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

[Disp0sable]

Name change

Planning application in (thanks SE1 news for the flag) for the trans pride flag and progress pride flag to be flown alternate months on the roof of St Thomas' hospital (directly opposite houses of parliament for the next five years).

Application completed by a planning consultant (so cost money)at a time when the trust are under significant financial pressure and cutting staff support services. Only conclusion is that only some staff are worth supporting....

They also still have a trans inclusion policy for staff that still permits self identification into changing rooms and toilets thus meaning there is no single sex changing or toiletting facilities on site for staff to use. Some areas have limited unisex toilet facilities but not all by any stretch of the imagination.

Given the employment tribunal running this week it seems a remarkably ill timed gesture. Wonder what Wes will make of it - more negative publicity as an NHS organisation supports a political ideology.

planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/files/6294F3DCBF765951FAC3041A0B6C4D71/pdf/25_03365_ADV-APPLICATION_FORM_-_WITHOUT_PERSONAL_DATA-3468256.pdf

The link says document unavailable.

Do you mean pride flag one month and progress flag the next, or both of them up at the same time on alternative months?

You probably have to live in the borough to object as a resident. The Linzi Smith judgement against Northumbria police established that flags and Pride parades are political I think which may be relevant. I'm not sure what organisation would be interested in intervening/objecting. Free Speech Union perhaps? I think they supported Linzi.

This is bonkers, thanks OP I'll see if I can comment.

Proud to signal their determination to destroy women's rights and equalities.

Oh so they are flying the women's suffrage flag on the alternative months then?!

Sorry for difficulties.

Application number: 25/03365

https://planning.lambeth.gov.uk/online-applications/search.do?action=simple&searchType=Application

Site seems to be glitching but I have been able to get into the documents.

Yes the plan is to fly one flag alternating between progress pride and trans pride.

The planning information on Lambeth site doesn't say applications will only be accepted from local residents and given location of the hospital this would seem prudent. There are far more users of that area than residents and there hasn't been any community consultation so I think wider comments should be OK.

I'm not a planning expert but if anyone is then your advice would be welcomed into how to phrase negative responses that align with grounds for refusal for the application.

You can comment online via planning portal (you have to create an account) or via email/ post which they discourage

Just stop flying flags

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.

I was hoping one of the planning bods could identify reasons why planning permission shouldn't be granted.

The chief executive is Amanda Pritchard, formerly of NHS England.

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

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.

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.

@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.

Huge thanks @OnAShooglyPeg

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

@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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

Yep. And money.

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

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