Britain’s intelligence chiefs have cautioned ministers that it is unrealistic to expect all security risks to be eliminated from China’s planned mega-embassy in central London, even as the government approved the controversial project in a move aimed at resetting relations with Beijing. The warning, revealed after ministers granted planning permission on Tuesday, has intensified political backlash and raised concerns among allies.
MI5 director-general Sir Ken McCallum and GCHQ director Anne Keast-Butler wrote jointly to the home and foreign secretaries to stress that no foreign diplomatic site could ever be rendered entirely risk-free. According to the Times UK, the letter argued that driving embassy-related risks to zero would be irrational given the range of broader national security threats facing the country. The intelligence chiefs said, however, that the mitigation measures developed by security agencies and government departments were professional, proportionate and effective.
The decision clears the way for China to build what would become the largest embassy in Europe on the former Royal Mint Court site, close to the Tower of London. Ministers hope the approval will ease diplomatic tensions and support renewed trade talks with Beijing, potentially smoothing the path for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to visit China later this year. The government believes closer engagement could boost British exports, particularly in food and pharmaceuticals.
Security concerns have been central to opposition against the project. The site is located near sensitive telecommunications cables linking the City of London with Canary Wharf, prompting fears it could enhance Chinese intelligence-gathering capabilities. A planning inspector’s report released alongside the decision concluded that embassy approvals must be “nation-neutral,” warning that discriminating against one country could set an untenable precedent. It added that there was no evidence a lawful embassy would interfere with the nearby cables.
Steve Reed, the housing and communities secretary, approved the plans after more than a year of deliberation, citing assurances from MI5 and GCHQ that the risks were manageable. Ministers also said that the Metropolitan Police, Home Office and Foreign Office raised no objections related to terrorism. The planning document stated that earlier concerns, first raised last year, had been resolved following extensive review.
Despite those assurances, the political reaction has been fierce. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch accused the government of allowing a country that spies on British politicians to establish a “super-embassy” in the heart of the capital. Senior Conservatives branded the decision an act of cowardice, arguing that national security had been subordinated to a desire for closer economic ties with Beijing. Sir James Cleverly said the move showed Labour could not be trusted to stand up for Britain internationally.
The controversy has also reverberated beyond the UK. The Times UK reported that there were fears within government that the approval could irritate Washington, which had previously expressed reservations about the project. John Moolenaar, chair of the US House of Representatives’ select committee on China, said he opposed the plans, warning that Chinese surveillance activities posed risks not just to Britain but to the wider Five Eyes intelligence alliance.
Supporters of the decision within the security establishment argue that consolidating China’s multiple diplomatic sites into a single, purpose-built embassy could actually make monitoring easier. China currently operates around half a dozen sites across London. Dan Jarvis, the security minister, is expected to tell MPs that both MI5 and GCHQ formally backed the project after reviewing the safeguards.
The decision is unlikely to be the final word. Local residents near Royal Mint Court are preparing a judicial review, claiming the approval process was predetermined. Campaigners say they will seek disclosure of communications between British ministers and Chinese officials, including messages involving senior figures such as the prime minister and foreign secretary. China critics in Parliament have warned that the legal battle and political fallout could drag on for months.
For now, the government insists the process was independent and grounded in security advice. A spokesperson said intelligence agencies had been involved throughout and that China had agreed to consolidate its London presence into one site, which ministers say brings “clear security advantages.” But with domestic opposition mounting and international allies watching closely, the new embassy has already become a symbol of the difficult balance Britain faces between economic pragmatism and strategic caution.
