Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Ors

Ground 4 is not arguable because the SSHCLG did not irrationally fail to take into account mandatory material considerations. The decision as to mitigation measures was for the SSHD under national security powers, not for the SSHCLG. The costs and land use consequences were not matters the SSHCLG was required to consider, and even if they were, the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Parties
Claimant: Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association; First Defendant: Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; Second Defendant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets; Fourth Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department; Fifth Defendant: Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission Application for Ground 4
Outcome
Permission to rely on ground 4 refused
Legal Topics
Material Considerations in Planning, Statutory Review, National Security and Planning, Costs of Mitigation Measures, Judicial Review Procedure
Administrative Law Planning Law National Security Material Considerations in Planning Statutory Review National Security and Planning Costs of Mitigation Measures Judicial Review Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mint Court Residents’ Association

Claimant

Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government

First Defendant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Second Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Fourth Defendant

Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Statutory Review Under Section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 / Permission Application for Ground 4

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government irrationally failed to take into account mitigation measures for national security as a mandatory material consideration in granting planning permission for the Chinese Embassy

Ratio Decidendi

Ground 4 is not arguable because the SSHCLG did not irrationally fail to take into account mandatory material considerations. The decision as to mitigation measures was for the SSHD under national security powers, not for the SSHCLG. The costs and land use consequences were not matters the SSHCLG was required to consider, and even if they were, the outcome would inevitably have been the same.

Court Disposition

Permission to rely on ground 4 refused

Orders

  • Permission to rely on ground 4 of the statutory review is refused