🔗 Share this article

According to a leading UK planning lawyer, approving a China's large diplomatic compound in London's eastern district could violate judicial standards if government officials provided Beijing with advance assurances about the project.

Possible Legal Breaches

Should PM Keir Starmer or his administration made promises to the Chinese government, it could represent "actual or apparent predetermination" of the planning application, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.

This opinion was commissioned by a group of local inhabitants opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated strong opposition due to safety, civil liberties and development concerns.

Government Scrutiny

Government officials now face pressure to clarify whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would advance the proposal after it had stalled under the previous Tory government.

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

Diplomatic Exchanges

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 calling in that application."

Critics of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the largest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the approval is authorized.

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

Legal Requirements

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

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

Possible Consequences

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

He said it was of "critical importance" that any relevant written evidence, including any records indicating that promises were given, must be retained by the government, which would be obliged to reveal them if a legal challenge occurs.

International Disagreements

Recently, China voiced "grave concern and deep displeasure" after ministers delayed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.

A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry claimed China had acted with "the utmost 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 Responses

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, commented: "Lord Banner has established a marker. If the rumours are proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."

Additional Developments

Recently, the government categorically denied any government influence in the ruling 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 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 detained 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."