According to a prominent UK planning lawyer, approving a China's super-embassy in London's eastern district could breach judicial requirements if government officials provided Beijing with prior assurances about the development.
Potential Legal Breaches
If Prime Minister Keir Starmer or his team made promises to the Chinese government, it could constitute "actual or seeming prejudgment" of the development proposal, according to the legal opinion by Lord Banner.
The opinion was requested by a group of local inhabitants opposed to the proposed Chinese embassy near Tower Bridge, which has generated fierce resistance due to security, human rights and planning issues.
Government Scrutiny
Government officials now face demands to explain whether they confidentially assured Chinese officials they would advance the application after it had halted under the previous Tory government.
The Chinese government submitted a new application for planning permission a short time after Labour took power last year, and President Xi Jinping raised the matter directly with Starmer during their first call in August 2024.
International Communications
Starmer reportedly 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 taken action by calling in that application."
Opponents of the planned complex, which would span 20,000 square metres to become the biggest embassy in Europe, are preparing to seek a judicial review if the approval is granted.
Mark Nygate, financial officer of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stated they were gathering funds to challenge the approval.
Legal Requirements
The matter is quasi-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 stressed that "currently there has been no revelation or formal evidence as to whether any 'promises' have been given" or what the content of such commitments might be.
Possible Consequences
However, he stated that if the PM had made a promise to Beijing, that "would be seen by the fair-minded and knowledgeable observer to generate a real possibility that the secretary of state had a predetermined position."
He said it was of "critical importance" that any pertinent documentary evidence, including any records indicating that promises were given, must be preserved by the government, which would be required to reveal them if a judicial review occurs.
International Disagreements
Last week, China expressed "serious worry and strong dissatisfaction" after ministers delayed their decision on the embassy until 10 December.
A representative for the Chinese foreign ministry stated China had acted with "the utmost sincerity and patience" over the issue and the UK should "promptly fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments, otherwise the British side shall bear all consequences."
Official Responses
Downing Street 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 laid down a marker. If the allegations are demonstrated true and illegal assurances were given to Beijing, the government could face a devastating judicial review."
Related Developments
Recently, the government categorically denied any government influence in the ruling to drop 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 rejected reports that the civil servant who drafted the evidence privately acknowledged it was influenced by political considerations.
News outlets 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."
