Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for 26 years. He is a former Treasurer of the Conservative Councillor’s Association.  

“What we do know is that the local community will not give up their fight to protect their local heritage and resist turning an iconic location bordering a world heritage site into a possibly armed compound.”

These were the words that I used on Conservative Home in February 2023 to describe the local reaction to Tower Hamlets Council refusing to approve a planning application for the Chinese Government’s proposed mega embassy at Tower Hill. They were written after the Mayor of London declined to take any action, leaving the Chinese Government to consider the next steps.

To recap, the Chinese Government purchased the historic Royal Mint building and site at Tower Hill on which they proposed to construct their largest embassy in Europe and by far the largest embassy complex in the UK. Their Tower Hill embassy would be 20 per cent larger than the Chinese Embassy in Washington DC.

Late in 2023 agents representing the Chinese Government indicated that the applicants intended to resubmit the original plans, the very same plans previously rejected by Tower Hamlets without amendment. Their reason being that the council’s refusal was without merit.

In those circumstances, they could have sought to judicially review the 2022 council decision or petition the government to call the application in for determination by the Secretary of State. Instead, they chose to resubmit the original application to the council which was registered in August this year.

In October, during the Council’s statutory consultation period, Sir Keir Starmer visited China and announced a new era of Anglo-Chinese co-operation and on his return Angela Rayner called in the application for her approval after an enquiry by a government-appointed inspector.

The location of the application is truly historic. It is adjacent to Tower Bridge and the Tower of London. It includes the foundations of the Abbey of our Lady of the Graces, built between 1348-50, once known as Eastminster. Founded by King Edward III, the Abbey transept was built across a number of plague pits where many who died in the black death are interred in what is known to be the first burial grounds relating to the plague.

Following the dissolution of the Monastery in 1538 the main buildings were gradually demolished, although extensive and well-preserved foundations remain to this day. Ariel photographs show how extensive the are the remains of the Abbey foundations.

Between 1805-1809 a new building to house the Royal Mint, known as the Johnson Smirke building, a classic regency construction, was erected and remains today. The Mint itself was re-located although the Johnson Smirke building was still in use by the Royal Mint until 2000, after which it was sold in increasingly controversial circumstances to a number of buyers.

This location could and should be complementary to the Tower of London and London Bridge as part of the overall World Heritage Site. The London plan itself is clear that any development proposals in “World Heritage Sites and their Settings, including buffer zones, should conserve, promote and enhance their outstanding universal value, including the authenticity, integrity and significance of their attributes, and support their management and protection.” This application does not go anywhere near that.

Although the council would not determine the 2024 application, they were required to consider whether to endorse it and this came before the Strategic Development Committee on December 9th.

Importantly various consultees sharpened their concerns about the massive development. These included the Royal Palaces, Historic England and most importantly, the police who formally objected to the application in a detailed letter, which referred to security and managing crowds of demonstrators who would be likely to congregate at the Tower Bridge Approach.

Residents again raised their concerns as did Chinese and Tibetan exile groups who have an extensive knowledge of the reach of the Chinese State. During September 2023 a very limited exhibition/open day was held for residents. Extraordinarily, residents who wished to attend the applicants consultation exhibition were required to apply via a QR code and providing ID, unsurprisingly, numbers attending were small, totalling just 26.

The Strategic Development Committee meeting was well attended by residents and interested parties and it was expected, at least by council officers, that the committee would approve the application. I was the only non Strategic Development committee member of the council to speak and concentrated on legacy and transport.

Between Tower Bridge and the Dartford Bridge and crossing there are eight riverside London boroughs and just two tunnels, located at Rotherhithe and Blackwall. If either are suddenly closed much of east and south east London suffers gridlock. For example, on the 28th August there was an incident in the northbound Blackwall tunnel. This caused massive gridlock with parts of south east London still blocked at midnight. A demonstration at Tower Hill could cause massive hold ups at Tower Bridge and towards the Limehouse Link and A13, bringing the area to a halt.

I concluded by referring to the restoration of Notre Dame in Paris over the weekend. No French government would dare permit a similar edifice on a Parisian World Heritage Location.

Of concern is that UNESCO have commissioned a report on the Tower of London World Heritage location to be debated in 2025. This will examine the setting of the Tower. It would be little short of catastrophic for London, were the Tower of London to be downgraded because of an ill suited development proposal. Significantly, Royal Palaces submitted a letter concerning this application, expressing concerns regarding security and safety.

Numbers of resident speakers was restricted and the single resident permitted to speak, read out the contribution which would have been given by those from Royal Mint Estate who had organised letters and a petition of objection as opposed to her original speech.

The representative of Hong Kongers in Britain referred to surveillance, privacy and personal safety relating to residents and visitors to the area. He listed the regular protests which take place at the existing embassy throughout the year and which would affect both local residents and police resources.

However, it was the police contribution which caused the most interest. The Police have, during the past fourteen months, experienced numerous demonstrations in and around embassies. They were emphatic that policing this location would be problematic. The representative pointed out that there was nowhere that more than 200 protesters could be accommodated in the vicinity and larger numbers will spill into the road where there are 50,000 vehicle movements each day. Therefore any demonstration would have a serious effect locally and to wider London. He particularly referenced the Royal London Hospital which responds to trauma patients from across the capital.

After questions, the committee voted unanimously not approve the application. Tower Hamlets Council has no majority and councillors from Aspire, Labour and Independents all voted the same way. It should be noted that Labour are allocated three spaces on the committee but have only nominated two members. Just one Labour councillor was present, the second member, who works for a Labour MP, was absent and no substitute was nominated in the members place.

Two other Labour councillors were present in the lobby and wished residents well before and after the meeting but were inconspicuous during the meeting.

The increasing local objections, in addition to those from statutory bodies such as Royal Palaces and most of all the police, must surely cause the Secretary of State to consider this very carefully.

Ultimately, will the Government wish to annoy Londoners and the police or upset President Xi?

The post Peter Golds: A huge new Chinese Embassy is proposed. Will the Government back London heritage or President Xi? appeared first on Conservative Home.