3. To address the new Home Secretary in writing to express this Council's concerns about the ongoing use of hotels in the area for asylum seeker accommodation, and to request full consultation with this Council on any future decisions.” source ↗
Kent County Council
At the 18 September 2025 Kent County Council meeting, the Leader's report recorded that she had written to the Home Secretary asking to be consulted early and given transparency before any new migrant accommodation sites are identified in Kent, and had separately written to all 12 Kent district/borough leaders asking for details of migrant accommodation in their areas, after flagging Dover, Manston and Napier Barracks as known sites plus a concern that further hotels or HMOs could be in use unannounced; as of the meeting the Home Secretary had not replied.
“The Leader had written to the Home Secretary requesting early consultation and transparency in identifying new sites in Kent but had not yet received a response.” source ↗
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council
Full Council carried a Conservative-group motion on inappropriate accommodation for asylum seekers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, moved by Cllr Holland and seconded by Cllr Fear, which objected to housing asylum seekers in HMOs or short-term lets as lacking necessary support infrastructure; the Leader summed up the debate framing it as 'demanding that the system worked' before the motion was carried on a vote.
“Councillor Holland introduced the Motion which expressed concerns regarding the unsuitability of housing Asylum seekers in Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) or short term lets as they often lacked the necessary support infrastructure.” source ↗
Staffordshire County Council
On 17 July 2025, replying in writing to a Council question on immigration, the Leader of the Council set out a formal administration position (item 5 of a numbered list of policy positions) that council taxpayers' money would not be used to subsidise or implement national migration policies, and that any council funding currently used for such purposes would be withdrawn where legally possible; this is a general position on national migration funding, not a motion or statement specifically naming asylum hotels or Home Office accommodation.
“5. On Immigration – Immigration policy is a matter for national government. However, we will ensure that Council taxpayers' money is not used to subsidise or implement national migration policies. Where council resources are currently used—directly or indirectly—to support such policies, we will, where legally permissible, withdraw that funding and redirect it to support the people of Staffordshire.” source ↗
Derived from an exhaustive search for “opposition to asylum hotels / Home Office migrant accommodation (motion or executive position)”, counted against the corpus as of 2026-07-02.

How the opposition was expressed

The strongest cases name asylum accommodation directly and attach the position to an act the council can take.[1][2][3] Derbyshire's full-council motion, carried on a recorded vote of 38 to 5, instructs the Leader to write to the county's MPs seeking a clear and public timeline for when asylum hotels will no longer be used to house asylum seekers.[1] It also asks Derbyshire's borough and district councils to go no further than the statutory minimum in housing people leaving asylum hotels, including not placing them in Houses in Multiple Occupation where there is no local connection.[1] Lincolnshire anchored its opposition to a specific proposed site.[2] Its Full Council called on the Leader and Executive to publicly oppose Government proposals to use sites in Greater Lincolnshire for asylum seeker accommodation, including RAF Scampton, and to write to the local MP opposing any such use of the base.[2] The operative wording was set by a Reform UK amendment to a Conservative motion, carried on a recorded vote of 38 for, 14 against and 11 abstentions.[2] West Northamptonshire carried a motion on 25 September 2025 opposing the use of hotels in its area for asylum-seeker accommodation.[13] The motion resolved to pursue the Planning Contravention Notices already issued against three hotels, to write to the Home Secretary requesting full consultation on future decisions, and to call on Government to end reliance on hotels for housing asylum seekers.[3]

The qualified cases

Three of the counted positions are narrower than a clean anti-hotel motion: each is a formal council or executive position touching migrant accommodation, but none targets hotels head-on.[14][5][15] Kent's council motion, declaring an 'Illegal Migration Emergency in Kent', is framed around small-boat arrivals and their costs and does not name asylum hotels or Home Office accommodation.[14] The accommodation-specific act is separate: the Leader wrote to the Home Secretary asking to be consulted early and given transparency before any new migrant accommodation sites are identified in Kent.[4] Newcastle-under-Lyme's motion was moved by the Conservative group and objects to housing asylum seekers in HMOs or short-term lets as lacking necessary support infrastructure.[5] The Leader summed up the debate as 'demanding that the system worked' before the motion was carried.[5] Staffordshire's 'On Immigration' position, set out by the Leader in a written answer on 17 July 2025, commits the council not to use taxpayers' money to subsidise or implement national migration policies, and to withdraw such funding where legally possible.[15][9] It is a stance on migration funding, not on accommodation.[15]

