• About
    • Ethics policy
    • Privacy Policy
    • Ownership, funding and corrections
    • Complaints procedure
    • Terms & Conditions
  • Contact
  • Support
  • Newsletter
Brighton and Hove News
8 December, 2023
  • News
    • Politics
    • Business
    • Opinion
    • Community
  • Arts and Culture
    • Music
    • Theatre
    • Food and Drink
  • Sport
    • Brighton and Hove Albion
    • Cricket
  • Newsletter
  • Public notices
  • Advertise
No Result
View All Result
  • News
    • Politics
    • Business
    • Opinion
    • Community
  • Arts and Culture
    • Music
    • Theatre
    • Food and Drink
  • Sport
    • Brighton and Hove Albion
    • Cricket
  • Newsletter
  • Public notices
  • Advertise
No Result
View All Result
Brighton and Hove News
No Result
View All Result
Home Brighton

Council takes pair to court over striped beach hut-style trailer

by Jo Wadsworth
Friday 10 Mar, 2023 at 10:38AM
A A
23
Council takes pair to court over striped beach hut-style trailer

Paul plays golf with Gabriel the beach hut trailer in the background

A Brighton couple who built a striped Martha Gunn-style bathing hut on their driveway have been taken to court by the council, which wants it removed.

Paul Davis and Alison Bullough started converting the trailer outside their house in Lower Rock Gardens during the first lockdown.

However, after neighbours complained, Brighton and Hove City Council issued an enforcement notice ordering them to remove it, on the basis it is in effect an unauthorised outbuilding.

The couple appealed, but in June 2022 a planning inspector dismissed it – mainly because the wheels and support stands are bolted into timber, and it had stood in the same place since May 2020.

The trailer – which they have named Gabriel – is still being kept on the driveway, and so the council is now going to court saying the enforcement notice has been breached.

But the couple have pleaded not guilty, and will argue that it has since been modified and taken on a trip to demonstrate it is actually a caravan.

Mr Davis said: “The enforcement order required me to remove Gabriel before 6 June. And despite disagreeing with it, I complied with this order.

“I hooked her up to my car and went on a little caravanning trip before parking her back on my forecourt. I sent photos of the vacant site to the council to prove this.

“It is clear to any reasonable person that Gabriel is not a shed. How many sheds can be hooked up to a car and taken on holiday?

“The council refuses to meet me, and I have had to let the matter go to court to force them to defend their position.

“The people of Brighton (and especially Kemp Town) love living here precisely because it is different and unconventional. The overwhelming response of both local people and visitors to Gabriel is extremely favourable.

“She has become something of a local treasure for many people in the town and beyond.”

The case was last at Brighton Magistrates Court on 28 February. The case was adjourned until the end of May.

ShareTweetShareSendSendShare

Comments 23

  1. Benjamin says:
    9 months ago

    What a waste of time, cost and resources that could be better spent for more serious matters.

    Reply
  2. Richard says:
    9 months ago

    What a waste of time.
    I dont believe the council will win this either.

    Reply
  3. Jane Power says:
    9 months ago

    I love seeing this little hut. I don’t get what the problem is. Would it be allowed if it was a scruffy old campervan or caravan? Move along Brighton council.

    Reply
  4. Fred says:
    9 months ago

    What a ridiculous waste of public money. That bathing hut/caravan brightens up the street Has the council got nothing better to do?

    Reply
  5. G D Kensett says:
    9 months ago

    Send council inspector to the top of Wilson’s avenue . Thought the council was short of money

    Reply
    • Bikes R Us says:
      9 months ago

      To make it council friendly, add a bike rack to it and it will immediately be allowed to stay.

      Reply
      • Hendrik says:
        9 months ago

        Or allow travellers or migrants to occupy it.

        Reply
    • Mark says:
      9 months ago

      Unfettered Tory boomerism

      Reply
  6. Dingo bingo says:
    9 months ago

    Police maybe should have a chat with him about taking a vehicle that is clearly in road worthy, on the road. Seriously dangerous, and could kill someone if one of those wooden wheels fell off. all so he can prove a point.

