🔗 Share this article

As stated by a prominent UK planning lawyer, authorizing a Chinese mega-embassy in London's eastern district could breach judicial standards if ministers provided Chinese authorities with prior commitments about the development.

Possible Legal Breaches

If PM Keir Starmer or his administration made promises to the government of China, it could represent "actual or seeming predetermination" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

The analysis was commissioned by a group of residents opposed to the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce opposition due to security, human rights and planning concerns.

Government Pressure

Government officials now are under pressure to clarify whether they privately promised Chinese officials they would progress the application after it had stalled under the former Conservative government.

The Chinese government reapplied for planning permission weeks after Labour came into government last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the issue personally with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

International Communications

Starmer reportedly 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."

Opponents of the proposed complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the decision is granted.

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

Legal Requirements

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

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

Possible Ramifications

Nevertheless, he wrote that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the fair-minded and knowledgeable observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

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

International Disagreements

Last week, China expressed "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.

A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the utmost 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."

Government Statements

Downing Street said 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 allegations are proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Related Developments

Recently, the government categorically denied any government influence in the ruling to drop charges against two men, including a ex 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.

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 accused individuals deny any wrongdoing.

A police spokesperson 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."