Cllr Peter Golds is a councillor in Tower Hamlets. He has served as a London councillor for almost 21 years and is a Board Member of the Conservative Councillors Association.
Last week Jules Pipe, the Deputy Mayor of London for planning, acting on behalf of the Mayor, declined to consider the planning application by the Chinese Government to build a vast embassy complex at Tower Hill, which was rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in December. Here is the relevant extract from the Deputy Mayor.
“Having now considered a report on this case (GLA ref: 2021/0946/S2, copy enclosed), I am content to allow the local planning authority to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secretary of State may take, and do not therefore wish to direct that the Mayor is to be the local planning authority.”
Strategic planning is one of the major legal duties of the mayor of London and yet we have his deputy not “wishing to direct that the Mayor be the local planning authority.” Some may feel that this is a dereliction of duty on an issue that is of enormous strategic importance.
The application rejected by Tower Hamlets was for the largest embassy compound in Europe. The site was purchased by the Chinese government in 2018 for £255 million. The location, itself is extraordinary for an application as controversial as this. The Chinese government purchased the site of the former Royal Mint which is located on the Tower Bridge approach road and overlooks the Tower of London. Remains of the Roman city walls are within sight. This is one of the world’s major tourist locations.
The site includes the 216-year-old Johnson Smirke building which was, until 1966, the headquarters of the Royal Mint. This itself was built over the foundations of the fourteenth-century Cistercian Abbey, St Mary of the Graces (often known as Eastminster Abbey) which was endowed by Edward III, the transept of which was built over the graves of what are believed to be the first London victims of the Black Death. As can be seen from this brief description, the site is of enormous historic importance. The Johnson Smirke building is listed, although the interior was completely rebuilt in the early years of the twentieth century, leaving only the exterior in its 216-year-old form.
The London and Middlesex Archaeology Society describe this exact location as “a very sensitive area of high historic interest.” Parts of the location have yet to be examined. What has been excavated are remarkable foundations of the demolished abbey. There are also identifiable parts of the monastery foundations which have yet to be excavated.
Many of the burial grounds, relating to the Black Death have yet to be examined.
As I refer above, the application will be for a large embassy complex, 233 flats on site and a residence for the ambassador. It will be a magnet for demonstrations, which will hardly enhance the Tower, Tower Bridge and the City wall as tourist destinations.
Last year tenants and leaseholders in a block of flats, St Mary Graces’ Court, located on an adjoining street discovered that the freehold of their homes had been sold to the Chinese government. Residents fear that the Chinese government would have the right to enter their homes.
The consultation exercise had been extremely controversial as residents, historians and community groups from across the country took part to ask questions. These were handled by the architect and planning consultant. Once or twice the Chinese Embassy made contributions but displayed a total lack of understanding about how planning operates and indeed the rights of the public and elected officials to ask difficult questions.
As the process went forward, national and international press interest increased. The constant question was how a vast embassy compound was being proposed to be located on a site of such historic interest?
Can one imagine other governments even thinking of permitting a controversial embassy compound of this size adjoining a world heritage site and major tourist location? There have been many demonstrations in front of the Royal Mint and calls to name an unoccupied slip road Uyghur Way.
Planning, rightly, must consider the application in line with legislation and has to be focussed on what is permitted within the local and regional plan. Councillors on the committee were informed that under planning rules members are restricted on what they may ask and consider, and told that the “the nation that will occupy the site is not a material planning consideration.” Members were also warned not to ask if the complex will contain a “police station” as in the Chinese government building in Manchester. However, the report itself repeatedly referred to the Chinese Embassy and the demonstrations at the existing location.
When members assembled, the problems were enormous. The committee heard from residents groups, including a local estate which would be affected by traffic but had not been specifically consulted, a ward councillor, and myself as a councillor with a borough wide interest.
I particularly raised the point that the Abbey foundations and additional burial sites would pass to China and will certainly be lost to future historians. I told members that it is extraordinary that a location of this importance with such historic sensitivity is simply to be discarded. This is a major unexcavated site of national importance, facing the Tower of London, on the approach road to Tower Bridge, within sight of remaining sections of the Roman city walls and yet it will be lost to future generations.
Remembering this location is Tower Bridge approach and is a major traffic artery for traffic crossing between north and south London, questions by members to officers and the statutory bodies about security, transport and road management caused confusion. In short, the statutory authorities were unable to provide solutions to the obvious problems that will arise if this location is used for a compound of this size.
After a debate of over two hours, members voted unanimously to refuse the application, to the surprise of the planning consultants and council officers. At the conclusion, councillors were approached for interviews by print and radio journalists from different countries and the story was covered in media outlets across the world.
Following the meeting, Tower Hamlets Council planners referred the application to the Mayor of London. The Mayor and the Greater London Authority had been involved in pre-application consultation in September 2020 and produced a stage 1 report in September 2021. However, as noted above, the Deputy Mayor of London has referred the application back to the council subject to any intervention by the Secretary of State. Surely as this is an application of such strategic importance, the Mayor of London should be considering the application despite the potential for political controversy.
Since refusal, there has also been silence from the Chinese Government, DP9 (the planning consultant) and David Chipperfield (architects). They can accept the refusal by the local authority or seek to appeal the decision by going directly to the Secretary of State.
This application remains a source of enormous controversy. Deeply and increasingly unpopular locally, more questions are being asked about surveillance, security, the risks of terrorism, and the inappropriate location.
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.