Residents launch legal challenge against Government’s approval of Chinese “super‑embassy”

The legal action follows the Government’s decision on 20 January 2026 to approve the plans despite serious concerns about the safety of the people living next to the proposed site, the national security risks involved, and whether the planning conditions attached to the permission can realistically be enforced on land covered by diplomatic immunity.

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

RMCRA residents live in around 100 homes in St Mary Graces Court, the residential part of Royal Mint Court that sits directly beside the proposed embassy site.

RMCRA argues that the Government’s decision was unlawful, procedurally unfair, and failed to take into account key factors including the implications of granting planning permission for a site already designated as diplomatic premises, and therefore given special legal protection that prevents the UK from entering the site or enforcing planning rules there.

Residents also say the Government approved the development without properly addressing everyday issues such as the impact of potential protests, emergency access and public safety, and without explaining how the UK can enforce safety‑critical conditions on premises that it is legally barred from entering.

Residents are also challenging the decision to commit public money to national security measures linked to the development. On the same day planning permission was granted, the Minister for Security announced a package of Government‑funded measures to protect sensitive telecommunications infrastructure near the site. Residents argue that the public money spent on these measures should have been openly assessed as part of the decision.

Community groups and residents also raised human rights concerns during the process, including how protests, policing and increased security activity may affect both local people and those wishing to demonstrate about China’s human rights record. Residents say these issues were simply not weighed in the final decision.

The claim asks the High Court to overturn the decision, require disclosure of withheld documents and examine whether it is lawful for public money to be used for security measures that arise directly from the development.

The residents are crowdfunding for their legal challenge and are represented by Leigh Day partner Ricardo Gama and solicitor Julia Eriksen and are being supported by the Inter‑Parliamentary Alliance on China.

Ricardo Gama said:

“Our clients have raised serious and legitimate concerns about the safety and transparency of the decision to grant planning permission for a new Chinese Embassy, which will be largest in Europe.

“When a development of this scale is placed directly alongside people’s homes, it is essential that the Government demonstrates it has fully considered the risks and followed a fair and open process. Instead, our clients say key information was withheld, critical safety issues were left unresolved, and residents were given no meaningful opportunity to understand or challenge what was being decided.

“We are asking the Court to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place before any further steps are taken.” 

Luke de Pulford, Executive Director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China said:  

"Residents and campaigners have had to fight a lonely battle against this development. We are relieved finally to have a chance of a fair hearing."