Doncaster: a Labour-run contrast

The same hotel opposition also appears from outside the Reform column, and is deliberately not counted.[16] In neighbouring Doncaster, Reform holds most of the council seats but the executive is a directly elected Labour mayor.[16] The mayor told Full Council the council had been robust on housing asylum seekers: it successfully challenged the opening of two additional contingency hotels, campaigned for the closure of another, and challenged Mears Housing's attempts to procure further properties.[16] Because the executive is Labour-led, Doncaster sits outside the Reform-led scope and is excluded from the count.[16]

The National Transfer Scheme: a notable absence

No Reform-led council examined moved to cap, condition or withdraw from the National Transfer Scheme or its support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Where the scheme surfaced it did so as routine casework, cost pressure or statutory-duty planning, not as a decision to limit intake.[8][17][11][7] The recorded direction, where there is one, runs the other way.[12][10] County Durham's response to rising referrals of unaccompanied children was to propose acquiring additional supported-accommodation properties, not fewer.[12] Warwickshire's corporate parenting panel confirmed the council remains part of the scheme and is carrying fewer children than its Government allocation, 81 against 119.[10][18] A fall in the Warwickshire caseload was linked partly to a temporary national pause in transfers, which the minutes do not attribute to any Warwickshire decision.[19]

Counter-examples and the two-tier limit

Not every Reform-led council pushed back.[20] North Northamptonshire went the other way on dispersal: considering Local Authority Housing Fund property acquisitions, its Executive accepted national asylum dispersal as a statutory obligation it must assist with regardless.[20] Several counties record no position at all: the published minutes of Warwickshire, Lancashire and Leicestershire contain no motion or formal position opposing asylum hotels or Home Office migrant accommodation.[21][22][23] Staffordshire's Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources made the structural point explicitly: adult asylum seeker accommodation is a district and borough council responsibility, not a county one.[24]

Coverage gaps

Two coverage gaps affect how the count should be read.[25][26] Essex is limited at the point that matters: no Essex Full Council minutes in the corpus post-date Reform taking control on 7 May 2026, so any Reform-era Essex motion falls outside the record captured here.[25] The only asylum-hotel position found at Essex was taken by the separately elected Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, who wrote to the Home Office asking that the Bell Hotel in Epping cease to be used as an asylum hotel; the county scrutiny panel noted the update rather than adopting it.[25] Nottinghamshire's corpus is thin and missing the full-council appendices that carry written answers, so a members' question tabled about asylum-seeker accommodation cannot be followed to its recorded response.[26][27]

