Dear Supporters,

Since last week, our local MP has confirmed that the proposal for Mary Morris House, Headingley will in fact be to house 247 single men. This is a drastic shift from the initial perception that families might be accommodated there.

Despite repeated questions, neither the MP nor local councillors have been able to confirm that a safeguarding or risk assessment has been carried out. We are also told that the Community Impact Assessment will not be shared with residents.

This leaves families, residents, nurseries, schools and care providers in the dark about a proposal that could fundamentally alter the safety and character of our area.

At this stage, it is critical that we continue to apply pressure. Please take action today by contacting:

Your local MP
Your local councillors
The Home Office complaints team directly
We need as many residents as possible to raise their voices in a clear, factual and coordinated way.

Below is a ready-to-use complaint template which you can copy, adapt, and send. It includes safeguarding concerns, community impact, legal precedent and planning law arguments — all fact-based and non-emotive.

Home Office complaint email addresses:
📩 public.enquiries@homeoffice.gov.uk

📩 complaints@homeoffice.gov.uk

Complaint Template
(Please copy into your email and personalise if you wish)

[INSERT TEMPLATE – same as your draft with headings “Location and Safeguarding Concerns”, “Precedent”, “Community and Economic Impact”, “Planning Law”, “Transparency”, “Request”, “Closing”]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to make a formal complaint regarding the Home Office proposal to repurpose Mary Morris House, Headingley, Leeds, as accommodation for up to 247 asylum seekers.

This complaint is not about opposing asylum in principle. Leeds is a welcoming city, and many residents support the provision of safe housing for those fleeing persecution. My concern is that the scale, location, and process for this specific site pose significant safeguarding, planning, and community risks, which have not been properly assessed or consulted on.

 
1. Location and Safeguarding Concerns
Mary Morris House sits on Shire Oak Road, directly adjacent to:

A nursery school (attended daily by infants and young children),
An old people’s home, and
Within short walking distance of a primary school.
The proposed occupancy – 247 unrelated adults, primarily single men – is a fundamental shift from the previous use as managed student accommodation. Parents, nursery staff, elderly residents and children would have to pass groups of men entering and leaving the site daily. As darker evenings approach, this creates a very different safeguarding dynamic compared to students, and is already generating genuine fear in the community.

 
2. Precedent – Risks at Similar Facilities
There is strong evidence from other UK asylum accommodation sites that concentrating large numbers of men in single facilities can lead to serious safeguarding incidents:

Park Inn Hotel, Walsall (2023): ~210 male asylum seekers housed. Resident Deng Chol Majek murdered hotel worker Rhiannon Skye Whyte nearbylbc.co.uk.
Bibby Stockholm Barge, Dorset (2023–25): Houses up to 425 men. Resident Moffat Konofilia convicted of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl after following her into an alleywaylbc.co.uk.
Bell Hotel, Epping (2023): Residents convicted of sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl (Hadush Kebatu) and multiple assaults on staff and residents (Mohammed Sharwarq)theguardian.comstandard.co.uk.
Park Inn Hotel, Glasgow (2020): Sudanese asylum seeker Badreddin Abdalla Adam Bosh stabbed six people before being shot dead by police; ~90 asylum seekers were evacuatednews.stv.tv.
These incidents demonstrate that the model itself carries risk when large numbers of men are housed together in unsuitable sites, regardless of nationality.

 
3. Community and Economic Impact
House sales have already fallen through locally, with others considering selling due to this proposal.
Nursery enrolments and primary school places risk decline if parents feel unsafe walking their children past the property.
Local businesses have expressed concern over the reputational impact on Headingley.
The proposal has already generated division and anxiety, destabilising the community before approval is even granted.

 
4. Planning Law – Material Change of Use
The Home Office has sought a Certificate of Lawful Development. This is inappropriate because the change represents a material change of use in planning terms:

Use Class: Student accommodation falls under C3/C4 (dwellinghouses or small HMOs), with occupation linked to education. Housing 247 unrelated adults with no structured activity resembles sui generis hostel use or potentially C2A (secure residential institution). This is a materially different use.
Case Law: R (East Barnet Residents Association) v Barnet LBC [2013] and Islington v SSCLG & Maxwell Estates [2015] confirm that a change is “material” where the character of use and community impact differ. That test is clearly met here.
Over-Intensification: The proposed density far exceeds normal student occupancy. Intensification is a recognised basis for requiring full permission.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF §130 & §185): Requires developments to create “safe, inclusive and accessible environments.” Housing 247 single men next to a nursery and care home fails that test.
Leeds Precedent (Otley Run): The Council has repeatedly refused even small-scale licensed premises due to risks of anti-social behaviour and disturbance. It would be inconsistent to refuse pubs for those reasons but allow a facility of this size without full assessment.
Highways & Environmental Health: Shire Oak Road is a narrow cul-de-sac. The increase in comings and goings of 247 residents with no structured employment is a material intensification that cannot be ignored.
For these reasons, the proposal cannot lawfully be classed as permitted development. Full planning permission must be required, including environmental health, highways, and safeguarding assessments.

 
5. Transparency and Trust
It has been suggested that a Community Impact Assessment exists, yet neither residents, councillors, nor our MP have been given access. Withholding such key documentation erodes trust and prevents meaningful consultation.

 
Request
I therefore respectfully request that the Home Office:

Suspend the Mary Morris House proposal until a full safeguarding and risk assessment is conducted and published.
Require a full planning application, not a Certificate of Lawfulness, given the clear material change of use.
Engage transparently with local councillors, schools, nurseries, and residents in Headingley.
Publish the Community Impact Assessment and demonstrate how lessons from Epping, Walsall, Glasgow and the Bibby Stockholm have been addressed.
 
Closing
This complaint is made in good faith, as a parent and local resident. It is not opposition to asylum in principle, but to the unsuitable siting, scale, and lack of process for this specific proposal.

I ask that this complaint be formally logged and that I receive a written response.

Yours faithfully,

Why This Matters
This is not about opposing asylum. Leeds is, and should remain, a welcoming city. But the scale, siting, and lack of consultation for this specific proposal make it unsuitable and unsafe. The shift from managed student housing to a high-density hostel for 247 unrelated adults, directly next to a nursery and care home, represents a material change of use and should require full planning scrutiny.

Our voices matter. Please take 10 minutes to send this complaint today — and encourage others in the community to do the same. The more pressure we apply, the harder it will be for decision-makers to ignore the legitimate concerns of Headingley residents.

Thank you for your continued support. Together, we can ensure our community is properly safeguarded.

Kind regards,