The controversial new Chinese embassy development near Tower Bridge and the City in London is set to go ahead after a High Court dismissed a challenge from local residents.
Government granted permission for the giant embassy complex in January
The court dismissed an appeal by the Royal Mint Court residents’ association (RMCRA) against the granting of planning permission for the ‘super embassy’, set to be the largest diplomatic base in the UK.
The RMCRA argued that the government has been unlawful in granting consent for the scheme and has failed to assess the security and public safety risks.
However, the High Court judgment stated that there was no evidence of the Chinese government interfering with the human rights of the residents.
The RMCRA said it would appeal against the High Court’s ruling. Ricardo Paulo Gama, a solicitor at Leigh Day, the law firm representing the RMCRA, said he hoped a higher court would be “braver” in considering the grounds of appeal.
Planning permission for the embassy was granted by then-housing secretary Steve Reed in January, following an eight-year saga over the controversial development. Reed had reasoned that wider political concerns about China were not relevant to the planning process, while a package of national security mitigations would be put in place
The plans include the redevelopment of a 5.2-acre site at Portland Place, demolishing several buildings to make way for a 620,000 sq ft compound containing office space, apartments and a cultural exchange.
Chinese officials bought Royal Mint Court, the former home of Britain’s state-owned coin producer, in May 2018 for £255m when the move to the building was first proposed.
Tower Hamlets council originally rejected the proposals for the diplomatic base in December 2022, amid concerns regarding the historical significance of the site and fears it could become a hotspot for major protests or a terrorist target.
In January, Robert Bruce, a planning lawyer at Freeths, told Property Week that a legal challenge could delay the scheme by a year, but was unlikely to succeed as the planning decision had made “no obvious errors”. However, a further appeal by the RMCRA could yet delay the project.
Please visit:
Our Sponsor