References

1. The motion, carried on a recorded vote 38 votes to 5, resolved that the Council Leader write to Derbyshire's MPs seeking 'a clear and public timeline for when all Asylum Hotels will no longer be used to house asylum seekers', and to Derbyshire's borough and district councils asking them to go no further than the statutory minimum in housing people leaving asylum hotels — including not placing them in Houses in Multiple Occupation where there is no local connection.
“That this Council resolves to request that the Council Leader writes to: - Our Members of Parliament for Derbyshire, asking them to request from the Home Office a clear and public timeline for when all Asylum Hotels will no longer be used to house asylum seekers; and - All borough and district councils in Derbyshire requesting they only meet the minimum duties set out in legislation in relation to housing any individuals leaving asylum hotels, and that it will not go beyond these statutory requirements. This includes not being placed in Houses in Multiple Occupation when there is no local connection.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“For the motion: Councillors Adams, Benfield, Bent, Bromley, Brown, Bull, Chambers, Cliff, Dale, Elsdon, Ford, Furness, Graves, Grooby, Hallett, Hart, Harvey, Hatfield, Hill, Hodgson, Isherwood, Lawson, Mabbott, Mathews, Maginnis, Millward, Muizelaar, Oxberry, Price, R Reaney, S Reaney, Redfern, Reed, M Smith, R Smith, Wharmby, Whitbread and Wood. Against the motion: Councillors Clarke, Hatchett, Kinsella, Pizzey and Snowdon.” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
“The motion was declared WON and CARRIED, it was therefore RESOLVED that the Council Leader writes to:” Minutes, 11 February 2026 ↗
2. At Full Council on 12 September 2025, Lincolnshire County Council voted (as amended) to call on the Leader and Executive to publicly oppose Government proposals to use sites in Greater Lincolnshire for asylum seeker accommodation (including RAF Scampton) and to write to the local MP opposing any such use of RAF Scampton; a Conservative Group motion moved by Cllr R Davies and seconded by Cllr T Dyer was amended by a Reform UK amendment (moved by Cllr R Gibson, seconded by Cllr P Roberts), which was carried by recorded vote 38 for / 14 against / 11 abstentions, and the motion as amended was then RESOLVED (carried), with 12 Conservative councillors recording their votes against the amended motion.
“A motion by the Conservative Group was moved by Councillor R Davies and seconded by Councillor T Dyer as follows: That that this Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Executive to: 1. Publicly oppose any Government proposals to use sites in Greater Lincolnshire for asylum seeker accommodation.” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
“An amendment by Reform UK, moved by Councillor R Gibson, seconded by Councillor P Roberts had been submitted as follows:” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
“5. Request the Leader to write to the Lincoln MP, Hamish Falconer MP, to strongly oppose the Labour Government on any proposal to use RAF Scampton for asylum seeker accommodation.” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
“Upon being put to the vote, the amendment was carried. The vote was recorded as follows: FOR: 38” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
“A vote was then taken on the Motion, as amended. RESOLVED That this Council calls on the Leader of the Council and the Executive to:” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
“Councillors Brockway, Carrington, Cawrey, Davies, Dyer, Hill OBE, Kendrick, Martin, Roe, Taylor, Vernon and Woolley requested that their vote against the motion, as amended, be recorded.” Minutes, 12 September 2025 ↗
3. As carried, the motion resolved that the Council would write to the Home Secretary to express its concerns about the ongoing use of hotels in the area for asylum-seeker accommodation and request full consultation on future decisions, would pursue the Planning Contravention Notices already issued against three hotels in West Northamptonshire, and would call on Government to end reliance on hotels for housing asylum seekers.
“3. To address the new Home Secretary in writing to express this Council's concerns about the ongoing use of hotels in the area for asylum seeker accommodation, and to request full consultation with this Council on any future decisions.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“1. To respond in a timely manner once responses to the Planning Contravention Notices issued against the three hotels in West Northamptonshire are received.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“5. To call on the Government to develop a sustainable, properly planned and community-consulted approach to housing asylum seekers.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
4. At the 18 September 2025 Kent County Council meeting, the Leader's report recorded that she had written to the Home Secretary asking to be consulted early and given transparency before any new migrant accommodation sites are identified in Kent, and had separately written to all 12 Kent district/borough leaders asking for details of migrant accommodation in their areas, after flagging Dover, Manston and Napier Barracks as known sites plus a concern that further hotels or HMOs could be in use unannounced; as of the meeting the Home Secretary had not replied.