    Reply
    • Jane Standen Bolton says:
      9 months ago

      *facepalm*
      If you look at the second photo of it at the golf course it seems to have standard rubber tires. I would assume the wooden ones were a gimmick to say ‘it’s got wheels, it’s not static’ but when they decided to actually move it they did what was necessary to make it road legal, including adding a back bar with number plate and lights.

      Reply
    • mart Burt says:
      9 months ago

      Dingo bingo
      Hmm, study of the photo shows it’s on trailer wheels, has a rear light board and definitely legal 🙂 .

      Reply
  7. Palon113 says:
    9 months ago

    Why is the council wasting money, which they supposedly don’t have, on matters such as this.

    It’s not kept on the road but on there private property and it’s hardly the worse thing you will see on the streets of Brighton. Just because a couple of NIMBYS complained!

    Leave them be and concentrate on sorting out our once great city!!!

    Reply
  8. Liz says:
    9 months ago

    It brightens up the road, it’s kept clean and smart and looks much better than some of the mobile homes parked around the city. It’s also on the front of the property not taking up road space. So what is the problem¿

    Reply
  9. Mr Andrew Camper says:
    9 months ago

    No wonder the council tax keeps going up and services are cut if council wasting money on legal battles and being adolf about peoples homes. Quite frankly its not an eyesore its a bit of fun. Get a life Council and cut useless jobs like jobsworth who is making issues like this.

    Reply
  10. BenderTheMerciful says:
    9 months ago

    Find somewhere with better neighbours.

    Reply
  11. BAHTAG says:
    9 months ago

    Several commenters above are, quite rightly, asking “Why?”.

    The sad truth is that public bodies all across England are wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers money annually on denial, cover-ups, and giving a flat ‘No’ to citizen’s legitimate challenges!

    With the NHS, the MoD, HM Treasury, and DWP probably being the worst offenders, when measured by the total number of disputes? Possibly also the Cabinet Office, given its propensity to assign fake names to public-facing staff?

    And why? This widespread obfuscation, including downright deceit (such as lying by omission, and concealing records) is ostensibly ‘To limit reputational damagel’ and/or ‘To avoid a loss of public confidence in the organisation’.

    In reality, from cases where a citizen has found sufficient resources (financial and emotional) to challenge a disputed action to an ultimate conclusion, the background seems more often than not to have been that someone in the public body made a mistake, which the body didn’t want to admit to (principally trying to avoid ’embarrassment!).

    Closely related to the above scenario is that the public body had acted (more often had failed to act!) in full accordance with provisions ‘democratically’ voted for by our Parliament – too often with the passive(?) connivance of the relevant Secretary of State!

    So how to clean-up this inexcusable Wild-West situation, in which the health and emotional well-being of hundreds of thousands of honest citizens, looking only for honesty and the whole truth, is deliberately being damaged – with the additional waste of millions of public money by the bodies concerned on ‘legal expenses’ in attempts to defend the indefensible?

    Ideally the first action of a sensible Government will be to bring back free Legal Aid, for challenges to public bodies, for every citizen with a taxable income not exceeding £150k pa?

    This will bring several benefits, such as re-invigorating a legal profession where far too many bright young graduates find that, instead of applying their significant intellectual ability to work at developing a fairer society for all of us, to just make a reasonable living by parking their noble ideals in order to assist ‘Big Business’ to avoid tax, and to avoid every other obligation that reduces the enterprise’s profits to its owner/shareholders!

    Related to the above is the clear need for Gov’t to beef-up the SRA (Solicitors Regulation Authority) with sufficient,funding to require it to investigate every case where papers have been filed with a Court or a Tribunal relating to any form of dispute between a public body and a natural person/citizen.

    The initial purpose being to investigate the extent to which a solicitor acting for the public body has acted more in the perceived interests of the public body than in those of their professional obligation to act ‘In the best overall interests of society in general’).

