A CAMPAIGN group has accused the Metropolitan Police and Houses of Parliament of “suppressing peaceful protest” after objecting to a planned protest set to take place during the State Opening of Parliament.

Anti-monarchy campaign group Republic said emails from Westminster City Council show three objections were submitted against a peaceful protest against the monarchy, by the Met Police, the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, called the objections “nonsensical and profoundly undemocratic” and expressed concern that legitimate protest is being kept away from the state opening on November 7.

He added: "These objections are a clear attempt to suppress and diminish the right to protest."

An objection from the Met Police stated that the planned protest would “prevent access” to the area where the State Opening of Parliament is due to take place, adding that the area must be “kept clear of pedestrians and vehicles, due to the security measures required to safely deliver the event”.

READ MORE: Rishi Sunak rejects SNP claims Israel guilty of war crimes in Gaza

The House of Lords objected to the protest as “the decibel level will disturb the State Opening of Parliament and noise will carry into the building” and may “stress the horses”.

The House of Commons objected to the protest as “the House of Commons will be sitting and this would cause significant disruption to the business of the House”.

Smith responded to the objections by saying they threaten the right to peaceful protest.

He said: “The objections from parliament are nonsensical and profoundly undemocratic. They fly in the face of democratic principles and the fundamental right to peacefully protest.

“I have written to parliament and the police, expressing my concern that legitimate protest is being kept away from parliament.”

In a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Smith called the objection “a poor reflection on the state of our democracy”.

Smith wrote: “Were such objections allowed to prevail it would mean that citizens could only protest against parliament when parliament was empty of MPs and not engaged in the very business about which people wish to protest.

“It is also unclear how a protest on the other side of the road could possibl[y] cause ‘significant disruption’ to what is happening inside the parliamentary estate.

“Will you hear the protest? Possibly. But making ourselves heard by those in power is the whole point of protest, and the right to protest explicitly protects meaningful protest, in other words protest that is held at a time and location that will allow the protest to have meaningful impact.

READ MORE: Cap on bankers' bonuses scrapped as UK brings back Liz Truss policy

“As the arrangements stand, our parliament will be opened in the chamber of the unelected Lords, by an unelected monarch, while the public are kept at a considerable distance from the building and the proceedings.

"It is a poor reflection on the state of our democracy that is compounded by your objections to peaceful protest.”

In a letter to the Speaker of the House of Lords, John McFall, Smith questioned the reasoning behind the Lords’ objection based on the impact of protest on horses, arguing that it was a matter for the police rather than parliament.

Smith wrote: “The horses in question are trained to deal with various noises and disturbances, other parts of the route are not subjected to noise restrictions, and the experience of protests is that the horses are not caused alarm.”

Republic confirmed the protest will go ahead but has been moved to the pavement on the corner of Parliament Street, near Westminster station.

The campaign group has also written to Westminster City Council and Greater London Authority to seek assistance in resolving the issue.