“Known accommodation sites in Kent included Dover, Manston, and Napier Barracks, and there may be other unknown hotels and houses in multiple occupation (HMOs).” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The Leader had written to the Home Secretary requesting early consultation and transparency in identifying new sites in Kent but had not yet received a response.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
“Letters were also sent to all 12 Kent council leaders requesting information on migrant accommodation in their districts and boroughs.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
5. Full Council carried a Conservative-group motion on inappropriate accommodation for asylum seekers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, moved by Cllr Holland and seconded by Cllr Fear, which objected to housing asylum seekers in HMOs or short-term lets as lacking necessary support infrastructure; the Leader summed up the debate framing it as 'demanding that the system worked' before the motion was carried on a vote.
“A Motion, concerning inappropriate accommodation for Asylum Seekers in Newcastle-under-Lyme was submitted by the Conservative Group, proposed by Councillor Holland and seconded by Councillor Fear.” Minutes, 24 September 2025 ↗
“Councillor Holland introduced the Motion which expressed concerns regarding the unsuitability of housing Asylum seekers in Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) or short term lets as they often lacked the necessary support infrastructure.” Minutes, 24 September 2025 ↗
“A vote was taken and the Motion was carried.” Minutes, 24 September 2025 ↗
6. No decision, motion or executive position to limit, withdraw from or set conditions on the National Transfer Scheme or County Durham's support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) appears in the council's published minutes; when a councillor pressed the cabinet in July 2025 on whether UASC would be treated equitably with other children in care, the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People's Services affirmed that corporate parenting responsibilities were taken seriously for all children in care, and separately, Corporate Parenting Panel minutes record only routine reporting of children relocated to Durham under the national transfer scheme.
“Given that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are among the most vulnerable young people in our communities, will the cabinet member now answer the question that was left unanswered last week in the cabinet meeting. Will all children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, be treated with equity” Minutes, 16 July 2025 ↗
“corporate parenting responsibilities were taken seriously for all of our children in care and as a member of the Corporate Parenting committee Councillor Neill would have the opportunity to support us in that endeavour” Minutes, 16 July 2025 ↗
“Councillor Walton referred to the report that detailed 4% of children in our care were unaccommodated asylum seeking young people and asked if they had been located to Durham under a national transfer scheme. The Practice Lead, Children and young people clarified that these were vulnerable young people aged 11 and over who had been relocated under a national transfer scheme” Minutes, 17 October 2025 ↗
7. Leicestershire County Council's published minutes contain no motion, cabinet decision or leader statement that caps, pauses, suspends, refuses, conditions or withdraws from the National Transfer Scheme (NTS) or the council's UASC intake; the only substantive discussion of the NTS is informational — at the Children and Families Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 4 November 2025, officers described it as a mandatory Home Office scheme distributing unaccompanied asylum-seeking children regionally across the East Midlands, with Leicestershire sharing the responsibility alongside other local authorities, rather than any decision to limit it.
“a mandatory Home Office scheme which was designed to distribute UASC across the country.” Minutes, 4 November 2025 ↗
“Leicestershire sharing the responsibility alongside other local authorities.” Minutes, 4 November 2025 ↗
8. The corpus surfaced no motion, cabinet decision or leader statement to cap, pause, suspend, refuse or withdraw from the National Transfer Scheme or Nottinghamshire's support for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC); the only UASC-related content found is routine committee reporting of caseload and cost pressure. At the Children and Families Select Committee (13 October 2025), members queried an overspend in the cost of supporting UASC in care, and officers noted that Home Office funding for a UASC ceases at 18 but the Council continues to fund those already in placement -- both routine casework/finance items, not a decision to limit intake.
“Members asked for further information on the £0.4million overspend in the cost of supporting U naccompanied Asylum -Seeking Children (UASC) in care.” Document, 1 December 2025 ↗
“The Home Office funding for UASC stopped when a child turned 18, therefore the Council continued to fund those children in placement.” Document, 1 December 2025 ↗
9. Staffordshire's published minutes contain no motion, cabinet decision or leader statement that names the National Transfer Scheme or unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) and moves to cap, pause, suspend, refuse or withdraw from it; the council's only immigration-specific policy position is the general 'On Immigration' statement the Leader gave at Full Council on 17 July 2025, which addresses national migration policy funding broadly rather than the NTS or UASC specifically.
