Press Story

Residents say local tensions over asylum hotels are driven by a combination of concerns over fairness, housing pressures, local decline, and low public trust
IPPR suggests the government should offer a local dividend to areas that have hosted asylum hotels
Government must manage the transition away from hotels carefully and with clearer communication, says the think tank

Poor planning and weak communication around asylum hotels are fuelling tensions in communities across England, according to new research from the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR).

The think tank finds that asylum hotels have become flashpoints for frustration because of how they are used and managed: often introduced with little local input, limited transparency and no clear sense of benefit for the communities hosting them.

In the absence of clear, timely information, rumours and misinformation can spread quickly – particularly online – intensifying anxiety and contributing to escalation during moments of tension. The findings come as the government has announced the closure of 11 asylum hotels and seeks to make further progress on its commitment to end the use of asylum hotels by the end of the parliament.

Drawing on focus groups across six areas in England – Liverpool, Plymouth, Hillingdon, Derby, Tamworth and Wakefield – the report finds that tensions are driven less by the presence of asylum accommodation itself and more by how it has been delivered, often in ways that are highly visible and poorly understood.

These tensions often relate to the perceived unfairness of the current system of asylum accommodation and reflect wider concerns about local housing pressures, crime and disorder, and local decline of high streets and town centres. Anger was often directed at decisions seen as imposed, opaque and poorly explained, with hotels viewed as inappropriate and highly visible symbols of a system that is not working effectively.

A Wakefield resident described the use of a local hotel as a loss to the community, economically and socially, with little visible return. The hotel had previously been “a place of employment, a venue for events”, prompting the question: “What is the community getting back from the hotel?”

In Tamworth, where a hotel became a focal point for unrest, one participant said poor planning had made tensions more likely: “If you’ve got a group of asylum seekers, why put them in the centre of the community, which is already a tinderbox … You might as well just put a big target on it.”

Across all areas studied, communication about asylum accommodation was often described as too limited, too late or unclear. Residents reported being given little information about decisions, timelines or how the system works.

In this vacuum, misinformation and rumours were found to spread quickly online during moments of tension, increasing anxiety and sometimes contributing to escalation.

IPPR argues that the current approach – a highly centralised system with limited local input – has contributed to these issues. Where communities felt excluded from decisions or unclear about what was happening, trust was weakened and tensions were more likely to surface.

In other areas of public decision-making – from planning to school closures – statutory consultation periods are standard where changes affect local communities. IPPR argues the same approach should apply to asylum accommodation.

IPPR recommendations include:

Fix communication failures by introducing a clear duty to notify and consult local authorities, including a 12-week notice period before new accommodation is brought into use.
Provide a local community dividend to areas which have hosted asylum hotels by investing in local infrastructure. This would be based on the savings made from closing asylum hotels over the course of the parliament.
Speed up efforts to close hotels this parliament by buying and repairing substandard properties, using the £500 million funding already announced by government, to create more temporary accommodation for both asylum seekers and local residents at a lower cost than hotels.

Lucy Mort, principal research fellow and head of qualitative research at IPPR, said:

“In many cases, people were clear that their frustrations weren’t really about people seeking asylum themselves. They were about how asylum accommodation is being managed – decisions that feel imposed, communication that comes too late, and a system that doesn’t feel transparent, often in communities where people are already facing housing insecurity, and a wider feeling that the system is unfair.

“Asylum hotels have become flashpoints because they make these problems highly visible, and until those underlying issues are addressed, tensions will keep resurfacing.”

Marley Morris, associate director for migration, trade and communities at IPPR, said:

“If we want to reduce tensions, we need to transform how the asylum system works in practice. That means transitioning away from asylum hotels and towards investment in community-based housing that delivers a long-term asset for local residents."

Mark, 64, Hillingdon resident and research participant, said:

“I’ve been homeless myself, and I don’t envy people staying in those hotels – it’s far from luxury. I also volunteer with a homelessness charity, and we see asylum seekers coming in for help, which shows the system isn’t really working for anyone.

“When people see lots of asylum hotels concentrated in one area, they start asking what else those buildings could be used for, but they don’t understand how the system works or why decisions are made. The government needs to be clearer and make sure people understand what’s actually happening in their community.”

ENDS

The authors of the report, Lucy Mort and Marley Morris, are available for interview

Case studies are available on request

CONTACT

Rosie Okumbe, digital and media officer: 07825 185421 r.okumbe@ippr.org

NOTES TO EDITORS

The IPPR paper, Community cohesion and asylum accommodation: Understanding local perspectives by Lucy Mort and Marley Morris, will be published available for download at: http://www.ippr.org/publications/community-cohesion-and-asylum-accommodation
Advance copies of the report are available under embargo on request
The research included seven focus groups with 65 residents across six English case study areas: Derby, Hillingdon (London), Liverpool, Plymouth, Tamworth and Wakefield. It also included a separate focus group with asylum seekers in Plymouth. Participants reflected a mix of ages, genders and backgrounds, and held a range of views on immigration, ensuring the discussions captured differing perspectives.
IPPR (the Institute for Public Policy Research) is the UK’s most influential think tank, with alumni in Downing Street, the cabinet and parliament. We are the practical ideas factory behind many of the current government’s flagship policies, including changes to fiscal rules, the creation of a National Wealth Fund, GB Energy, devolution, and reforms to the NHS. As an independent charity working towards a fairer, greener, and more prosperous society, we have spent almost 40 years creating tangible progressive change - turning bold ideas into common sense realities. www.ippr.org