Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor

A planning decision may rely on conditions and diplomatic obligations despite the limited domestic enforcement available at inviolable diplomatic premises. The decision-maker must take account of both the limits of domestic planning control and the obligations and remedies arising under the Vienna Convention, but need not make a speculative percentage assessment of the applicant’s future compliance.

Procedural fairness requires material prejudice. Non-disclosure of evidence does not invalidate a decision where its substance was already available, the affected party could make the relevant submissions, and disclosure would probably not have altered the result. Whether further plans or information are necessary to describe a development under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 is ordinarily a planning judgment for the decision-maker. A positive human-rights obligation requires reasonable and convincing evidence of a likely personal violation.

The claimant residents’ association sought statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It challenged the Secretary of State’s decision to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the redevelopment of Royal Mint Court as an embassy for the People’s Republic of China.

Four grounds were considered: the approach to planning enforcement at diplomatic premises; non-disclosure of a Security Statement and Blast Assessment; compliance with article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015; and failure to identify and assess residents’ rights under articles 10 and 11 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol 1. The central issues were whether the decision-maker had lawfully addressed enforceability, procedural fairness, the sufficiency of the application information, and positive human-rights obligations.

1. Ground 1 dismissed. The Secretary of State had taken into account the identity of the applicant, the limits on enforcing planning control at inviolable diplomatic premises, and the relevant obligations and remedies under the Vienna Convention. He was entitled to expect compliance with planning permission, to rely on the applicant’s constructive participation in the planning process, and to conclude that the conditions were de facto enforceable. There was no duty to undertake a speculative percentage-based assessment of the likelihood of future compliance. The reasons addressed the principal important controversial issue; there was no duty to give reasons for the reasons. Belfast City Council v Meifang was not clear evidence that the applicant would ignore planning control and did not require express mention.
2. Ground 2 dismissed. Procedural fairness was an objective question, assessed in context, and the claimant had to show material prejudice. The Security Statement contained no substantive information unavailable in the public domain. Although the Blast Assessment supplied more detail, its material conclusions were reflected in the Officers’ Reports and the claimant’s own expert material. The decision-maker had already accepted the counter-terrorism advice that an attack of the relevant kind and at the relevant location was unlikely. The claimant therefore had the relevant opportunity to address the substance of the issue, and non-disclosure caused no material prejudice. It was also highly likely that disclosure would not have changed the result, so Simplex GE (Holdings) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment applied.
3. Ground 3 was unarguable. Whether information is necessary to describe a development under article 7 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 involves planning judgment for the decision-maker, not a hard-edged question for the court. The decision-maker was entitled to conclude that the available plans and supporting material sufficiently described the embassy use, and that ordinary internal uses did not create an irrationally unresolved fire-safety issue. The fact that the proposed use was sui generis did not alter that analysis.
4. Ground 5 failed. A positive obligation to protect Convention rights can arise in advance of an actual breach, but there must be reasonable and convincing evidence of a likely personal violation; suspicion or conjecture is insufficient. The evidence did not establish that risk in relation to the residents. In any event, the Secretary of State had considered protest activity, residents’ safety, the advice of the Metropolitan Police Service, and the applicable diplomatic framework. The planning balance attracted a wide margin of appreciation. The claim was dismissed.

High Court (Administrative Court): statutory review claim dismissed. Grounds 1, 2, 3 and 5 were considered on a rolled-up basis. Permission for Ground 4 was refused as unarguable on 28 April 2026; Ground 6 and the separate judicial review ground were withdrawn or not pursued.