“On Immigration – Immigration policy is a matter for national government. However, we will ensure that Council taxpayers' money is not used to subsidise or implement national migration policies. Where council resources are currently used—directly or indirectly—to support such policies, we will, where legally permissible, withdraw that funding and redirect it to support the people of Staffordshire.” Minutes, 17 July 2025 ↗
10. Warwickshire's Corporate Parenting Panel was told in March 2026 that the council "remains part of the National Transfer Scheme," with the number of separated children in its care below its Government allocation, and no evidence was found of any decision to withdraw, cap or set conditions on participation.
“Warwickshire County Council remains part of the National Transfer Scheme, though numbers locally remain low compared with recent years.” Document, 23 March 2026 ↗
11. On 18 November 2025 Kent County Council's Children, Young People and Education Cabinet Committee heard that KCC's statutory Sufficiency Strategy — which covers placements for children in care, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) — needed to be revamped following a 2023 High Court judgment on UASC; officers framed this as a prevention- and in-house-provision-focused update to meet the statutory duty, not a decision to cap, pause or withdraw from UASC intake or the National Transfer Scheme.
“Mrs Palmer introduced the decision explaining that it was a statutory requirement, which detailed how the service planned to address challenge of finding safe and suitable placements for children in care, on the edge of care and care leavers.” Minutes, 18 November 2025 ↗
“There was a need to revamp the strategy following the high court judgement on Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children (UASC) in 2023.” Minutes, 18 November 2025 ↗
12. Rather than limiting or capping intake, County Durham's response to rising UASC referrals under the National Protocol Arrangements was to propose acquiring additional supported-accommodation properties: a May 2026 Cabinet report on property and supported accommodation records that increased UASC allocation via the National Protocol Arrangements had driven up local use of supported accommodation, and forecasts continued allocations of UASC as a reason demand will keep rising.
“allocation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children (UASC) referrals via the National Protocol Arrangements (primarily aged 16+ with needs met in supported lodgings or supported accommodation) has increased local use” Document, 6 May 2026 ↗
“It is anticipated that demand for supported accommodation will continue to increase, as we have an increasing number of older children in care, pressures across fostering services, ongoing sufficiency challenges in children’s homes and continued allocations of UASC” Document, 6 May 2026 ↗
13. On 25 September 2025 West Northamptonshire Council debated and, as amended, carried an 'Opposition Priority Business' motion (item 325) opposing the use of hotels in the district for asylum-seeker/migrant accommodation; the original motion was proposed by Councillor Lister and seconded by Councillor Bignell, citing the pressure that hotel use without proper consultation placed on local communities.
“Councillor Lister proposed and Councillor Bignell seconded:” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“The pressures faced by local communities where hotels are designated for use as migrant accommodation without proper consultation or local authority input.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“Upon a vote, the substantive motion was carried.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
14. At the March 2026 Kent County Council meeting, Mr Wimble proposed and Mr Eustace seconded a motion declaring an 'Illegal Migration Emergency in Kent', which the Council carried unanimously (45 for, 0 against, 0 abstentions); it calls on the Leader to press the Government to stop small-boat arrivals and to fully fund the costs to the County Council and partner agencies of dealing with illegal migration, but the motion's text does not name asylum hotels or Home Office accommodation specifically.
“Mr Wimble proposed and Mr Eustace seconded the motion that: “Kent County Council declares an Illegal Migration Emergency in Kent.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
“Therefore, the Council calls on the Leader of the Council to: a) Demand the Government stops the arrival of migrants by small boats immediately b) Seek to ensure that the Government provides full funding to cover the costs to the County Council and partner public agencies in dealing with the consequences of illegal migration” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
“For (45) Mr J Baker, Mr M Brown, Mr C Burwash, Mr A Cecil, Mr P Chamberlain” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
“Against (0) Abstain (0) Motion carried.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
15. On 17 July 2025, replying in writing to a Council question on immigration, the Leader of the Council set out a formal administration position (item 5 of a numbered list of policy positions) that council taxpayers' money would not be used to subsidise or implement national migration policies, and that any council funding currently used for such purposes would be withdrawn where legally possible; this is a general position on national migration funding, not a motion or statement specifically naming asylum hotels or Home Office accommodation.
