“This cost was an obviously material consideration, given that it flows directly from the decision to approve the Proposed Development. It was irrational and thus unlawful not to take it into account,” the residents’ legal case states.
They also argue it was unlawful for Communities Secretary Steve Reed — who gave the plans the green light — not to consider it was the Chinese state applying for use, something they say is “obviously material” to the decision.
They say enforcing any conditions on the site will be severely constrained because it has been designated a diplomatic premise — something then-Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson granted in 2018.
Policing “planning mischiefs” by China would also be difficult given the Vienna Convention, which allows sanctions against diplomats, is retrospective rather than preventative.
It is both “legally misplaced” and relies solely on apportioning trust to the Chinese state, the claim written by senior lawyers including Charles Banner argues. They say the government would only have the “nuclear” option of withdrawing consent entirely — a bombshell move the British state is unlikely to take.
Human rights
The development could also be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, the association argues, warning it could “curtail the ability of concerned citizens to protest against alleged Chinese rights violations.” The application comes at a time protests against repression in China and Hong Kong are growing.
