🔗 Share this article

As stated by a top UK planning lawyer, approving a Chinese mega-embassy in London's eastern district could breach judicial requirements if government officials provided Chinese authorities with advance assurances about the project.

Potential Legal Breaches

If Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made commitments to the Chinese government, it could constitute "real or seeming prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This opinion was requested by a coalition of residents against the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce resistance due to security, civil liberties and planning issues.

Government Scrutiny

Government officials now are under demands to clarify whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would advance the application after it had halted under the previous Conservative government.

The Chinese government submitted a new application for planning permission a short time after Labour took power last year, and President Xi Jinping raised the matter personally with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

International Communications

Starmer allegedly told the Chinese president during the G20 summit in November 2024: "Your government raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone. We have since acted by referring that application."

Critics of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a judicial review if the decision is granted.

Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were gathering funds to challenge the approval.

Legal Obligations

The matter is quasi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his decision impartially under the law and with an unbiased perspective.

In his analysis, Banner emphasized that "currently there has been no disclosure or official evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the content of such commitments might be.

Potential Consequences

However, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would be seen by the reasonable and informed observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

He said it was of "critical importance" that any relevant documentary evidence, including any documents indicating that promises were given, must be retained by the government, which would be obliged to disclose them if a judicial review occurs.

Diplomatic Tensions

Recently, China voiced "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers postponed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.

A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry stated China had acted with "the utmost sincerity and patience" over the issue and the UK should "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Government Responses

The Prime Minister's office said it did not "accept any claims of commitments or assurances" over the embassy application.

Luke de Pulford, executive director of the International Parliamentary Alliance on China, remarked: "Lord Banner has laid down a marker. If the allegations are demonstrated true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Related Developments

Recently, the government absolutely denied any government influence in the ruling to drop charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.

A government representative stated "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and denied reports that the civil servant who drafted the evidence confidentially acknowledged it was influenced by political considerations.

Media reports indicated that one of the two men charged with espionage was carrying £4,000 in cash when stopped by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A police spokesperson commented at the time: "A man in his 30s was subject to a stop at Heathrow airport under Schedule 3 of the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. He was not arrested and enquiries continued."