Guy's & St Thomas' intend to fly trans pride flag alternate months for next five years

I feel point two is a bit weak - but the rest is good. I think bringing in the Linzi Smith ruling outlined by @LetterWriter17 would be good.

Here’s what AI gave me in terms of trying to frame my concerns to fit planning permission considerations:
”I am writing to object to the proposed display of the Progress Pride and transgender flags on the rooftop of Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital. My objection is based on material planning considerations related to visual amenity and the impact on community wellbeing:

1) Visual Amenity and Character of the Area
The flag display represents a stark and visually dominant addition to the hospital rooftop, interrupting the established architectural and visual character of the building and surrounding environment. Planning policy emphasises preserving the visual amenity and character of local areas to maintain a balanced and neutral public realm.

2) Impact on Women's Safety, Expression, and Use of Hospital
The flags carry strong political symbolism that can create an intimidating and oppressive atmosphere for many women. This visible display near the hospital may deter women from expressing their views or protesting peacefully nearby due to fear of reprisal or social exclusion. Consequently, this risks women self-excluding themselves from visiting or using hospital facilities, which undermines equitable access to healthcare and community services—the core public amenity the hospital provides.

3) Community Cohesion and Public Amenity
A politically charged flag display at this location risks exacerbating local tensions and undermining community cohesion. The hospital is a critical public institution that should serve as a neutral and welcoming space for all, regardless of political or ideological beliefs. Disruption to this neutrality threatens the harmonious use and enjoyment of the local area by all residents and visitors.

4) Public Interest and Legal Duty of Neutrality
As a publicly funded institution, maintaining political neutrality is essential to uphold public confidence and equal treatment. The flags' presence contradicts this duty, and by extension, this threatens the inclusivity and public trust vital to the hospital’s community role.

For all these reasons, the proposed flag display would materially harm visual amenity, community cohesion, public amenity—particularly the safety and wellbeing of women—and fundamentally challenge the role of this hospital as a neutral public space. I respectfully urge the Council to refuse permission under material planning grounds.
Thank you.”

No. The Advertisement Consent regs only allow for an assessment to consider the impact of the proposal on the basis of visual amenity and public safety, and in the event the application is granted they will have permission for five years, as standard. It wouldn't be for the Planning Authority to control, or enforce, matters outside of that remit.

Could it possibly be objected to on the grounds that during election periods it would potentially breach purdah? Anyone more knowledgeable know?

Following Linzi’s court case win, this is clearly unlawful!
The recent High Court ruling against Northumbria Police in the Smith v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police case sets a legal precedent that public bodies must maintain political and ideological impartiality, even when promoting equality or inclusion….The judgment explicitly warns that the principle of impartiality applies broadly to all public authorities, including schools.
The ruling emphasized that public bodies cannot lawfully sponsor, endorse, or participate in events or display symbols (such as Progress Pride flags) that convey ideological partiality, especially in live political or philosophical debates like gender identity. It stated that such actions create a reasonable perception of bias and contradict duties of neutrality, irrespective of intentions to advance equality under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

I have submitted an FOI request about costs. I think press attention would be good, ideally on a day with a headline about the NHS struggling to provide you know, actual healthcare.
Guys & StT get funding from the BBC's Children in Need charity.
Two birds, one stone.
CIN Day is Fri 14th November.

Genuine grounds could be anyone who may use their hospital or services, or has concerns about the politicisation of the NHS.

Wes Streeting has already been pissed off with Amanda Pritchard. That's why she left NHSE (albeit with a nice farewell package).

the application fee alone is £673. The covering letter is very unprofessional, stating the site "occupies a prominent position on the River
Thomas" instead of Thames. what a waste of time and money that the NHS can ill afford

What a pity that Guy’s/St.Thomas’ don’t have more to exercise their minds. Things like waiting times and finances for instance.

Yep. And money.

This is such a pathetic and random waste of NHS time and resources.

I have submitted an FOI request about costs. I think press attention would be good, ideally on a day with a headline about the NHS struggling to provide you know, actual healthcare. I've also quickly checked last three sets of board papers and can't see it mentioned.

