Tower Hamlets Council has rejected, for the second time, plans for a Chinese Embassy next to the Tower of London, despite planning officers recommending granting permission.
An emergency strategic development committee this week voted unanimously to reject the application following strong opposition from local residents and community groups.
It also refused to grant listed building consent for the refurbishment of the Grade II-listed Smirke Building and Seaman’s Registry in the former Royal Mint development.
However, the final decision will be determined next year by the secretary of state, Angela Rayner, who called in the decision in October because of the application’s ‘national significance’.
‘Refusal without merit’
The planning application, submitted by the Chinese Embassy in the UK, includes a scheme, designed by architect Chipperfield, for a 52,000 sq m embassy and 31,000 sq m for ancillary accommodation. A proposed ‘Cultural Exchange Building’ is planned to become “a new landmark of true distinction and architectural quality”.
An identical planning application, also rejected by the council’s strategic development committee, was submitted in 2021. The planning officer’s recommendation was to approve it.
Barnaby Collins, a representative of the Chinese Embassy project from planning consultancy DP9, told councillors that the decision to resubmit the planning application in the summer, instead of appealing the refusal, was “because of the principal desire for the decision to be made locally”.
“Since then, the Embassy has continued its programme for local community engagement, hosting various cultural events as well as public exhibitions,” Collins told the strategic development committee on Monday (9 December).
He continued: “The previous reasons for refusal have been assessed and are considered to be without merit and no basis in planning policy. Your planning officers concur, stating in their committee report, that there are no substantial changes to applicable policies. The officer’s report also reaffirms the proposal as an embassy for any host nation is and continues to be supported under London and Tower Hamlets development plans, and remains wholly compliant with planning policy.”
Objections and support
A statutory public consultation on the latest application received 246 letters in support and 273 objections. Two petitions were also submitted objecting to the proposal.
Some of the objections against the plans include the negative impact on safety and security and subsequent strain on police resources, impact on tourism due to potential protests, increased road congestion and adverse impact on neighbouring heritage assets from potential demonstrations and acts of terrorism.
Other issues raised, but which were not considered by officers because they were not relevant for planning purposes, included concerns “about the building becoming a secret police station”, that phone calls and fibre optic cables “will be listened to” because of the site’s proximity to a BT building, and a request to consider the proposal beyond planning terms because of “global and social unrest”.
Local opposition
Sue Hughes, chair of the local group Friends of St Katharine Docks, told the strategic development committee that a petition opposing the plans had received more than 200 signatures.
She also noted that the Chinese Embassy hadn’t considered Martyn’s Law when resubmitting its application. This law, officially the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, was passed in Parliament in September and requires public venues to make safety provisions to reduce the risks of terrorist attacks.
Hughes said: “An embassy on this site will create negative mental health impacts on the residents of the Royal Mint Estate because the embassy and the activities associated with it will dominate our estate due to its proximity.”
Although the planning officers said that arms of the Metropolitan Police, including the counter-terrorism unit, had not objected to the application as long as security issues were managed through conditions and obligations, the local borough command rejected it at the meeting.
“I’m speaking from the Metropolitan Police. We have had numerous internal meetings and the Metropolitan Police are objecting [to] this [application],” said Met Police chief inspector Dave Hodges.
Planning officers’ recommendation
The planning officers recommended that the council approve the plans because they comply with development plan policies and other relevant planning considerations.
Officers noted that Historic Royal Palaces, Historic England or English Heritage had not objected to the proposal on conservation or tourism impact grounds.
“Overall, the proposals would result in the provision of buildings with a more sensitive scale, massing and design and would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Tower of London Conservation Area,” said the planning officer’s report.
“In assessing the current applications, and on the balance of all available evidence, officers are of the view that there is no compelling new evidence that would lead them to reverse their previous position. Therefore, the reasons for [the] refusal [of] the previous applications are not being recommended. This conclusion has been arrived at in consideration of all consultation responses and legal advice.”
The council’s strategic development committee was approached for comment.