“5. On Immigration – Immigration policy is a matter for national government. However, we will ensure that Council taxpayers' money is not used to subsidise or implement national migration policies. Where council resources are currently used—directly or indirectly—to support such policies, we will, where legally permissible, withdraw that funding and redirect it to support the people of Staffordshire.” Minutes, 17 July 2025 ↗
16. At Full Council on 18 September 2025, in response to a question from Councillor Gerald Squire, Mayor of Doncaster Ros Jones (the council's directly-elected executive) stated that the council had 'been robust in its approach to housing asylum seekers' and set out specific opposition actions it had taken against Home Office 'contingency' hotel use in the borough: successfully challenging the opening of two additional contingency hotels, campaigning for the closure of another, and challenging Mears Housing's attempts to procure further properties to house asylum seekers. This is a stated executive position, not a full-council motion, and Doncaster's executive is Labour-led (directly-elected Mayor), not Reform-led — the council is explicitly excluded from the Reform-led scope in this project's council registry (Reform holds most council seats but not the mayoralty).
“Doncaster has been robust in its approach to housing asylum seekers here in the city and successfully challenged the opening of 2 additional Contingency Hotels under the previous Government.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
“We also campaigned and provided information leading to the closure of another Contingency Hotel.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
“We have also successfully challenged the use of numerous properties, that Mears Housing have attempted to procure to house Asylum Seekers.” Minutes, 18 September 2025 ↗
17. At the March 2026 Kent County Council meeting the Leader's report cited children's services cost pressures — including the cost of supporting former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the number of looked-after children placed in Kent by other authorities — as grounds for demanding a fairer long-term funding settlement from central government; this is a demand for more funding/support from the Home Office and other authorities, not a decision by Kent to limit its own UASC intake.
“The Leader highlighted the need for a fairer long-term funding settlement for Kent from Central Government. Pressures within children’s services were outlined, including support for former unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and the number of looked-after children placed in Kent by other authorities.” Minutes, 21 May 2026 ↗
18. The same March 2026 panel confirmed Warwickshire was not currently supporting any other authority under the National Transfer Scheme and was operating below its own Government allocation (81 in care against an allocation of 119) — recorded as a factual status update in response to a question, not a resolution or executive decision to limit intake.
“The Government allocation for Warwickshire is 119; the authority currently has 81 in care.” Document, 23 March 2026 ↗
“Following a question from the Chair, John Coleman confirmed that Warwickshire County Council is not currently supporting any other authority as part of the national transfer scheme.” Document, 23 March 2026 ↗
19. In January 2026 the Corporate Parenting Panel was told that a fall in Warwickshire's UASC caseload (from 111 to 92) was linked partly to "a temporary pause in National Transfer Scheme arrivals"; the minutes do not attribute this pause to a Warwickshire decision, vote or resolution — it is recorded as context for a caseload-reporting item.
“It was noted that the reduction is linked to changes in automatic age assessment dates and a temporary pause in National Transfer Scheme arrivals.” Minutes, 23 March 2026 ↗
20. North Northamptonshire's corpus contains no full-council/cabinet motion, executive position, planning objection, licensing action or legal challenge opposing asylum hotels or Home Office migrant accommodation. The only substantive mention found (Executive, 12 August 2025, considering Local Authority Housing Fund Round 3 property acquisitions) records the Council accepting national asylum dispersal as a statutory obligation it must assist with regardless, rather than opposing it.
“The Chair spoke to note that although asylum dispersal was a complex area, significant grant funding was available from Government for property acquisition that would ultimately benefit residents of North Northamptonshire with new homes or temporary accommodation by bringing valuable assets into the Council’s housing stock at a reduced cost.” Minutes, 12 August 2025 ↗
“It was heard that should the Council refuse the grant funding, there would still be a requirement to assist in asylum dispersal.” Minutes, 12 August 2025 ↗
21. No motion, resolution or formal position opposing asylum hotels / Home Office migrant accommodation was found in Warwickshire County Council's published minutes, decisions or agendas; the only related record is a full-Council written question (16 December 2025) from Cllr Sam Jones to Reform UK Leader Cllr George Finch, citing a Reform councillor at Epping Forest District Council who called a hotel holding asylum seekers a 'paedophile babysitting centre', to which the Leader's recorded response addressed only party conduct/racism and took no county position on asylum hotel accommodation itself.
“Reform UK suspended Cllr James Regan of Epping Forest District Council after he described a hotel holding asylum seekers as a” Minutes, 16 December 2025 ↗
