Chinese super-embassy gets green light

Lord Justice Dingemans and Lady Justice Lieven DBE of the High Court in London found on 31 July that the decision to grant China permission to build the new embassy was lawful and did not fail to protect the residents’ human rights.

The Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association (RMCRA) had challenged the January decision of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities & Local Government. They filed a request for statutory review under section 288 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 and section 63 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The challenge brought into play the unique status of embassies and the enforceability of domestic law in a diplomatic context, as well as the obligations of government departments in relation to the protection of ECHR rights.

The site lies beside the Tower of London and has a lengthy history, featuring the remains of a once-thriving Cistercian Abbey. For 150 years, it housed the Royal Mint (which now operates from Glamorgan). In 2018, it was acquired by China, which launched plans to relocate its diplomatic staff from Portland Place to a 57,000 square foot “super-embassy” on the site.

The project has been met with some hostility in London, where fears have been based around the site’s proximity to the City of London and underground fibre optic infrastructure, and the submission of redacted plans in the documents for planning review. Opponents have raised concerns about data security, possible espionage activity, and the transparency of the planning process.

After the borough of Tower Hamlets initially rejected China’s planning application, in 2024 the Labour government used “takeover power” to put the decision in its own hands. Former Housing Minister Steve Reed finally granted planning permission and listed building consent in January.

The RMCRA – which represents families and businesses in 100 leasehold properties close to the site of the embassy – brought its challenge to the High Court. They said the embassy brought with it threats of terrorism and that they risked retaliation by China for their protests. They argued that the government approvals had been granted unlawfully and without concern for their human rights.

The court took note of the strength of feeling behind the challenge. However, it upheld Reed’s approvals.

The bench said he had made a variety of considerations in his decision – including protest activity at the site, highway safety, fire safety, terrorism and crime – and had balanced these against the residents’ interests.

The RMCRA had accused Reed of failing to protect their ECHR rights under Article 10 (freedom of expression), Article 11 (freedom of assembly) and Article 1 Protocol 1 (protection of property). They said they feared action by China that threatened those rights, saying they feared reprisals for their opposition to the embassy.

They cited in particular a 2022 incident during Hong Kong pro-democracy protests at the Chinese consulate in Manchester, in which a protester was pulled into the site of the consulate and allegedly assaulted. Due to the diplomatic immunity of the consulate, the police were unable to take further action.

Dingemans LJ and Lieven LJ said the residents would need to produce reasonable and convincing evidence that a violation of their human rights would actually occur, and that “suspicion or conjecture” would not suffice. They found no evidence that China would retaliate against their protests, and that the Manchester incident did not show a specific risk to the London site. It rejected the rights arguments.

The residents also said that the Housing Minister had not considered that he could not enforce planning control against China, because embassy sites enjoy immunity and are inviolable under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961.

While Reed had recognised the difficulty of enforcing potential breaches of planning law by an immune embassy, he had also recognised that the Vienna Convention obliges states to respect the laws and regulations of embassy host states. There are remedies available under the Vienna Convention: for example, the UK government could declare diplomatic staff non grata in the country or even sever diplomatic relations with China.

The Lord and Lady Justice found no prejudice to the residents in that they had not seen a short security statement or an assessment of blast risk. They said the fact that some plans were redacted did not impact the lawfulness of Reed’s decision: it was up to the decision-maker and the decision-maker alone to decide which information it required.