A challenge brought to the High Court against plans for a large Chinese embassy in London has been dismissed, with judges upholding planning permission for the project at a former Royal Mint site near the Tower of London. The ruling ends a legal effort by campaigners from the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association (RMCRA), which represents families and businesses in about 100 properties in the area. Planning Permission UpheldThe court decision confirmed that permission granted for the embassy’s construction should stand. The RMCRA said it was concerned the development could pose an espionage risk and could be used to help enforce what it described as “draconian” Chinese laws in the UK, as well as to target dissidents. In defending the application, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets said they had “conscientiously and carefully had regard” to the residents’ concerns during the planning process. Fire Risk And Diplomatic Immunity ConcernsThe residents’ association also argued that the Chinese government could create a fire safety risk by failing to meet obligations, and said those requirements would not be enforceable due to diplomatic immunity. A representative for the Chinese embassy welcomed the judgement, telling the BBC that supporting and facilitating the construction of diplomatic premises is an international obligation of the host country. The embassy spokesperson also said the proposed premises were “high-quality”, and that the planning and design process followed international practices and complied with local regulations and procedures. No Unfairness Over Blast AssessmentThe High Court hearing took place earlier this month. Two judges have now dismissed the RMCRA’s challenge: Mrs Justice Lieven, sitting with Lord Justice Dingemans. The judge said there was “no doubt” that the government had taken into account that the Chinese government was the applicant for planning permission. Mrs Justice Lieven also addressed a complaint that the residents were not provided with a copy of a “blast assessment” at the time the decision was made. The assessment sets out the potential impact of a possible terrorist explosion. The judge said: “There was no unfairness to the claimant by reason of these documents not having been disclosed.” Appeal Planned After High Court RulingOutside Parliament, Luke de Pulford of the Interparliamentary Alliance on China (IPAC), who has supported the RMCRA, said solicitors had been instructed to appeal. He said the appeal would be funded by donations from the public. RMCRA spokesman Mark Nygate said residents viewed the High Court outcome as the start of a longer campaign. He said they intended to pursue the case “as far as the Supreme Court”. A further speaker, Chloe Cheung, told the BBC she is a Hongkonger and described herself as a democracy campaigner. She said she had received information about a “bounty of $HK1 million” from the Chinese Communist Party for help leading to her capture abroad. The 21-year-old said she fled Hong Kong for the UK in 2021 after being accused of breaching a national security law introduced by Beijing following the 2019 pro-democracy protests in the former British colony. Conservative MP Iain Duncan Smith, also an IPAC member and described as sanctioned by the Chinese government, said the Chinese government posed a “major threat” to the UK. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel urged Prime Minister Andy Burnham to deny permission for the embassy, arguing that the decision could compromise national security. Join the discussion? 1 August 2026
View full article