“I can confirm that I do not subscribe to the views outlined in your question and that I will always condemn racism as it has no place in politics or wider society.” Minutes, 16 December 2025 ↗
22. Lancashire County Council's published minutes show no motion, resolution or formal executive position opposing asylum hotels / Home Office migrant accommodation; the only asylum-related record found is a written Cabinet response (10 July 2025) from Reform Cabinet Member for Resources Ged Mirfin naming 'procurement and asylum seeker and refugee support schemes' as one of the spending areas the incoming Reform administration was scrutinising for cost/savings as part of its 'DOGE process' review — a financial-scrutiny mention, not a stated objection to asylum accommodation or a call for hotel closures.
“not least in the area of procurement and asylum seeker and refugee support schemes.” Minutes, 10 July 2025 ↗
23. Full-council 'Notices of Motion' business at Leicestershire County Council in the period covered (July 2025 to May 2026 ordinary meetings) addressed other national and local topics — e.g. opposing the Government's Digital ID scheme, Local Government Reorganisation, SEND funding, flooding and rural taxation — with no motion tabled opposing or restricting asylum hotels, Home Office contingency/dispersal accommodation, or migrant accommodation in the county.
“48. TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING NOTICES OF MOTION:” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
“(b) Opposing Labour's Digital ID Scheme.” Minutes, 3 December 2025 ↗
24. In the minutes of the 11 December 2025 County Council meeting, in response to a written question about the cost of accommodating migrants and support for asylum seekers, the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources confirmed that adult asylum seeker accommodation is a District and Borough Council responsibility, not a Staffordshire County Council one, and separately flagged for tighter audit and due-diligence controls a £2,000,000 grant the County had made to a refugee charity.
“Adult Asylum Seekers – This is a District and Borough responsibility not a County Council responsibility.” Minutes, 11 December 2025 ↗
“we gave £2,000,000 to a refugee charity that had an 80% ratio of staffing costs” Minutes, 11 December 2025 ↗
25. Essex County Council's own published papers record no full-council or cabinet motion, planning decision, licensing action or legal paper opposing asylum hotels or Home Office migrant accommodation. The only related position found at the county level was taken by a separate elected office, the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner (Roger Hirst), who told the Essex Police, Fire and Crime Panel (a joint scrutiny body of county and district councillors, meeting 22 July 2025 and reported again 25 September 2025) that he had written to the Home Office asking that the Bell Hotel in Epping cease to be used as an asylum hotel, after violent disorder outside it; the Panel simply noted this verbal update rather than adopting it as a formal Panel or Council position, and some members raised concerns about the letter and its potential knock-on effect on other asylum hotels. This episode pre-dates Reform's takeover of Essex County Council (control since 7 May 2026); no Full Council minutes published in the corpus post-date that election, so any Reform-era ECC motion is not yet captured here. The Bell Hotel itself sits in Epping Forest, a district-level planning authority outside this county-scope corpus.
“The Commissioner noted that he had written to the Home Office to ask that the Bell Hotel to cease being an asylum hotel.” Minutes, 25 September 2025 ↗
“Members expressed concerns with the Commissioner writing to the Home Secretary requesting that the Bell Hotel cease to be an asylum hotel and its potential knock-on effect for other asylum hotels.” Minutes, 22 July 2025 ↗
“Resolved: That the verbal report was noted.” Minutes, 22 July 2025 ↗
26. A coverage gap limits this answer: at Full Council on 10 July 2025, a members' question from Councillor Sam Smith 'regarding accommodation for asylum seekers' to Leader Mick Barton went unanswered within the meeting's 60-minute question time and was deferred to a written response due within 15 working days, to be appended to the next Full Council papers -- but the harvested corpus (111 Nottinghamshire documents, of which only 2 carry parsed committee/date metadata) does not contain that written appendix, nor any Cabinet or Children's Services Committee papers that might record a formal NTS/UASC position, so an NTS-specific stance cannot be confirmed or ruled out beyond what is stated here.
“15) Councillor Sam Smith regarding accommodation for asylum seekers (Councillor Mick Barton to reply)” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
“The time limit of 60 minutes allowed for questions was reached before the following questions were asked. A written response to the questions would be provided to the Councillors who asked the questions within 15 working days of the meeting and be included in the papers for the next available Full Council meeting after the deadline.” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗
27. A later Full Council meeting's question list included a further members' question 'regarding accommodation for asylum seekers' from Councillor Sam Smith to Leader Mick Barton, but the harvested minutes do not include the appendix with the written response, so no further stance beyond the fact a question was tabled can be confirmed from the corpus.
“15) Councillor Sam Smith regarding accommodation for asylum seekers (Councillor Mick Barton to reply)” Document, 18 September 2025 ↗