As stated by a leading UK planning lawyer, approving a Chinese large diplomatic compound in east London could breach judicial standards if government officials provided Beijing with advance assurances about the development.
Potential Judicial Breaches
Should PM Keir Starmer or his administration made commitments to the Chinese government, it could represent "real or apparent predetermination" of the development proposal, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.
This 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, human rights and development concerns.
Government Scrutiny
Ministers now face demands to explain whether they confidentially promised Chinese officials they would advance the application after it had halted under the former Tory government.
China submitted a new application for development approval weeks after Labour came into government last year, and President Xi Jinping mentioned the issue personally with Starmer during their initial call in August 2024.
International Communications
Starmer allegedly 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 preparing to seek a judicial review if the approval is authorized.
Mark Nygate, treasurer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were gathering funds to challenge the decision.
Legal Obligations
The matter is quasi-judicial, meaning the minister responsible – currently the housing secretary – must make his ruling objectively under the law and with an open mind.
In his analysis, Banner stressed that "currently there has been no revelation or official evidence as to whether any 'assurances' have been given" or what the content of such commitments might be.
Potential Consequences
Nevertheless, he stated that if the PM had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would be seen by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to generate a genuine risk that the secretary of state had a closed mind."
He declared it was of "critical 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.
Diplomatic Tensions
Recently, China expressed "serious worry and deep displeasure" after ministers postponed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.
A spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry stated China had acted with "the utmost sincerity and patience" over the matter and the UK should "immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."
Government Responses
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, commented: "Lord Banner has established a marker. If the allegations are demonstrated true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."
Related Developments
On Sunday, 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 declared "there had been absolutely no political interference with the evidence provided in this case" and rejected reports that the official who drafted the evidence privately 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."
