Chinese super embassy planning permission decision upheld at High Court

Construction of a new Chinese super embassy in London can go ahead after a High Court challenge against a decision to grant planning permission was dismissed.The Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association (RMCRA) brought legal action against the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.It said the presence of the embassy, with a site earmarked near the Tower of London, could lead to terrorist attacks or the repression of protests, while being used to enforce “draconian” Chinese laws in the UK and to target dissidents.Royal Mint Court is the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy (Gareth Fuller/PA)PA ArchiveThe association, which represents families and businesses in about 100 properties, was also concerned about the Chinese government creating a fire risk by ignoring safety obligations, which it said would not be enforceable because of diplomatic immunity.The Government and the council defended the claim, saying they “conscientiously and carefully had regard” to the residents’ concerns.Read MoreFollowing a hearing at the High Court earlier this month, two judges dismissed RMCRA’s challenge.They rejected RMCRA’s claim that the planning decision had been made unlawfully, that there was a failure to disclose a blast assessment and security statement, that the Government had not followed planning regulations and that it had not identified and assessed human rights.Mrs Justice Lieven, sitting with Lord Justice Dingemans, said in a judgment on Friday there was “no doubt” that the Government took into account that it was the Chinese government applying for planning permission.She also said that the RMCRA was not disadvantaged by not receiving a copy of a “blast assessment” at the time of the planning decision, which detailed the effect of a possible terrorist explosion.The judge said: “There was no unfairness to the claimant by reason of these documents not having been disclosed.”She went on to say that “there is no obviously material additional fire risk which would make it irrational” for the Government to