Peter Golds: Labour creates ever more confusion over China’s proposal to build the largest embassy in Europe

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.  

When I last wrote on this matter for Conservative Home, the Government had called in the planning application for determination by Angela Rayner. Despite this, Tower Hamlets Council were required to consider the application and vote as they would if they were making a decision. The Strategic Development Committee unanimously voted to confirm that they would have refused the application (as they had done in 2022), particularly following the emphatic objections by the Metropolitan Police to the application.

To recap:

“The Police in their submission to the committee said, during the past fourteen months, they experienced numerous demonstrations in and around embassies. They were emphatic that policing this location would be problematic. The police 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 nearby Royal London Hospital which responds to trauma patients from across the capital and would be affected by road closures and hold ups.”

The contribution by the police made an extremely strong impression and their objections formed part of the council’s decision to refuse.

Prior to this meeting, Sir Keir Starmer had met President Xi at the G20 Summit in Rio on the 17th November. As the press were being ushered out of the meeting room, at the behest of the Chinese, Sir Keir was heard to say that “following a previous phone call the application would be called in.” This was picked up by journalists as a microphone had not been switched off. As China is not known for transparency in their development process (or much else) it would be interesting how the translator described a “call in.” Would this be considered by the Chinese as an instruction?

By January, the Labour Government’s support for the application was becoming ever more apparent. On the 12th January, the Chancellor visited Shanghai and two days later the Foreign and Home Secretaries wrote jointly to the Planning Inspectorate expressing support for the application (subject to a minor caveat) and revealing that the Metropolitan Police were now withdrawing their objection to the application.

Sure enough, a letter from a Scotland Yard Officer was published on the 17th January, duly withdrawing the police’s objection to the application. This turnaround was based on a 10 page “Pedestrian Comfort Assessment” jointly produced by Design consultants Arup and Engineering Consultants Cundall.

Was this exercise commissioned by the Metropolitan Police or even Tower Hamlets Council?

No. It was actually produced for the Chinese Government as applicants for the site and was included in the original 2022 planning application, which was rejected, and again in the application further rejected in December 2024. It had been available to the police all this time but seemingly ignored by them.

In any case, the powerful testimony from Scotland Yard in December 2024 specifically referred to the experience gained in policing embassy locations since October 2023, which of course, post-dates this consultation exercise sponsored by, and for the Chinese Government.

This certainly adds to the growing cynicism engendered by the Met Police’s increasingly hollow claims of “operational independence.”

This also meant that that a key part of the council’s objection was lost, which would have to be reported when the public inquiry opened on the 11th February, continuing until the 18th February. On Saturday, the 8th February, a demonstration involving several thousand protesters took place at the location. The result was serious disruption to traffic – exactly as predicted by the Police in December when addressing Tower Hamlets councillors. At the rally were speeches from Parliamentarians representing different parties, including a Labour MP. Also speaking were residents and dissident groups including fearful Chinese exiles as to exactly what this vast compound will represent. From inside the site, cameras were trained on those speaking.

Three days later the Inquiry opened. The Chinese Government employed a large legal team and an array of consultants to cover numerous issues. Tower Hamlets Council had to report that their principle objection was withdrawn with the Police ceasing their objection.

This did not mean that residents and objectors were silent. There were lawyers representing two groups of residents. One lawyer acting pro bono for the Tenants Association of a large estate of social housing which had not been consulted. Other objectors spoke representing a full range of local regional and national opinion. However, without a full time legal team, present all the time, we could listen to, but not challenge, the applicants numerous supporting witnesses.

Other residents spoke of the Chinese Government buying up the ground leases to numerous properties in the area.

The Metropolitan Police, when they appeared, were less than impressive. Neither the officer who had spoken at Tower Hamlets Council or the author of the withdrawal letter attended. It was left to yet another of the Mets very large top team to justify the outdated document produced by the applicant. Somehow, the demonstration just a few days previously had disappeared from the collective radar of the police. To the incredulity of those of us listening they continued to defend suppositions that were outdated and proven as outdated by the demonstration just days before.

A serious issue, now in the public domain, thanks to Shadow Secretary of State, Kevin Holinrake, concerns secret underground rooms at the embassy location. In a letter to the Prime Minister he said “The redeveloped site will include a number of large basements, complete with a security airlock, two suites of anonymous, unlabelled basement rooms and a tunnel. This information was provided in the inquiry by Oliver Ulmer, director of David Chipperfield Architects, but with vital information “redacted for security reasons”.

Details of this had not been public until the hearing.

These rooms will have thick walls and could be used as a spy centre or even more worryingly cells for dissidents. It should not be forgotten that the Chinese have established their own “police stations” in buildings across the country. As recently as 2022, a Chinese dissident was dragged off the street in Manchester and dragged onto Chinese Government property where he was beaten up until rescued by the local police. This incident was highlighted by Dr Benson Wong a former Hong Kong resident and specialist on Chinese subversion in his evidence to the inquiry. Other dissidents spoke of their fears of this become a regular happening should this vast complex be opened.

There are examples of other countries being wary of potential sinister situations involving embassies. In March 2020 the Irish Government revoked planning permission for a huge extension to the Russian Embassy in Dublin. Interestingly, this would have resulted in a deep mega basement.

In 2023 the Australian Labour Government, with cross party support, blocked Russia building a new Embassy in Canberra. In both cases national security was considered of prime importance.

On the 15th March a further rally was held at Tower Hill. Once again there were speeches from UK Members of Parliament of different Party’s as well as representatives from Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet and the Uighur Muslim Community who are suffering appalling oppression. This time the police were more forceful with threats of arrest of people stepping into the road or congregating at the front of the development site. This was noticeably more robust and less consensual policing than the police provide to Just Stop Oil or the SWP organised Palestinian marches. We have regularly seen Tower Bridge closed by both of these organisations as the police stand by simply watching.

The brave MPs from different party’s who have come to offer support to us must be thanked. Kevin Hollinrake, Shadow Secretary of State, and his team have done an incredible job unearthing information and getting it into the public domain. It is difficult to name all of the politicians (in case I forget) therefore once again, we locals say thanks to you all and the support that you are encouraging from your respective Party’s as shown in this campaign.

The ongoing situation remains ever more fluid, not least in light of Chinese actions regarding British Steel at Scunthorpe. Is it possible that as well as rushing legislation through Parliament in a single day to ensure that British Steel remains open, the Government have realised that dealing with China is, politely, difficult?

The questions remain. Why does any country need a vast complex of this size as an embassy? Has the Government considered the sensitivity of the actual location? What are the implications of potential industrial espionage for the City and Canary Wharf? We know the security services have expressed concerns at this development – are they now being considered? What about the implications of regular demonstrations, which this development will attract, on a world heritage site and a location where there are 55,000 traffic movements each day?

This planning application has attracted worldwide interest, journalists from the New York Times and European papers covered the inquiry and run interviews with interest groups. There have been broadcasts on TV and radio stations across the globe.

Let us hope that the Government takes serious note of everything.