🔗 Share this article

Per a prominent UK planning lawyer, approving a China's large diplomatic compound in east London could breach judicial standards if ministers provided Beijing with advance commitments about the project.

Potential Judicial Breaches

If PM Keir Starmer or his team made commitments to the Chinese government, it could represent "actual or seeming prejudgment" of the planning application, according to the expert analysis by Lord Banner.

This opinion was requested by a group of residents opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has attracted strong opposition due to safety, human rights and planning concerns.

Ministerial Pressure

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

The Chinese government submitted a new application for planning permission weeks after Labour took power last year, and Leader Xi Jinping raised the matter personally with Starmer during their initial 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 calling in that application."

Opponents of the planned complex, which would cover 20,000 square metres to become the largest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the decision is granted.

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

Judicial Obligations

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

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

Potential Ramifications

Nevertheless, he wrote that if the prime minister had made a commitment to Beijing, that "would appear by the reasonable and knowledgeable observer to generate a real possibility that the secretary of state had a closed mind."

He said 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 obliged to reveal them if a legal challenge occurs.

Diplomatic Tensions

Last week, China voiced "grave concern and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their ruling 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 "immediately fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."

Government Responses

The Prime Minister's office said 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, remarked: "Lord Banner has established a marker. If the allegations are proven true and unlawful assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a catastrophic judicial review."

Additional Events

Recently, the government categorically denied any government influence in the ruling to withdraw charges against two men, including a former parliamentary researcher, accused of spying for China.

A government representative declared "there was 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 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."