Three men were arrested during a protest outside The Bell Hotel in Epping on Friday, after the Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction that blocked asylum seekers from being housed there.

Essex Police said the men were arrested on suspicion of different offences – one for violent disorder, one for assaulting a police officer, and another for drink-driving. Two police officers were injured, though not seriously.

Assistant Chief Constable Glen Pavelin said that while most protesters had participated safely, “the right to protest does not include a right to commit crime”.

The court judgement means that 138 asylum seekers staying at the hotel will not be forced to leave by 12 September.

Explaining the Court of Appeal decision, Lord Justice Bean said the initial injunction – issued by the High Court – was “seriously flawed in principle”.

Epping Forest District Council, which obtained the injunction, says it will not rule out taking its case against the use of The Bell Hotel to the Supreme Court.

In a statement, Essex Police said it had also enforced a dispersal order for the area around The Bell Hotel until Saturday morning.

ACC Pavelin added: “My continued plea to those people who want their voices to be heard is to please do that safely and peacefully.”

Epping has hit the headlines since protests began in July outside the hotel.

Tension mounted after an asylum seeker living there was arrested and subsequently charged with several offences including the alleged sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl.

Hadush Kebatu, who is from Ethiopia, denies the offences and has been on trial.

Police say 28 arrests have been made to date in connection with disorder outside the hotel.

As protesters gathered outside the hotel again on Friday evening with banners and union jack and England flags, feelings on the High Street were mixed.

Laura Fraye, whose mother lives in Epping, thought the latest judgement would cause “a lot of upset”.

“It’s a bit of a shame but let’s hope it’s the right decision and things calm down,” she said.

Her mother, Bonny Pitson, said while she “would not stand” with the protesters she agreed with them.

“It’s harmless – it’s not spiteful, they’re not doing anyone any harm,” she said.

Her daughter added: “I suppose if people don’t feel heard, they will protest.”

Earlier this month Conservative-run Epping Forest District Council won the temporary injunction against the hotel in the High Court, which ruled asylum seekers could not stay there.

It is that injunction that has been overturned at appeal court, meaning migrants can stay.

Kerry Gilroy, who has lived in the town for 20 years and runs a Facebook group called Epping for Everyone, said: “My group has been really saddened and upset by the protests and the vitriolic statements – and untruths that are being spread about asylum seekers.

“We really wanted to try and change the narrative and show that those people protesting don’t represent Epping. So far it’s been really positively received.”

She said she was pleased about the latest court decision as “for the people in the hotel it gives them consistency, but it’s made me very nervous because I think there will be trouble… but I’m really pleased mob rule hasn’t been allowed to take over”.

She felt the council was “wasting money” by pursuing its claims, which have seen it clash with the Labour government.

“Those people are having their cases heard and eventually that hotel will be empty,” she added.

Holly Whitbread, Conservative councillor for Epping West, said Friday’s news was “deeply disappointing and will feel like a betrayal for many”.

“The council committed from day one to use every single legal and diplomatic route we could,” she said.

She added: “We’re taking advice about what else we can do.”

Stuart Hugh, 36, lives near the Bell Hotel and has attended some of the protests along with his parents.

He said: “I believe illegal immigration is completely out of control, and the government needs to do something to stop it.”

He was frustrated by the outbreak of violence among protesters on Friday.

“I think it takes away from the message we are trying to get across – it makes us look like thugs.

“I’ve lived in Epping for 27 years and it’s a very peaceful town. I believe everyone has the right to a peaceful protest, but violence is wrong.

“I’m all for legal migration. If you trace back my family history, I’ve got two grandparents who are from Sri Lanka, but they came to this country the right way.”

Epping resident Sonnie Mead, 29, said the latest decision “could put people a little bit on edge – it’s a weird time and a weird world we’re living in”.

She had mixed feelings and just wanted everyone to feel safe.

Her mother, Kay Mead, 61, said: “I’m a bit mixed about asylum seekers being here.”

Asked her reaction to the appeal decision, she said: “I don’t think people in Epping will be very pleased.”

Some others voiced their disappointment over the new ruling.

One woman said: “I don’t agree with it as we don’t look after our own people before we look after others – our ex-soldiers and everyone, and they’re homeless as well, so give them the benefit.”

Steve Turvey, 36, said it was “completely unfair – all the protests – I think they [asylum seekers] deserve to be here, they have every right to be here and I think the reactions of everyone around here is disgusting – it’s been jumped on like a bandwagon”.

His partner Sarah said: “I think the ongoing fight and how big Epping has got embroiled in all of this is really upsetting.”

Mr Turvey added: “It’s not good – but I don’t know what the answer is.”

A full High Court hearing to decide on a permanent injunction for The Bell is expected in mid-October.

Following Friday’s judgement, the government has underlined it wants to close asylum hotels in an “orderly way”, while saying it is working to relieve pressure on the system.