Fuck me this is end times stupidity. The NHS has an absolute need to be neutral. They cannot and should not be displaying political symbols that might make some patients feel uncomfortable and unwelcome. That is why despite the carnage in Palestine, staff are not permitted to wear any symbols of allegiance. Patients come first.

This is quite clearly political activity, and the NHS should absolutely not engage in such. I suspect once Amanda gets some flack for this no such flags will appear.

Agree planning objection not the best route.

Strictly speaking, the planner would really only think about the material. The rotation might be relevant if it would require scaffolding or a crane or something to change it, but I assume the roof is accessible and has approporiate safety barriers installed.

Whilst a good planner will think about things like access, building standards requirements, fire safety, etc, those aren't strictly within the remit of the planning authority. Ultimately, what the planner cares about is what the thing will look like once built/installed/erected. They don't care if it's physically possible to actually build it or if it will withstand the next stiff breeze, because that's not their role.

As a planner I spend most of my day thinking about bins!

This is preposterous.
All political and religious symbols are inappropriate within a National Health Service that is supposed to serve everyone, regardless of their beliefs.
I'm not sure if objecting to the planning application is the right way to deal with this though. It needs stamping down from the top - all rainbow lanyards/posters/general shit need to go.

@OnAShooglyPeg the thing about flag material and the rotation, etc

That's what councils spend their time on?

Just trying to clarify it because it seems so mad. On top of the madness about what the hospital are proposing to do.

I do hate this vortex of crazy that our public services have become.

Can you do some FOI request about costs, get a newspaper on the case, etc?

@Disp0sable I think you would be better off complaining to the NHS directly, rather than going down the planning route, but if you, or anyone else, wants to submit some sort of objection/representation, then the following may be of use to you.

This is an application for Advertisement Consent, which has a much more limited assessment scope. These applications only consider the impact of the proposal on the visual amenity of the area and any impact on public safety.

Being on the roof, the public safety element is going to be nil, especially as the flagpole is already in-situ.

Visual amenity is basically how it looks on the building and any impact on the surrounding area, particularly in the case of listed buildings, conservation areas, and notable or protected views. This is a prominent site, directly opposite the Palace of Westminster, and the flag could be viewed from the River and from bridges and roads around the site. The flag does not actually advertise anything, nor is is related to the use of the premises, it is a political statement, and considering its location this feels inappropriate. Would an EU flag, a pirate flag, or a Black Lives Matter (or any other flag that requires express permission!) be considered appropriate here? If not, why not, and why are these flags different?

In terms of the actual proposal, there are two points that I would seek clarification on, and push back on:

1. The application states that the flags will be alternated, but no details are provided as to how often this will be? (I may have missed this, but it's something that I'd want to know.)
2. It is proposed to use knitted polyseter as the flag material. This is basically the cheapest flag material you can get, and it is consequently not particulrly durable, with the print likely to soon fade, and the flag to quickly look tatty. Knitted polyester is not a traditional, nor a high-quality material and is therefore not in keeping with its setting.

That may or may not help you, but if you want any more info let me know.

One of my family members used to work with Amanda Pritchard and described her as a teflon coated political operator. If Wes Streeting was pissed off at her and it impacted her next job move she might do something about this.

I also think the press would be interested in this.

If someone reminds me tomorrow I can have a quick skim to see what I can see on the planning front. However planning doesn't care about politics, at least not like this. Any comment would have to be on the basis of something like visual amenity, heritage, traffic and pedestrian safety, etc.

Anyone can make a representation on a planning application, but you can't do it anonymously. You have to include a name and address (neither of which have to be yours...) and in most LPAs the comments will be made public.

jeez louise, they're obsessed. it's like a mental illness. what a massive fucking waste of absolutely everyone's time

AI tells me that anyone can object to any planning application, you don't have to be a local resident etc. But you do have to have genuine grounds which I suspect might be tricky really.

Might it be better to approach whoever is in charge of GST NHS Trust? This is political and it shouldn't happen. Or maybe write to Wes Streeting.