🔗 Share this article

As stated by a prominent UK development lawyer, approving a Chinese super-embassy in east London could breach judicial requirements if government officials provided Chinese authorities with prior assurances about the project.

Potential Legal Violations

If PM Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the Chinese government, it could constitute "actual or seeming prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.

This opinion was requested by a coalition of local inhabitants opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted fierce resistance due to security, human rights and planning issues.

Ministerial Pressure

Government officials now are under demands to explain whether they privately promised Chinese officials they would progress the application after it had stalled under the former Tory government.

The Chinese government submitted a new application for planning permission weeks after Labour came into government last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the issue personally with Starmer during their initial 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 taken action by calling in that application."

Critics of the planned 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 decision is authorized.

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

Judicial Requirements

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

In his opinion, Banner emphasized that "for now there has been no disclosure 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 prime minister had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to generate a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."

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

Diplomatic Tensions

Last week, China expressed "serious worry and deep displeasure" after ministers delayed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.

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

Official Statements

The Prime Minister's office stated 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 proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."

Additional Events

Recently, the government categorically 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 spokesperson declared "there had been absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected 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 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."