Second legal challenge over military dock plan at Central harbourfront

Article by Jasmine Siu / South China Morning Post / Published on 10 April 2019

A Chinese navy frigate in Victoria Harbour (Photo by Edward Wong / SCMP)

A former Hong Kong student leader on Wednesday applied for a judicial review of the government’s decision to reclassify part of the Central waterfront as land for use by the Chinese military.

Lester Shum’s application to the High Court came after officials formally rezoned the site and said they planned to amend the law to offer “suitable legal protection” for a planned military dock before the area is handed over to the People’s Liberation Army.

The former Federation of Students leader complained that the city’s chief executive and council of top policy advisers had erred under the law by approving the zoning plan on January 22, because they had relied on an unlawful decision by the Town Planning Board in February 2014.

“There is a written promise made by the Hong Kong government to the Hong Kong people that the new Central harbourfront promenade is solely for public use,” Shum said outside court.

He added he was aggrieved because he walked along the promenade every week to relax, and occasionally stopped to sit, read, eat, meet friends or even stage a protest.

Shum is now seeking court orders to quash both decisions, as well as an injunction to stop the government from transferring the site to the Hong Kong garrison.

The case centres on a 150-metre strip in the middle of the 500-metre reclaimed promenade, which takes up about 0.3 hectares, or 3 per cent, of the Central harbourfront.

The vicinity has been earmarked since 1994 for a military dock following an agreement between China and Britain that the PLA should have a 150-metre-long berth near its garrison headquarters.

The Town Planning Board unanimously approved the proposal to rezone the site from “open space” to “military use” in 2014 after major construction work for the project had already partly been completed.

The government wrote in a paper tabled to the city’s legislature last week: “[Hong Kong] has a duty to hand over the dock to the garrison as soon as possible in order to fulfil the statutory responsibility set out in the Garrison Law.”

But Shum, who said he had only recently become aware of the board’s decision, argued that exclusive military use of the site would be inconsistent with planning intentions that the area be for continuous public use.

He questioned why the board had made an “illogical and irrational” decision not to opt for dual use if authorities intended to open the dock to the public when it was not in use by the military.

He also complained that there would not be a continuous pedestrian route along the waterfront when the site was closed for the PLA. This ran contrary to the board’s statutory duty stated in the Town Planning Ordinance to promote convenience and the community’s welfare, Shum said.

The judicial review application is the second targeting the military dock.

The first was mounted by urban planning pressure group Designing Hong Kong and also challenged the board’s decision. It was eventually rendered moot by the decision from the Chief Executive in Council to approve the board’s rezoning plan.