Campaigners plan to take challenge against Chinese super-embassy to Court of Appeal

It follows a High Court decision to refuse a claim for judicial review brought by the Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association (RMCRA), which opposes the UK government’s decision to grant planning permission for the redevelopment. 

RMCRA is made up of residents who live in around 100 homes in St Mary Graces Court, which is the residential part of Royal Mint Court and sits beside the proposed site of the new embassy.  

The group argues that the government’s decision to approve plans for the embassy in January 2026 overlooked serious concerns regarding the safety of residents living next to the site, national security risks, and whether planning conditions can realistically be enforced on land protected by diplomatic immunity.  

RMCRA filed a judicial review claim contesting the government’s decision in March 2026, and in July the claim was heard in a rolled-up hearing in the High Court.  

However, High Court judges dismissed the claim, meaning RMCRA will now apply for permission to appeal the High Court judgment to the Court of Appeal. 

RMCRA is supported in its legal challenge by the Inter‑Parliamentary Alliance on China and is represented by law firm Leigh Day. 

A spokesperson for the RMCRA said: 

“The RMCRA are committed to appealing the High Court rulings. With the backing of the legal team, we remain convinced that our grounds are strong and that the residents’ safety, security and human rights will be impacted if the embassy development goes ahead.” 

Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama, who represents RMCRA, said: 

“Our clients look forward to appealing this decision to the Court of Appeal. They believe that, as well as their human rights protections, important principles are at stake about diplomatic immunity.”