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 Councillors’ Association.
The recent budget fiasco with its leaks and deception, gripped the national media and certainly those interested in politics. We now have the final decision (approval) of the planning application for the mega Chinese embassy at Tower Hill. Originally due to be announced in the summer, it has now been delayed twice, firstly from June to September, then to December 10th, when presumably government business managers assumed it would be at the tail end of a successful budget and the point when Parliament goes into recess. In fact it has been delayed until a proposed visit by Sir Keir to China, when he will bask in his capitulation.
Events suggest that the government could not have got it more wrong. There have already been many leaks and hints that this decision will be simply waved through. It is likely to provoke a huge local, regional, national and international eruption. There cannot be many local opposition councillors who have been asked for exclusive interviews by the national press in Paris, New York and Amsterdam regarding the decision. Every international journalist that I have spoken to has said that their politicians and governments cannot understand why this has not been refused by the UK government.
Let us therefore recap before looking at the current situation. Tower Hamlets Council, under Labour control, unanimously refused permission in 2022. Neither the Chinese or UK governments sought a call in, nor did the Labour Mayor of London. Importantly, the Chinese government seek to judicially review the decision.
Immediately following the 2024 election, the Chinese government resubmitted the original application to Tower Hamlets with no amendments, claiming the grounds for rejection were “worthless.”
Before the application could be considered for a decision by Tower Hamlets, Sir Keir Starmer informed the Chinese President, within the hearing of the press, that the application would be called in for a final decision by his deputy. However, and this was not explained to the Chinese at the time, Tower Hamlets consider the application and publicly say what their decision would have been. In addition, there would also be a public enquiry. This would result in the Inspector under UK planning regulations, making a recommendation to the minister. During this period, it would be hands off – at least in public. As we know, this government is quite incapable of discretion in any way.
In December 2024, the council again voted to reject the application. Significantly, despite having three seats on the committee, there was just one Labour councillor present. During the meeting, two Labour councillors were outside the chamber, well away from cameras, but neither spoke in public. They did congratulate residents who had attended and opposed the application. The objections were strengthened by an intervention from the Metropolitan Police who sent a senior officer to explain the difficulties of containing demonstrations at the location, not least based on the experience of protecting embassies since the Gaza conflict of October 2023. During this meeting a council officer intervened to enquire as to whom the officer was representing. It was confirmed that the representation was from the Metropolitan Police.
During the whole, long process, there has been massive opposition to what will be by far the largest embassy complex anywhere in Europe. There has been cross party support from both houses of parliament, the GLA, London councillors and resident and community groups.
As well as being in world heritage location (it overlooks the Tower of London and Tower Bridge) it borders the City of London and is near Canary Wharf. Scotland Yard and British intelligence agencies have raised concerns about the project because sensitive data cables which run nearby could be vulnerable to attack by Chinese spies. The site is close to three major data centres. It surrounds a vital BT telephone exchange with cables linking the city worldwide.
In January, shortly after the former deputy prime minister visited China, the then foreign and home secretaries published a letter they sent to her stating that the police had received further information which had caused them to withdraw their objection. This of course weakened the Tower Hamlets submission.
The “information” was in fact a 10-page “Pedestrian Comfort Assessment”, drawn up by Arup and Cundall for the Chinese government. It was not commissioned by the police or the council but paid for by the Chinese government for the 2022 application. It was certainly not new. It was presented to the MPS as a “material consideration” by the council. As the council had twice voted unanimously to reject the application and the current administration supported this decision, how had this come about?
Eventually after many enquiries and questions I received a written answer at a council meeting which was extremely revealing. Here it is:
“Given the strength of the representations made by the Police, planning officers were able to commence preparation for the appeal in the belief and expectation that the Council’s position was supported by the views of the Metropolitan Police. Following the committee meeting it became apparent that the applicant would be relying on evidence in a Pedestrian Environment Comfort Assessment (prepared by Arup) at the Inquiry. Planning officers drew this to the attention of the MPS to ensure they could prepare accordingly, including the likelihood of questions from the Inspector cross-examination by the applicant’s counsel. On 8 January the Metropolitan Police notified the Council that following receipt of additional information it can no longer maintain its objection to the proposal.”
The Met had been involved in the 2022 application. They had access to all papers. When did they “discover” the Arup document? Indeed as it was council policy to oppose the application it is interesting that “council officers drew this to the attention of the MPS.” Why did they do that – against a decision of their own council?
The MPS is famed for stating their operational independence. Suddenly withdrawing their objection to a major planning application with international interest, based on a dated document produced by the applicant whilst ministers were publicly writing about the application is unusual.
I can confirm that the MPS presentation at the public enquiry was, politely, low key. They were acutely aware of the disruptions caused by a demonstration at the site the weekend before the enquiry opened, a demonstration that required a substantial police presence.
Diplomats also briefed that Donald Trump’s administration would have reservations about sharing intelligence with the UK if the embassy was allowed to open.
As far back as April, the press were reporting the government would approve the application following ministerial visits to and with China. Then in April came the news of the secret rooms and tunnels which had somehow been left off the planning application. Once again the government stonewalled parliamentary questions and I had difficulty getting any kind of answer from local planning officers.
Eventually the council responded to my written enquiry where I asked the question “Tower Hamlets planning officers whether the ‘sensitive information’ provisions had been used in relation to the current Embassy planning application, and whether information was held off the main planning register.” I was informed:
“A Security Statement dated 19 June 2020 was omitted from the Council’s public planning register.”
The Pedestrian Comfort Assessment was omitted from the Council’s public register. However, this was made public on the local inquiry register managed by the Council for the Planning Inspectorate. Despite earlier concerns, the applicant had no issue with this document being made public by the time of the Inquiry.
This is extraordinary as officials knew about the secret rooms , deep within the proposed building for years.
We now know that a “Blast Assessment” was commissioned by the Council at the request of Counter Terrorism Security Advisor. This document did not form part of the suite of documents considered by the Planning Inspector at the inquiry.”
Why were the government reluctant to confirm any of this information in Parliament?
Since then we have had the collapse of spy trial, extraordinary revelations as to the influence of China in our universities, the Chinese involvement in industry and the extensive purchase of property across the country.
Historians and visitors who want to see what will remain of the currently extensive abbey foundations after construction of the embassy will have to provide personal information and passport data. This is despite the council and enquiry being told there would be a historic visitor centre.
I even recently met a developer who expressed concern at the number of Chinese companies involved in the manufacture of solar panels. His words to me were “they even want to listen into our homes.”
During this year messages from the defence and security services have been mixed. Initially there were leaks and coded statements of concern but now they appear less so.
Interestingly, the City of London Corporation had initially been very guarded and, despite the application being on the city boundary, made no comment at either the 2022 or 2024 planning meetings or the public enquiry. Then, on the 20th October anonymous briefings expressing concern appeared in City AM. Why they had waited so long is a mystery as the problems of security for the city were obvious from the start.
So we wait until the 20th January when Sir Keir will be heading for China and his powerful personal advisor Jonathan Powell will have had yet another top secret visit to the Chinese government.
The decision is unlikely to be the final chapter of the process as there are certain to be legal challenges and a national and international outcry.
Ultimately this wretched decision will prove a problem long after Sir Keir Starmer is but a footnote in the list of less than successful prime ministers.