Planning permission granted for new Chinese Embassy at Royal Mint Court

On 20 January 2026, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government granted planning permission and listed building consent for a new large-scale Chinese Embassy at Royal Mint Court, close to the Tower of London.

Earlier application and reasons for refusal

The decision followed a protracted planning history. An earlier iteration of the scheme, submitted in 2018, was refused amid concerns relating to security, the safety of local residents, traffic impacts and pressure on policing resources. Although planning officers at Tower Hamlets Council had recommended approval, elected members resolved to refuse permission.

The call-in process and public inquiry

Given the scale of the proposal and its national and diplomatic significance, the application was subsequently “called in” for determination by the Secretary of State. A call-in removes the decision from the local planning authority and places it within the jurisdiction of central government. The matter was considered through a public inquiry before an independent Planning Inspector, who made recommendations to the Secretary of State.

The legal framework for planning decisions

The case provides a useful illustration of the legal structure governing planning decisions. The determination of an application is a quasi-judicial exercise. By virtue of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Political controversy, diplomatic tensions or ethical objections are not, without more, material planning considerations.

Inspector’s findings and key planning policy issues

The Inspector concluded that, taken as a whole, the proposal accorded with the statutory development plan. Key policy areas assessed included land use, design quality, transport impacts and heritage.

Heritage and listed building duties

Heritage considerations were central. The site comprises listed buildings, and the scheme proposed their restoration and adaptive reuse. In applying the statutory duties under sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the decision-maker was required to give special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings. The conclusion was that the works would preserve—and in some respects enhance—the significance of those heritage assets. That finding carried substantial weight in the overall planning balance.

Security concerns and their role in planning law

Security concerns featured prominently in public debate. However, the legal question was whether those concerns constituted material planning considerations. The Secretary of State distinguished between generalised geopolitical objections, which fall outside the planning regime, and site-specific land use impacts. In the absence of objections from relevant national security consultees, and with mitigation measures secured by condition, security issues were not found to justify refusal.

Final decision and implications

Ultimately, the permission reflects the orthodox application of planning law principles: compliance with the development plan, proper discharge of statutory heritage duties, and a structured balancing of material considerations within the confines of the planning system.