Britain’s capital has become the unlikely stage for a high-stakes diplomatic drama, as the UK government once again delayed its decision on whether to allow China to construct what would be the largest embassy in Europe. The proposed site, Royal Mint Court—an imposing, two-century-old complex near the Tower of London—has remained empty since the last gold sovereign was struck there in 1975. But in recent years, it has become the focal point of a heated debate over espionage, diplomatic protocol, and the rights of local residents.
On October 16, 2025, the UK’s Department of Housing announced it would postpone its ruling on China’s embassy plans until December 10, 2025, citing holdups in receiving responses from both the interior and foreign ministries. According to Reuters, this marks the second time the decision has been pushed back, intensifying the scrutiny on Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government and its approach to relations with Beijing.
The controversy began in 2018, when China purchased Royal Mint Court for £255 million, intending to relocate its embassy from its current site near Regent’s Park to this historic address. The location, nestled between London’s financial powerhouses—the City and Canary Wharf—was seen by Beijing as a symbolically and strategically significant upgrade. Yet, since the purchase, the project has faced persistent opposition from local residents, lawmakers, and Hong Kong pro-democracy campaigners living in Britain.
Concerns over the embassy’s potential as a base for Chinese espionage have loomed large. Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a vocal critic of Beijing, warned that the proximity of the site to the City of London’s telephone exchange and strategic fibre-optic cables could facilitate spying. The Sunday Times reported that the White House has also privately cautioned the UK government against approving the plans, citing fears of pan-European espionage activities.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp echoed these anxieties, telling Sky News, “We should not be allowing the Chinese to build the super embassy. It is likely to become a base for their pan-European espionage activities.”
The timing of the government’s latest delay is especially sensitive. Just weeks earlier, British prosecutors dropped charges against two men accused of spying for China between 2021 and 2023, after the government declined to formally declare Beijing an enemy. The two men, former parliamentary researcher Christopher Cash and academic Christopher Berry, had denied any wrongdoing. The collapse of the trial has fueled accusations that Starmer’s Labour government is downplaying the national security threat posed by China, even as it pursues improved diplomatic ties.
According to Sky News, the embassy project’s planning application was first rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022. In July 2024, just weeks after Labour’s election victory, China resubmitted its application—this time with President Xi Jinping personally asking Prime Minister Starmer to intervene. That August, then housing secretary Angela Rayner “called in” the application, transferring oversight from local authorities to central government. The move was prompted in part by controversy over redacted sections of the embassy’s building plans, which anti-China activists allege could conceal detention facilities for opponents of the Chinese Communist Party.
During a public inquiry in February 2025, these fears were voiced in stark terms. Simon Cheng, founder of Hongkongers in Britain, told the Planning Inspectorate, “China has been accused of operating illegal ‘overseas police stations’ to silence political opponents and even force them back to China. Approving this embassy risks legitimising and enabling such activities on British soil.”
Hong Kongers exiled in the UK have also raised the alarm. Carmen Lau, a prominent activist, told Sky News she believes the embassy could become a “hub of transnational repression,” citing the 2022 incident in Manchester when a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester was forcibly taken inside the Chinese consulate. In a chilling letter sent to Ms. Lau’s neighbours, Hong Kong police even offered a bounty for information or actions that could “take her to Chinese embassy.”
Amid these allegations, the Chinese government has insisted its intentions are benign. In September, a spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London described claims that the new embassy poses a security risk as “completely groundless and malicious slander, and we firmly oppose it.” The spokesperson added, “Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government’s consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.”
China has repeatedly emphasized that it has “followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures” in its planning application. In a statement issued in August, the embassy argued, “The planning and design of the new Chinese Embassy project is of high quality, which has been well recognised by various professional bodies. The planning application has followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures.”
Yet, not everyone is convinced. One of the most contentious aspects of the plan is the existence of “greyed-out” areas in the building’s blueprints—rooms in the basement with no clearly stated use. Angela Rayner demanded an explanation for these redacted sections, but Beijing’s planning consultancy, DP9, said it would be “inappropriate” to submit complete floor plans, arguing that internal layouts for embassies are typically exempt from public disclosure. Chinese officials also pointed out that the US-UK embassy at Nine Elms did not include internal layouts in its plans.
Adding to the controversy, the embassy proposal includes a public area allowing visitors to explore the ruins of a Cistercian abbey and a Chinese cultural centre. The Home and Foreign Offices have flagged this as a “specific public order and national security risk,” noting that police and emergency services would not have automatic access due to diplomatic inviolability. China, for its part, has said it would allow first responders onto the site if necessary, but critics remain skeptical.
Local residents, already anxious about possible eviction, have voiced concerns that the presence of the embassy could bring regular anti-China protests and increased security risks to their doorstep. Two demonstrations have already taken place this year, underscoring the depth of local opposition.
China has argued that the UK is obliged under international law to support the construction of diplomatic premises. “It is an international obligation of the host country to provide support and facilitation for the construction of diplomatic premises. Both China and the UK plan to build new embassies in each other’s capitals,” the embassy stated. Ironically, Beijing has so far refused permission for a new UK embassy in China.
As the December deadline approaches, the fate of London’s would-be “super embassy” remains uncertain. With accusations, anxieties, and diplomatic stakes mounting on all sides, the decision promises to reverberate well beyond the walls of Royal Mint Court—testing the UK’s resolve to balance security, international law, and its evolving relationship with China.