Asylum hotel bid blocked in Surrey
The Conservative bid was knocked back at a council meeting on 1st October
A Conservative bid to stop hotels in a Surrey borough being used to house migrants without consultation has been knocked back after other councillors argued it should not get involved with national politics.
At a full council meeting on October 1, Cllr John Cope put forward a motion asking Elmbridge Borough Council to push the Home Office for open consultation before any hotels in the borough are used to accommodate migrants.
The Conservative group leader also asked for regular updates on how the council could challenge such plans.
Cllr Cope said: “Britain is at its best when it is outward looking … but the last few years has put that under enormous tensions.”
He argued councillors can on one hand encourage division and hate within communities, or on the other, councillors could ignore the flags and dismiss concerns around the strain of migration.
But councillors from other parties branded it as a waste of time. Cllr Alex Batchelor said: “What you are effectively asking the Council to do is to spend money on a hypothetical situation which we will be notified of anyway.”
He also reminded members that Epping Forest Council in Essex had already failed in their legal challenge to the Home Office about asylum hotels.
The member for Thames Ditton & Weston Green Residents’ Association clarified the council is already supporting refugees in buying, refurbishing and renting 24 homes to Afghan and Ukrainian families.
A Liberal Democrat member, Cllr Nick Dodds called the plan a “political stunt”. He added: “Where does Cllr Cope think these migrants should go? On the streets?”
Council leader Mike Rollings (Lib Dem) said Elmbridge should not get dragged into a national row. He said: “The council believes that every member of the community deserves to feel safe, valued and heard … It is recognised that symbols could carry different meanings to different people, and it is the responsibility of this council not to divide the community.”
The motion was rejected with 28 votes against, 8 in favour and five against.