After months of delay, China’s planning application for a new embassy on the site of the former Royal Mint opposite the Tower of London was finally approved yesterday.
The 240-page document began with Housing Secretary Steve Reed’s assessment of each of the main objections made to the proposal – and his reasons for dismissing them.
Here, we examine how, step by step, Labour brushed aside all the concerns.
CHINA’S RECORD
The document admitted that opponents had raised concerns about ‘allegations of political interference and the identity of the proposed occupants’.
But Mr Reed said ‘ethical or similar objections to the provision of an embassy for a specific country’ cannot be used to determine planning applications, nor could ‘any moral, ethical or cultural considerations’.
General national security fears cannot be dealt with by the planning system either, he said.
Pictured: Concept plans for the Chinese embassy which will be located on the former Royal Mint site
SECRET DRAWINGS
Last year China was asked to provide full blueprints for all the rooms after 52 were supplied with areas blacked out, raising fears about their true purpose.
Nine of the drawings were sent back unchanged, with Beijing saying it was ‘irrelevant’ to the planning process to reveal what the smaller rooms would be used for.
Mr Reed admitted that if some rooms were used for overnight accommodation it could mean ‘materially harmful impacts in terms of amenity, accessibility and fire safety’. But he concluded that apart from that, no ‘lawful embassy use of the unmarked rooms would give rise to material adverse planning impacts’.
RULES FOR THE CAPITAL
The Cabinet minister admitted that ‘strictly speaking’ the proposed development did not comply with part of the London Plan, which governs expansion in the capital, as the site is not deemed suitable for a tall building, but he concluded that overall it was not important.
PROTESTS
Widespread concerns were raised about the dangers of large public protests outside the embassy. Mr Reed agreed that the site was on a ‘very busy part of the strategic highways network’ and that demonstrations ‘which spilled on to the streets could cause significant disruption’.
But he concluded that ‘the public are generally expected to tolerate a degree of disruption from lawful protest’.
TERRORISM
People living near the site also feared it would be the target of terrorist attacks but the minister claimed this was ‘somewhat academic’ as there was a nationwide threat so ‘an attack somewhere in the UK is likely’.
A general view of Royal Mint Court, London, the site of the proposed new Chinese embassy. After months of delay to plans have been approved near the Tower of London
China wants to create a huge diplomatic headquarters on a historic site near the City of London
Read More
BREAKING NEWS Keir Starmer risks provoking Donald Trump again by giving green light to China’s ‘mega-embassy’
TELECOMS CABLES
Mr Reed did consider the ‘potential sensitivity and security risks to telecommunications cables’ linked to the nearby Wapping Telephone Exchange, after fears were raised that financial data being transmitted to banks in the City of London could be hacked.
But he, perhaps optimistically, said there was no risk as long as embassy staff did not break the law. The minister also noted that neither the Home Office nor Foreign Office, responsible for MI5 and MI6, ‘objected to the proposal on the basis of the proximity of the cables’.
PUBLIC SAFETY
The historic site is home to a ruined Cistercian Abbey that will be accessible to the public – but because it will be on embassy premises, visitors could be searched by Chinese police while the emergency services would need permission to access it.
But the document said: ‘The Secretary of State notes that the need to manage the safety and health of nationals from other countries on embassy premises is not unique to this case.’
LIVING CONDITIONS
The site will include accommodation for embassy staff but the one and two-bedroom flats will not meet standards for daylight and sunlight. Mr Reed said the accommodation would still ‘be of a sufficient quality’ because it will only be used by ’embassy staff for limited periods of time’.
