Hotels Are Not Hostels
Everyone agrees: hotels should not be used to house migrants. It is the official policy of the Labour Party to end their use. The Liberal Democrats call the hostels a “shameful legacy” of the Conservatives. Yet the Holiday Inn in Maidenhead is still operating as a migrant hostel.
Why? Because councils claim they lack the power to stop the Home Office.
The Planning Law Argument
Reform UK Maidenhead has pushed the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (RBWM) to test planning laws. Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a “material change of use” requires planning permission. A hotel (Class C1) becoming a hostel (uncategorised) could be considered such a change of use.
At the July RBWM council meeting, Reform asked whether permission had been granted. The answer: No. Councillor Adam Bermange admitted no application had been made. But he argued that courts rarely accept “hotel vs. hostel” as a material change, citing failed cases in Ipswich and East Yorkshire. Only Great Yarmouth succeeded—because its local plan explicitly banned hostels on the seafront.
Why It Matters
The Maidenhead Holiday Inn used to be a popular hotel, with its good links to the motorway network and Heathrow. It was also popular with the local community, providing good jobs, a restaurant, a pool, ‘dip and dive’ on Sundays, a gym, a business conference centre and a wedding venue. Many locals celebrated the happiest day of their life there.
In 2022 the Home Office shut it down without consultation and repurposed it as a migrant hostel. To argue there is no significant difference between a hotel and a migrant hostel is ridiculous. Can a current guest:
- order a steak on room service?
- ask not to have to share a bedroom with a random, middle-aged man from Turkmenistan, who they had never met before?
- order a dry martini at the bar or luxuriate in the sauna?
- change their booking to a more convenient date?
It is clearly not a hotel in any meaningful sense.
Reform Pushes for Enforcement
On 26 August, we submitted a petition demanding the council enforce planning law. Just three days later, RBWM announced it was investigating a complaint of unauthorised change of use at the site.
Reform believes its petition forced the council’s hand. The timing speaks for itself.
Don’t Get Your Hopes Up
Enforcement is a slow and fragile process:
- Prove a breach of planning rules.
- Seek “informal resolution.”
- Issue enforcement notices.
- If ignored, prosecute.
At any stage, the Home Office can appeal, argue no “material change,” or seek retrospective permission. Councils elsewhere have tried and lost. Unsurprisingly, RBWM then rejected Reform’s petition, claiming the matter was “already being dealt with.” In other words: the council is investigating, but don’t expect a satisfactory conclusion.
The Bigger Picture
The issue isn’t just planning law—it is public safety and trust. Who exactly is being housed in the Holiday Inn? As far as we know the residents are not subjected to rigorous background checks.
Other towns have seen tragic failures:
- Bournemouth, 2022 – An Afghan migrant who had already murdered two people in Europe with a Kalashnikov, killed 21-year-old Thomas Roberts. The migrant had lied about his age and had attended a local comprehensive.
- Walsall, 2023 – A Sudanese asylum seeker fatally stabbed hostel worker Rhiannon Whyte.
- Hartlepool, 2023 – A Moroccan asylum seeker killed 70-year-old grandfather Terence Carney in a random attack.
The question is simple: why should Maidenhead take the risk without consultation or accountability?
Conclusion
The council has finally launched an investigation—but only after Reform UK applied pressure. Whether enforcement succeeds remains to be seen. What’s clear is this: residents were never asked, the hotel was lost without consent, and the community deserves answers.