🔗 Share this article

According to a top UK planning lawyer, authorizing a Chinese mega-embassy in east London could violate judicial requirements if government officials provided Beijing with advance assurances about the development.

Possible Judicial Breaches

If Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the government of China, it could constitute "real or apparent prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.

The analysis was commissioned by a coalition of local inhabitants opposed to the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated strong resistance due to safety, civil liberties and development issues.

Ministerial Scrutiny

Ministers now face demands to explain whether they confidentially assured Chinese officials they would progress the proposal after it had stalled under the previous Conservative government.

China submitted a new application for development approval a short time after Labour took power last year, and President Xi Jinping mentioned the matter directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

Diplomatic Communications

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

Opponents of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the largest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a legal challenge if the decision is granted.

Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, confirmed they were raising funds to contest the decision.

Judicial Requirements

The case is quasi-judicial, meaning the secretary responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling impartially under the law and with an open mind.

In his analysis, Banner stressed that "for now there has been no revelation or formal evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the content of such assurances might be.

Potential Consequences

Nevertheless, he stated that if the prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the fair-minded and informed observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a closed mind."

He declared it was of "critical importance" that any pertinent written evidence, including any records indicating that assurances were given, must be retained by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.

Diplomatic Disagreements

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

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

Official Statements

Downing Street stated it did not "recognise 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 established a marker. If the rumours are demonstrated true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."

Related Events

On Sunday, the government absolutely denied any political interference in the decision to withdraw charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, alleged of spying for China.

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

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

A police representative stated 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."