How China’s London embassy plans fell apart

China’s plans to develop one of the world’s largest embassies were left in tatters this week after the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ planning committee unanimously rejected the proposals to redevelop Royal Mint Court, EC3, despite planning officers’ recommendation for approval. Over a two-and-a-half-hour debate, councillors voiced concerns about the impact on local residents’ safety and security, the scheme’s effect on police resources, the congested nature of the area and the harm that would be caused to heritage sites, including the nearby Tower of London. They specifically raised concerns over the lack of security plans in the application, as well as raising worries about the applicant’s negative and limited interactions with residents during pre-planning consultations. Signs that the meeting might not go according to planning officers’ expectations arrived early, when strategic development committee chair Amin Rahman said he was allocating additional time for objectors to have their voices heard given their number – there were 58 representations and objections to the application. Local residents gave impassioned pleas for the council to refuse planning permission at the site, with one stating: “The security issues both inside and outside the embassy need to be dealt with together, before any [planning] decision is made and in consultation with the local residents, who are worried about becoming victims of terror attacks on the embassy or swept up in protests.” The resident added that the documents referenced a “key security doc” that “has restricted access”. She said the document, a blast assessment report which residents asked the council to commission, “is the formative note that only a few residents involved in the consultation have seen”. That document was referenced frequently throughout the meeting by various members in attendance, some of whom questioned the independence of the author from the applicant. The full report, which is marked “official, sensitive” is not visible to councillors or residents. Security concerns Simon Cheng, founder of Hongkongers in Britain, also raised “grave concerns” over the threat the embassy could pose to the “security, personal invasion and safety” of those in the community. Cheng said the security risks associated with the building “can put people’s lives at risk” and “the intrusion into their lives is high”. “I, like many who have lived under state surveillance and have fled from it, know that this planning application has the potential to curb our freedoms and security,” he said. “The move [by the Chinese embassy] to Royal Mint Court is a deliberate attempt designed to place dominance over citizens and refugees.” By the time councillors debated the scheme, it seemed clear that they would reject the plans. Committee member Kamrul Hussain and vice chair Gulam Kibria Choudhury cited resident “safety and security” as the primary reason for their decision to refuse planning consent. Listening to residents Prior to the vote, the committee also heard strong objections from non-committee councillors, including Shafi Ahmed of Whitechapel, who said a “grave issue was raised” earlier this year with regard to clashes that took place outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, which has “cast serious doubts onto the Chinese government’s ability to control their personnel’s conduct in the UK”. “This is clearly of deep concern for both residents and businesses in a borough where free speech and democracy are part of our core values,” he said. Ahmed added that the decision of the embassy to cancel public consultations in the aftermath of the Manchester protests “clearly indicates that this embassy has no intention to seriously engage with the residents on issues that matter to them”. He said: “We repeatedly claim to be a council or an administration that listens to our residents, but this is contrary, and this spits in the face of that idea. With this all considered, I would urge this committee, this council, to reject the recommendation to approve and stand with the residents on this outrageous affront of their liberty, their way of life and their quality of life.” A similarly emotive appeal was made by Tower Hamlets councillor Peter Golds, who described the “compound” as what he suspects “locally, regionally, nationally and internationally is regarded as desecration of a site of massive historical importance”. He also noted a lack of safety consideration in the documents and stated that visitors “won’t see the pretty pictures we’ve seen today, they’ll see ongoing demonstrations because that is what embassies attract”. He added: “That is why the new American embassy was put in that wonderful area of archaeological importance, Nine Elms, where they can surround it with walls and protect it.” See more Tower Hamlets planning information>> To send feedback, e-mail chante.bohitige@eg.co.uk or tweet @bohitige or @EGPropertyNews Image © CBRE