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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.”

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.