The planning permission for the new Chinese Embassy

The Secretary of State for Communities, Steve Reed, has accepted the recommendations of his Inspector, Ms Claire Searson MSc PGDip, BSc (Hons) MRTPI IHBC, and granted planning permission and listed building consent to enable the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) to create an embassy at the site of the former Royal Mint opposite the Tower of London in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (“LBTH”).

The combined report and decision letter may be accessed here.

The applications were called in by the Secretary of State and a public inquiry was held in February 2025. There was a great deal of public interest in the proposal, with objections from local residents and members of the public concerned about human rights in China.

LBTH’s Position

LBTH's members initially indicated, contrary to officer recommendation, that they would have refused the applications on community and highway safety grounds. In reaching that view, members gave weight to advice from the Metropolitan Police (“MPS”). Shortly before the inquiry, the MPS changed their position and were no longer willing to provide evidence to support LBTH’s stance. In the light of this change, LBTH’s position at the inquiry was one of non-opposition. This position was criticized by some third parties, but both the Inspector and Secretary of State accepted that the independent review carried out on behalf of LBTH by external experts was perfectly proper. They referred to ‘a long-established principle in planning that parties are expected to review their cases, as part of sensible on-going case management’ which LBTH had met and found that they had fulfilled their duties to the inquiry.

Diplomatic Immunity and Planning

The case raised interesting legal questions relating to the proposed use as an embassy. Conditional consent had been given in 2018 under the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 by the former Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, Boris Johnson, having considered safety of the public, national security and town and country planning. In determining the planning and listed building applications, the Secretary of State had regard to this conditional consent and to the Vienna Conventions, meaning that the host country is obliged to maintain safety outside and to respect sovereign status inside the embassy premises. The Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that ‘non site-specific national security concerns would be dealt with by other means…including under the Vienna Conventions…and that this is not something that can be controlled through the planning system.’

Objectors submitted that diplomatic status means that the planning conditions and obligations imposed and offered are not legally enforceable. The Secretary of State rejected this submission, noting that there are diplomatic remedies, ultimately declaring the head of a mission ‘persona non grata’ or, ‘in extremis, severing diplomatic relations’. He therefore took account of conditions and planning obligations to regulate the development, but did not support LBTH’s request for energy/sustainability and  employment and skills contributions, save for the payment in lieu of an apprentice payment.

In light of submissions made by Friends of St Katharine’s Docks (“FOSKD”) and others regarding concerns over access by members of the public to land at Exchange Square covered by diplomatic immunity, however, on 12 January 2026, the FCDO withdrew consent granted under section 1 of the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 in respect of Exchange Square.

Drawings

An issue arose in the course of the Secretary of State’s determination of the application regarding drawings originally marked as redacted, and subsequently in relation to drawings which stated ‘use information for the smaller rooms/ remaining rooms/ remaining spaces (areas with no public access) is not shown, which is however irrelevant to planning’. FOSKD and other objectors objected to the grant of consent for in reliance on 23 drawings which do not show use information for all rooms. The Secretary of State, however, held that there was no real as opposed to theoretical ambiguity as to what planning permission was being sought for, and indicated that those rooms could only be used for any lawful embassy use such that he had sufficient information to grant planning permission and listed buildings consent.

Protests and Highway Safety

The Secretary of State did not regard ‘ethical or similar objections’ to the provision of an embassy of a specific country as material planning considerations.

By contrast, however, he considered that ‘site-specific matters linked to the identity of the proposed occupants, in relation to national security, are capable of being material planning considerations.’

With regard to potential protest activity on the highway, he thought that there was moderate weight against the proposal, but took into account ‘that the public are generally expected to tolerate a degree of disruption from lawful protest.’       

Terrorist Threats

Objectors argued that the embassy would attract terrorist activity from those opposed to the PRC. The Secretary of State had regard to this as a material consideration but gave weight to the absence of objection from the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office/Home Office and the MPS. No specific threat had been identified, over and above the general ‘substantial’ threat applying to the whole of the UK.

Account was also taken of the security mitigation measures designed for the public realm.   

Heritage and Planning Balance

The Inspector and Secretary of State found that there would be ‘a marked improvement’ in heritage terms and that the significance of the Tower of London World Heritage Site would be enhanced. This attracted substantial weight in accordance with law and policy, along with reuse of a brownfield site. Less than substantial harm to the archaeological assets was outweighed by the collective public benefits of the scheme.

Public access to underground remains of a late medieval monastery would be secured by means of condition, accompanied by assurances (“Notes Verbales”) that, while this area would remain subject to diplomatic inviolability, pubic access would be secured and managed.    

Overall, the Secretary of State held that the scheme accorded with the development plan.

Morag Ellis KC and Stephanie Bruce-Smith of Francis Taylor Building represented at the inquiry. Charles Streeten, also of Francis Taylor Building, represented Friends of St Katharine’s Docks.