On Tuesday, plans to build a Chinese "super-embassy" across from the Tower of London gained momentum after the local council said it could not oppose the idea. Tower Hamlets Council acknowledged that it is "no longer in a position to present evidence" for why the proposal should be rejected, a decision that is likely to boost the likelihood that planning approval will be granted for the contentious scheme. Human rights activists, locals, and a number of well-known politicians, including Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary for the Conservatives, have all strongly opposed China's plans to turn the five acres of land at Royal Mint Court into the largest embassy in Europe.A decision on whether to grant permission for the scheme will be taken by Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, once she has received a recommendation from the Planning Inspectorate. The Inspectorate has now launching a 12-day inquiry, which began with a hearing on Tuesday, in order to reach that recommendation.Tower Hamlets Council, whose members voted to symbolically reject the project in December last year, had largely based their official “reasons for refusal” on an objection lodged by the Metropolitan Police.

Counter-terrorism officers had warned at the time that the site was unsuitable for the embassy, as there was not enough space to accommodate the protests it would attract, with the potential for people to spill into the road and bring traffic to a standstill.But Scotland Yard announced last month it was withdrawing its objection, as it had been provided with a “pedestrian comfort assessment”, which had been commissioned and paid for by China. This document, produced by the design firm Arup and engineering consultancy Cundall, led the Met to conclude that “on balance, there is sufficient space for future protests to be accommodated”.Morag Ellis KC, a lawyer acting on behalf of the council, told Tuesday’s hearing that due to the Met withdrawing its objection, the council was “no longer in a position to present evidence in support of the putative reason for refusal”.She added that the council had also received independent advice from a consultancy called iTransport, who advised, similarly to the Met, that “protest activity around the site can be adequately accommodated without putting pedestrians at risk or causing disruption to adjacent roads”. Given this advice, Ms Ellis said it “would have been irresponsible” for the council “to seek to pursue the putative reason for refusal”.

While the council’s refusal against the project still technically “stands” in the eyes of the inquiry - and would, ordinarily, hold significant weight against the granting of planning permission - the borough has essentially acknowledged that it can no longer defend its reasons for that refusal.

Simon Bell, a lawyer speaking on behalf of the Royal Mint Court Residents Association, stressed that those living closest to the site were “hugely concerned and disappointed” by the council’s stance and would continue to argue against the scheme.

He pointed out that, during a protest against the proposals on Saturday, February 8, “police failed to contain the protesters in the designated protest areas”.

He said: “Roads were blocked and considerable police presence confirmed the residents’ fear for their safety and security. If this is a taste of what is to come in respect of a proposed embassy, one can only imagine how the adverse effect of protests will impact on the residents’ safety and security, during any construction period, let alone after the embassy has come forward.”

He added that the “historic data” relied on by the Met Police “cannot, in my client’s view, be determinative of future protests and the impacts that arise… at this particular site”, and said the Met’s position was therefore “unrealistic”.

Mr Bell also claimed it was “clear that there has been a political pre-determination of these applications at some of the highest levels of central Government”.

He said: “My clients have concerns that central Government, through the Home Office and Foreign Office, have sought to influence the approach to these applications by those who formally objected to them but have now performed a volte-face, particularly in respect of the Met Police.”

Christopher Katkowski KC, a lawyer speaking on behalf the embassy, said there was “literally no basis” on which the proposed embassy could be refused permission.

He pointed out that planning decisions for embassies are required to be “nation-neutral”, meaning that an embassy proposed by one country must be treated the same as any other, regardless of whether one is likely to attract more protests.

Source- Evening Standard