    In many disputes the duty of such a solicitor will have been to advise management that amrrasonable settlement needs to be negotiated with the citizen challenger. Frequently this will involve conceding a complaint, but on the basis of ‘No liability and ‘No precent’. And any potential abuse of a public body body appearing to be ‘generous’ is easily countered by watching for the occasional repeat claim from a previoud challenger, and then examining that claim with very great rigour!

    So the best lawyers working for the public sectorm are those that reach amicable settlements of challenges. But as such issues will often include an NDA there will be no public-domain record of such successes, as there can be with the published outcomes of Court and Tribunal proceedings. so no boost to the egos of over-aggressive lawyers!

    Which is why the SRA needs powers (and funding!) to discipline such over-aggressive public-body lawyers – almost always by a fine taken from the lawyer’s salary (so not from any insuurance policy
    funded by us taxpayers!), with the potential for temporary or permanent withdrawal of the solicitor’s Certificate to Practise.

    And until the above improvements can be achieved most citizens will be well-advised to join whichever Trade Union seems to offer the broadest legal insurance to its members, in return for a subscription of perhaps less than £5 pw. And homeowners with household insurance would do well to look for policies which seem to offer the best add-on of insurance for legal expenses.

    To state the blummin’ obvious: feeling powerless to challenge a perceived injustice is really negative for the health and well-being of an aggrieved person – and all the more so when the injustice emanates from a public body which should be observing the very highest standards of ethical integrity, surely?

    So now back to Lower Rock Gardens. The initial administrative failure, which our City Council appears unwilling to own up to, is that, in granting a licence for the cross-over, from the carriageway into the front garden, no condition was imposed to restrict use to only private cars, and two- or three-wheelers, none of them being used to display advertising nor for any other trade purpose (so no vans or taxis etc)?

    In the present circumstances it looks as though BHCC should tolerate the wheeled hut as being a ‘Work of Art’ (which cannot legally be slept in overnight, nor be used to trade from)?

    In time its creators/owners will either remove it voluntarily, or it might fall into such disrepair that the Council can then use powers, other than Planning ones, to require its removal?

    So let’s hope that one or more elected Councillors will intervene, without delay, to end this wasteful bullying by BHCC?

    And ideally to negotiate an ex-gratia payment to the hut’s owners for the distress and effort which has resulted from the needless bullying by BHCC officers (with those bullying actions to date apparently not having been decided on by a majority vote of any of our Councillors in any formal open committee meeting?).
    SNAFU, yet again?

    Reply
    • Tim Johnson says:
      9 months ago

      How do you find the time to “discover” all these conspiracies?

      Reply
  12. Chris says:
    9 months ago

    Should be a very quick hearing and I am sure that the judge will have a view on wasting court time…
    I would question the legal advice that the council has received assuming that they took some before beginning what could be regarded as vexatious action.

    Reply
  13. Sd says:
    9 months ago

    Good luck to this couple. Gabriel looks delightful.

    Brighton and Hove City Council are a joke that’s just not funny anymore.

    Reply
  14. Looking for council job, qualified thief got own mask says:
    9 months ago

    People who can’t make expensive things cheap get jealous and run to the council, what problems or stress can this lovely project cause you? If its a possibility the value of your home may be affected by this don’t worry, because it will be you living in the street that will put people off buying in the area

    Reply
  15. Madam jobsworth says:
    7 months ago

    I’m quite literally pissing myself with laughter.

    I’m a council amployee and am as embarrassed as all hell!!

    This is a joke!! Surely it’s just a long standing april fools joke, right??

    If B&HCC are serious, I want to quite my job as I’m no longer interested in working g for an organisation that thinks this is right to treat a person’s right to keep this kind of vehicle on their own private land.

    When did this council start nannying our right to live our lives how we f#£king please???

    Reply
  16. Chris says:
    7 months ago

    Meanwhile parks are fenced off due to drug dealers and knife wielders….

