Government ‘sought to influence’ Met Police on Chipperfield's Chinese embassy plans, inquiry told

A planning decision on proposals to build a Chinese ‘super-embassy’ in London has been “politically pre-determined at some of the highest levels of central government”, a lawyer for local residents has told a public inquiry into the scheme.

Simon Bell, representing the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, said the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had “sought to influence” independent public bodies which had objected to the proposals, including the Metropolitan Police.

Bell’s comments came on the opening day of the planning inspectorate’s inquiry into plans designed by David Chipperfield to redevelop the 2ha former Royal Mint site next to the Tower of London into the largest embassy in Europe for the Chinese government.

> Also read: Met Police withdraws objection to Chipperfield’s Chinese ‘super-embassy’ after reviewing three-year-old evidence

The proposals are largely identical to a previous scheme refused by Tower Hamlets council in 2022, partly due to public safety concerns over the limited capacity of surrounding streets to accommodate large numbers of protestors.

The plans were resubmitted by the Chinese government last year but called in by Angela Rayner last October on heritage grounds and to allow the communities secretary to consider whether the scheme was “consistent with the development plan for the area”.

It was then symbolically refused by Tower Hamlets councillors in December in a vote strongly influenced by opposition from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which argued that the site’s surrounding streets could not safely contain more than 100 protestors.

However, the council was notified last month by home secretary Yvette Cooper and foreign secretary David Lammy that the MPS had withdrawn its objection.

Cooper and Lammy’s letter stated that the force was “content” that there is sufficient space for protestors while admitting that there “remain differences of opinion on where protesters would most likely congregate”.

The Met said, in a separate but similarly worded letter three days later, that it had based its decision to withdraw its objection on a three-year-old document provided by Tower Hamlets council which claimed up to 2,000 protestors could be safely accommodated around the site.

The 10-page Pedestrian Comfort Assessment, drawn up by Arup and Cundall for the Chinese government, was not part of the new application but had been presented to the MPS as a “material consideration” by the council.

The start of the inquiry comes three days after a large protest against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) outside the Royal Mint site which was attended by more than 3,000 protestors, resulting in closures of several major roads around Tower Hill junction for around three hours.

Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, a cross-party parliamentary group co-chaired by Iain Duncan Smith which opposes the influence of the CCP, told the opening day of the public inquiry that the MPS’ change of position appeared to have been “influenced by forces other than the merits of the application”.

He said: “We do not know why two secretaries of state felt it necessary to give advance notice of the police’s withdrawal. The public understanding is that the police are operationally independent and that their decisions regarding public safety ought to brook no interference. 

“Whatever the true sequence of events here, it is clear that the government lost no time in communicating a decision to the Inspector which ought properly to have been communicated by the police.”

De Pulford also criticised Tower Hamlets for appearing to have changed its position multiple times, from unanimously refusing the scheme in December to “furnishing the MPS with obsolete documents from a previous application” and then seemingly falling back on its previous position last week.

In a statement published last Friday, the council said it stands by its symbolic vote for refusal, which it said had been made by councillors after the Met had spoken “very persuasively” about issues with the application at the planning committee.

The council added that the vote should count as evidence for the planning inspectorate so it can “see what stance the council would have taken at the inquiry had the Metropolitan Police felt able to maintain its objection”.

However, the council said it was not able to formally submit additional evidence to the inquiry on the MPS’ change of position “given the timescale”.

This means the inquiry is in the unusual position of not having an official opposition which will cross examine the scheme’s applicant, as the council has said it is “no longer in a position” to present evidence in support of its refusal.

The Royal Mint Court Residents Association was originally lined up as the opposition to the Chinese government but withdrew due to the ill health of the residents’ group’s chairman.

Meanwhile, the planning inspector has refused a request by former communities secretary Robert Jenrick to summon certain individuals from the MPS and from Tower Hamlets council and to disclose any correspondence between the individuals and government departments including the prime minister’s office.

Jenrick said the MPS had not explained the motive behind the council’s “unsolicited provision” of the Arup and Cundall document, or why this had been favoured over the force’s own, much more recent analysis which had previously formed the basis of its opposition.

The Met has also “offered no rationale to explain why their estimate of protestors who could be accommodated at the site has grown 20 times since December”, Jenrick added.

The planning inspector, Claire Searson, said in a response to Jenrick that she did “not consider that it is necessary at this time” to exercise her power of summons, adding that she will “ensure that evidence is thoroughly tested so that I can produce a properly reasoned report”.

The MPS said in its response to Jenrick that its change of position was based on a ”combination of evidence provided through the Pedestrian Comfort Assessment, internal data sets on historic protest activity at the existing Chinese Embassy, detailed site surveys, and the experience of internal ‘Subject Matter Experts’ with independent operational judgement, based on history and experience of policing protest in London”.

The force said in a separate statement that Saturday’s protest ”passed without any significant incidents and provided useful insight into the capacity of the site and the impact of protests on the road network”.

It added: “Safety is our top priority and we have shared our learning with partners, including Transport for London.”

The Home Office, the Foreign Office, the Metropolitan Police Service, Tower Hamlets council, Arup and Cundall have all been contacted for comment.