According to a leading UK development lawyer, authorizing a China's mega-embassy in east London could breach judicial requirements if government officials provided Beijing with advance assurances about the project.
Possible Judicial Breaches
Should PM Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the government of China, it could represent "real or apparent predetermination" of the planning application, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.
The analysis was requested by a coalition of local inhabitants against the planned Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated strong resistance due to safety, civil liberties and development issues.
Government Scrutiny
Ministers now face pressure to explain whether they privately promised Chinese officials they would advance the proposal after it had stalled under the former Conservative government.
The Chinese government reapplied for development approval weeks after Labour took power last year, and Leader Xi Jinping mentioned the matter directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.
Diplomatic Communications
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 referring that application."
Opponents of the proposed complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are getting ready to seek a judicial review if the decision is authorized.
Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were raising funds to contest the decision.
Legal Requirements
The matter is quasi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling impartially under the law and with an open mind.
In his opinion, Banner emphasized that "currently there has been no revelation or official evidence as to whether any 'assurances' have been given" or what the nature of such assurances might be.
Potential Consequences
However, he stated that if the PM had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would be seen by the reasonable and informed observer to create a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."
He declared it was of "vital importance" that any pertinent documentary evidence, including any documents indicating that assurances were given, must be retained by the government, which would be required to reveal them if a legal challenge occurs.
International Disagreements
Recently, China expressed "serious worry and deep displeasure" after ministers postponed their ruling 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 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 "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 demonstrated true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."
Related 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 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 stopped by police under terrorism laws after arriving at Heathrow from China in February 2023. Both defendants 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."