    Reply
  17. Laurence says:
    6 months ago

    One of the problems we face as residents, is that there are different standards applied us than are applied to developers. If this was a developer’s caravan, it would have been waved through. They could have built it from brick and it still would be fine.

    On our street (in a conservation zone) a developer literally tore the front off a house and replaced it with a new frontage, and the council did nothing at all despite complaints. Emails were ignored and only followed up once a councillor got involved. The problem for them now is that they have created a legal precedent for others to follow, making the conservation zone a waste of time.

    They are planning now to replace railings by Soho House so that passers by can’t see in and disturb members. Again, this was waved through without any interest in heritage buildings and residents concerns.

    I am still trying to work out if the problem is stupidity or corruption, or both…but either way we need to start remembering that Brighton is for its residents.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Most read

Brighton student blocks up for sale for £67m

Gym members could lose deposits after director ‘goes awol’

New chief executive chosen for Brighton and Hove City Council

Actress slams lack of grit after coming off bike on black ice

Work won’t start on new Pavilion square until at least next summer

Doors open on Corn Exchange’s £38m revamp

Second school Gaza walkout expected today as adults target Brighton arms factory

UPDATED Armed police arrest two men after search in Moulsecoomb and Bevendean

Council takes pair to court over striped beach hut-style trailer

Calls to rethink new Level cafe plans

Arts and Culture

  • All
  • Music
  • Theatre
  • Food and Drink
Civic gearing up for Hope & Ruin concert

Civic gearing up for Hope & Ruin concert

7 December 2023
Don Broco show their ‘Priorities’ at Brighton gig

Don Broco show their ‘Priorities’ at Brighton gig

7 December 2023
Doors open on Corn Exchange’s £38m revamp

Doors open on Corn Exchange’s £38m revamp

7 December 2023
Fatboy Slim, Snow Patrol, Jamie T, & Biffy Clyro to headline ‘Victorious’ 2024

Fatboy Slim, Snow Patrol, Jamie T, & Biffy Clyro to headline ‘Victorious’ 2024

6 December 2023
Load More

Sport

  • All
  • Brighton and Hove Albion
  • Cricket
Manager of Brighton and Hove Albion’s women team dismissed after allegations

Jack ’n’ scorey – Hinshelwood scores Albion winner to sink Brentford

by Tim Hodges
6 December 2023
0

Brighton and Hove Albion won a Premier League match at the Amex for the first time since September. They came...

Premier League Match Day 15 – Brighton and Hove Albion v Brentford

Premier League Match Day 15 – Brighton and Hove Albion v Brentford

by Tim Hodges
6 December 2023
0

Brighton and Hove Albion face a difficult recent adversary in Brentford at the Amex. The Seagulls haven't beaten the Bees...

Tennis club awaits verdict on pavilion plan in Hove park

Plans approved for pavilion by Hove Park sports courts

by Sarah Booker-Lewis - local democracy reporter
6 December 2023
5

A tennis club has been granted planning permission to build a sports pavilion next to the courts in Hove Park....

Manager of Brighton and Hove Albion’s women team dismissed after allegations

Brighton and Hove Albion lose narrowly at Chelsea

by Tim Hodges
3 December 2023
1

Brighton and Hove Albion lost narrowly at Stamford Bridge after two quick goals in a three-minute spell in the first...

Load More
March 2023
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
« Feb   Apr »
ADVERTISEMENT
  • About
  • Contact
  • Support
  • Newsletter
  • Privacy
  • Complaints
  • Ownership, funding and corrections
  • Ethics
  • T&C

© 2023 Brighton and Hove News

No Result
View All Result
  • News
    • Opinion
  • Arts and Culture
    • Music
    • Theatre
  • Sport
    • Cricket
  • Public notices
  • Advertise
  • About
  • Contact

© 2023 Brighton and Hove News

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.Accept Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. Visit our Privacy and Cookie Policy.