🔗 Share this article

According to a prominent UK development lawyer, approving a China's super-embassy in east London could violate judicial requirements if government officials provided Beijing with prior commitments about the development.

Potential Judicial Breaches

Should PM Keir Starmer or his team made promises to the Chinese government, it could constitute "actual or apparent predetermination" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This analysis was commissioned by a coalition of residents against the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce resistance due to safety, civil liberties and development issues.

Ministerial Pressure

Government officials now are under pressure to explain whether they confidentially assured Chinese officials they would progress the application after it had stalled under the former Tory government.

China reapplied for planning permission weeks after Labour came into government last year, and President Xi Jinping mentioned the matter personally with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.

Diplomatic 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 taken action by calling in that application."

Critics of the proposed complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the largest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a legal challenge if the approval is granted.

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

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 unbiased perspective.

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

Potential Consequences

Nevertheless, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would appear 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 "critical importance" that any relevant documentary evidence, including any records indicating that assurances were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.

Diplomatic Disagreements

Recently, China voiced "serious worry and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their ruling on the embassy until 10 December.

A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed 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 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 established a marker. If the rumours are demonstrated true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Events

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

A government spokesperson stated "there was absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected reports that the official 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 detained by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants deny any wrongdoing.

A police representative 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."